Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 23

< May 22	May 24 >

May 23 edit

Template:2009 Eastern League season by team edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, most are nearly unpopulated, and no objections to deletion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly orphaned; those that remain bluelinks will be deleted soon anyway as the result of recent AFDs. Also delete:

Template:2008 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2006 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2005 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2004 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2003 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2002 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2001 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2000 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1999 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1998 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1997 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1996 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1995 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1994 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1993 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1992 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1991 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1990 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1989 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1988 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1987 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1986 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1985 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1984 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1983 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1982 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1981 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1980 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A lot, but none are needed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, lean delete. Hypothetically, the redlinks would be populated. If they aren't, I don't see a need for the templates. Also, is there a need for season articles for AA level teams? Reso lute 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Season articles for minor league teams are rather silly, as most of the main articles barely have information to begin with. Anything of note from seasons could be merged in if found. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they become orphaned? Rich Farmbrough, 05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:LSY-0 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete per author approval. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LSY-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LSY-0n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LSY-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LSY-1n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LSY-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LSY-2n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LSY-3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated (and orphaned) templates, which have been replaced by newer templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all per CSD G7. --G W… 22:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Einstein Family edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete (by WikiLeon). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Einstein Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used once, any point for having an own template for one family only? Can't the common person infoboxes handle this? The Evil IP address (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use one of those "ahnentafel" things, or Make general {{Infobox dynast}} if it is wanted for other families. Actually all that's missing from {{Infobox person}} is grandparents and generation - which is subjective anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Citation not needed edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation not needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not set up, created in April. Have a really hard time imagining why we would need a template for citations not needed. WikiManOne (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Joke template. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Main Article:The Amity Affliction Discography edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Userfied Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main Article:The Amity Affliction Discography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content like this shouldn't be transcluded via a template. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved content to article space with no redirect, and merge proposal. Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Various portal templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Replace all with the equivalent {{portal|name}}, any formating problems can be discussed at Template talk:Portal Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) The following portal templates were nominated for deletion by User:WOSlinker as being unused and redundant. I am grouping them together for ease of discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that most of the 24 portal linkbox templates below not be deleted. These templates were created as part of portal development. Each of these templates has functionality not available with the suggested alternative. Thank you, Buaidh (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why you did not propose your new features on Template talk:Portal? If there is a benefit to adding this functionality then it would make sense to add it to this template not create a new one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, Buidah has been very productive, and initially I saw ((all) the navflags as just another user shortcut. But on closer inspection they provide merely a layer of confused indirection (I include the inconsistency of naming to about 12 different name styles - which does not apply here - and the passing through of parameters which although unused then place a prima facie contract on {{Portal}}), also providing scope for overriding images, which is a licensing issue (fair use images are not allowed), make combining into portal boxes more difficult. Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'VE BEEN CAUGHT! As Rich Farmbrough suggests, my true goal is to undermine, and ultimately destroy Wikipedia. I thought I could concealed my ulterior motives, but you have found me out.

