The result of the discussion was Delete It's actually a bit more complicated, but it is still redundant to simple div markup. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Basically a giant, unnecessarily complicated template that outputs "<div style=width:66%;>" that is no longer used at all. Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Formerly part of a Sister wiki table of some sort that no longer exists. Unused. Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete given that this template is only transcluded here, it is redundant to simply prepending the text with "commons:". No uses in article space, and no objections to deletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Barely used template (1 mainspace transclusion) which really only links things to Wikimedia Commons, which can be done simply by adding "commons:" to the front of a wikilink (ex. [[commons:flowers]]). Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused template, with little room for future use. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 04:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned and essentially redundant to {{ linksearch}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Navbox contains only redlinks Jameboy ( talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The only place where this template was used was Nimitz class aircraft carrier. Having removed it from there, as I felt it was much easier to have it on the page so I could work on it there, the template is not used anywhere, and will almost certainly not be used, as I have replaced it on other articles with the individual, more precise figures for the ship. As a result, the template is now redundant. Fourth ventricle ( talk) 15:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Low-use template which substantially duplicates {{ infobox island}} in purpose but lacks much in the way of compatibility. Recommend that it is either subclassed and then substituted or that the existing transclusions are manually updated to use the more widely-used template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
{{infobox island}}
.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Keep for now as a translation tool that should be substituted, resulting in conversion to a more common/generic infobox template (e.g., building or military structure, see Neuschwanstein Castle). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Transitional template which uses German language parameters. Redundant to {{ infobox building}}, but not worth merging. I've already converted the template to be a sub-class of {{ infobox building}}; existing instances should be substituted, which will cause them to transcluse that template directly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Firstly, this greatly increases the workload of translation, because, for every article on German castles, of which there are many, the infobox would have to be laboriously and repetitively translated as well. This template greatly accelerates the operation, automatically translating much of the text. This may not mean much to others, but to the small band of translators it's a major time-saver, allowing effort to focus on the meat of the article and more articles to be transwikied in less time. Secondly, the recommended template does not have all the parameters required - e.g. for type of construction, typ of occupant (e.g. ducal seat, clergy..,) or condition. We should keep this template until the majority of articles are transwikied and perhaps convert the infobox with the aid of bots. It's a massive help. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 12:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This nomination is joined by the others:
and also by the main template because it is deficient in coverage and is again a listing of cast:
This template offers nothing that is not present at the article for this television program. It's essentially redundant to the article page, which has far greater and informative detail. The category was created along with this list and is only a listing of celebrity dance participants. Cast listing templates are not useful. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Then if you are going to delete all of these, well your must delete all of these, too!
Got you! BLUE DOG TN 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete It's actually a bit more complicated, but it is still redundant to simple div markup. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Basically a giant, unnecessarily complicated template that outputs "<div style=width:66%;>" that is no longer used at all. Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Formerly part of a Sister wiki table of some sort that no longer exists. Unused. Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete given that this template is only transcluded here, it is redundant to simply prepending the text with "commons:". No uses in article space, and no objections to deletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Barely used template (1 mainspace transclusion) which really only links things to Wikimedia Commons, which can be done simply by adding "commons:" to the front of a wikilink (ex. [[commons:flowers]]). Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused template, with little room for future use. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 04:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned and essentially redundant to {{ linksearch}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Navbox contains only redlinks Jameboy ( talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The only place where this template was used was Nimitz class aircraft carrier. Having removed it from there, as I felt it was much easier to have it on the page so I could work on it there, the template is not used anywhere, and will almost certainly not be used, as I have replaced it on other articles with the individual, more precise figures for the ship. As a result, the template is now redundant. Fourth ventricle ( talk) 15:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Low-use template which substantially duplicates {{ infobox island}} in purpose but lacks much in the way of compatibility. Recommend that it is either subclassed and then substituted or that the existing transclusions are manually updated to use the more widely-used template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
{{infobox island}}
.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Keep for now as a translation tool that should be substituted, resulting in conversion to a more common/generic infobox template (e.g., building or military structure, see Neuschwanstein Castle). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Transitional template which uses German language parameters. Redundant to {{ infobox building}}, but not worth merging. I've already converted the template to be a sub-class of {{ infobox building}}; existing instances should be substituted, which will cause them to transcluse that template directly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Firstly, this greatly increases the workload of translation, because, for every article on German castles, of which there are many, the infobox would have to be laboriously and repetitively translated as well. This template greatly accelerates the operation, automatically translating much of the text. This may not mean much to others, but to the small band of translators it's a major time-saver, allowing effort to focus on the meat of the article and more articles to be transwikied in less time. Secondly, the recommended template does not have all the parameters required - e.g. for type of construction, typ of occupant (e.g. ducal seat, clergy..,) or condition. We should keep this template until the majority of articles are transwikied and perhaps convert the infobox with the aid of bots. It's a massive help. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 12:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This nomination is joined by the others:
and also by the main template because it is deficient in coverage and is again a listing of cast:
This template offers nothing that is not present at the article for this television program. It's essentially redundant to the article page, which has far greater and informative detail. The category was created along with this list and is only a listing of celebrity dance participants. Cast listing templates are not useful. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Then if you are going to delete all of these, well your must delete all of these, too!
Got you! BLUE DOG TN 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)