The reason a created these portal linkbox templates was to avoid the mishmash of linkbox images and image heights that Template:Portal creates. The creation of the Template:Portal/Images files solved the first problem, but not the second. The creation of Template:Port was intended to solve the second. Without Template:Port, these templates have no utility. Please see Template:Port&oldid=363649697 for further information. --Buaidh (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the templates in Category:Wikipedia Portal navflags can be replaced by Template:Portal. The reason most of these templates are not in use is because User:WOSlinker has recently replaced their invocations with Template:Portalbox or Template:Portal. I have no time for an edit race. --Buaidh (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They only had at most a few transclusions each beforehand. I'll respond over at Template talk:Portal about my suggestions for improvements to sizes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's disingenuous to remove uses of a template, then state that a template is not used in a deletion discussion. Next time, please have the discussion first, then remove the uses if that's what the discussion determines. This is not the first time you've gone around the back of discussions in this way. You do a lot of good work, but you're also making a lot of people mad by undoing their work, then stating that what they've been doing doesn't exist. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 09:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll be more descriptive next time and state that there were either a few transclusions and those were replaced or no transclusions at all. Rather than just say that they are not currently used. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated above. And btw, the whole removing uses of a template to say they are not used is just simply dishonest and dumb. WikiManOne (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, to ease maintenance and ensure a consistent formatting. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace all. Despite WOSlinker's less than honest tactics (as detailed above), I agree that it's best to keep some things, such as this, uniform to make everything easier to maintain. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the portal syntax is being changed following wide-ranging discussions on Template talk:Portal and Template talk:Portal box between several editors involved in these portal templates. Please do review those discussions. I don't think the actions are unilateral or dishonest as you suggest. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but the method which WOSlinker used was less than honest. Removing all/most usages of a template, then nominating it for deletion as "unused" is not honest in the least, regardless of any previous discussion someplace else. That's what I object to. As I wrote above, I think this is a good idea, and support this proposed change; I just object to how WOSlinker did things. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep all 50 U.S. state portal templates. --Buaidh (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the associated wikiprojects should have been informed of the deletion of their portal templates... 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Serious concern - this is like CFD in the bad old days, 2 editors in a dark corner talking to only themselves and changing massive parts of wp - - not used and redundant in one location and projects not notified - fine for those who have a good practice or capacity to comprehend the minuitiae of portal construction - however to the outsider (average editor) this is where the process that has been used is inadequate - although template talk portal and template talk portal box might not be on everyones talk list - there could well have been something more explanatory and elaborate and forthcoming about what is going on Satu Suro 01:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as redundant and an apparent attempt (hopefully in good-faith) to circumvent consensus on {{Portal}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A walled garden consensus without informing the maintainers of various portals that a new consensus was attempting to be formed. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's the case, it needs to be dealt with elsewhere, not by creating a template fork. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there a reason why we can't just redirect them all to the portals they're redundant to? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are redundant to the template {{Portal}}, not the portals themselves. They mostly transcluded {{Portal}}, but they do it in different ways and create unnecessary dependencies. Some of the names don't follow any convention ( not all in this tfd but there are or have been - xx portal, xxportal, xxPortal, xx Portal, portalxx, portal xx, yyportal, yyportalzz, zz and others, where xx is the name of the portal, yy and zz are some other string) which makes it hard to put portal flags into portal boxes. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Good point. On that basis, delete all. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: The only difference between the linkbox pairs below is that the first of the two linkboxs is of uniform height and has a centered link label. If we add these features to Template:Portal, we can delete all of these templates. --Buaidh (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as centring goes, that should be uniform and can be put in portal with no difficulty if people think it is good. Alternatively it can be removed from WPbox. And when you say "uniform size" you mean "uniform with WPbox" - all the {{Portal}} boxes are uniform with each other. Again WPbox or portal (or both) can be changed if global uniformity is wanted. Alternatively WPBox has parameters to override height and width of the image. (Portal has "size" but it is deprecated and currently unused as far as I can tell.) Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Portal/doc indicates that size= is the only image sizing parameter, although the unlisted height= and width= parameters can be used as well. By uniform height, I mean all images are set to a given height, or two pixels less if the image is given a one pixel border. Template:Port sized the images this way, but Template:Portal currently does not. Image size=32x28px yields a image height of (32 pixels/image ratio) if the image ratio is greater than 8:7, which many images are, especially flags. Most flags of British origin have an image ratio of 2:1, which yields an effective image height of 16 pixels or 18 pixels with a one pixel border. I reduced the maximum image height of Template:Port to 24 pixels and increased the maximum width to 60 pixels to accommodate these wider flags, although 28 pixels or another maximum image height would have worked as well.

I strongly recommend that the following functions from former Template:Port be added to Template:Portal:

This template can add a border around the image and adjust the image size accordingly.
This template can adjust the maximum image height. The default is 24 pixels or 22 pixels with a border.
This template has a default maximum image width of 60 pixels or 58 pixels with a border.
This template can align the link text to the left, center (default), or right.
This template can display substitute link text.
This template can break the link text in any way desired. (See #Template:Commonwealth realms portal below.)

--Buaidh (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Swiss Army knife we want to avoid. Portal is used on nearly 3 million pages (mostly talk) and special cases for a few pages create unnecessary overhead. Secondly the navflags should be consistant - I defer to others on whether that is centred, how tall, does it need a border etc (note there are flags with borders in the image library - and they are easy to make) and many other questions that belong in central discussion over at Template talk:Portal. Possibly we should template {{Navflag-height}} to contain a standard height for navflags - and perhaps we should constrain the aspect ratio; there are other symbols than flags - but again they are questions not for this TfD but for the central discussion of the portal template and/or other nav-flag templates. Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Alabama portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Alabama}}[reply]

Template:Alabama portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Alabama}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. --Buaidh (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This template is in use on a number of articles. - Dravecky (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Dakota portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{Portal|South Dakota}}[reply]

Template:South Dakota portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{Portal|South Dakota}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. I created Portal:South Dakota. --Buaidh (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Northern Mariana Islands}}[reply]

Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Northern Mariana Islands}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maine portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Maine}}[reply]

Template:Maine portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Maine}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. I created Portal:Maine. --Buaidh (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guam portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Guam}}[reply]

Template:Guam portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Guam}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Virgin Islands portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|United States Virgin Islands}}[reply]

Template:United States Virgin Islands portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|United States Virgin Islands}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Samoa portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|American Samoa}}[reply]

Template:American Samoa portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|American Samoa}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iowa portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Iowa}}[reply]

Template:Iowa portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Iowa}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. I created Portal:Iowa. --Buaidh (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Astronomy portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Astronomy}}[reply]

Template:Astronomy portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Astronomy}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was discussed recently already. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Rich Farmbrough, 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Asia portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Asia}}[reply]

Template:Asia portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Asia}} WOSlinker (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antarctica portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Antarctica}}[reply]

Template:Antarctica portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Antarctica}} WOSlinker (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonwealth realms portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Commonwealth realms}}[reply]

Template:Commonwealth realms portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Commonwealth realms}} WOSlinker (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete, any tweaks to the image can be handled at {{portal}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|China}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the portal image needs to be replaced with File:Chinaimg.png - The PRC flag should be used for the PRC portal. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not the PRC portal. The PRC portal is Portal:People's Republic of China ; not Portal:China. {{portal|China}} is wrong. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or, more specifically, replace its content with {{portal|China}}). That creates the exact same output as this, so the two templates are redundant. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador portal edit

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Ecuador}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cambodia Portal edit

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cambodia Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Cambodia}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Chicago}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is now one global template, this is a valid deletion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mathematics portal edit

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mathematics portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Mathematics}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this was used, but now it is unusued. Now it is impossible to gage the amount of use that the template had. Why was it unlinked before the TFD, without any notification to the mathematics WikiProject? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On or around 12th March 2010 this template was in use on two articles dealing with Babylonian numbering. Both have portal boxes now. The article "Mathematics" had the default "Portal" template with no arguments. 122 other articles had a link via Portal|Mathematics. Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Hvportal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hvportal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Hudson Valley}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languages portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languages portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Languages}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judaism portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judaism portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{Portal|Judaism}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is useful if used. Just exactly where is "{{portal|Judaism}}"? -- I can't find it and until then, this one here is the only one we've got for anyone to use. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Redirect, now I see it, it works. IZAK (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It works, IZAK, check it on your talk page. Debresser (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here... Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to {{Portal|Judaism}}. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan portal edit

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Japan}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador Wikiportal edit

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador Wikiportal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Ecuador}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HungaryPortal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HungaryPortal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Hungary}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Template:Hungary portal --Buaidh (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iceland Portal edit

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iceland Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Iceland}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lists of Greeks edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of Greeks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, 7 of the 13 links are redlinks, 2 of which have been deleted under afd, and one of the remaining blue links links to a category, not a list. EmanWilm (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.