Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 16

< January 15	January 17 >

January 16

Template:Other uses6

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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other uses6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

T doubles existing functions & effects. There are 2(!) alternatives, each with a grand usage: ({{for}} and {{about}}. Redirect won't work, because of 2nd pipe (=skip 1st param) -- that is, as far as I know about Redirect param effects. -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: recently (well, yesterday at our WP 10th's birthday) I edited 172 usages of "{{other usage6|..." into "{{for||..." by AWB. There was a rebuke. -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+Earlier TfD, in a group: WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_8#Otheruses_templates. Result: withdrawn. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+Another one: TfD Log/2006_April_16. Result was: Delete. Huh? Why does it exist then... (recreated afterwards? I cannot see that through pp). The nominator wrote five years ago: These are apparently no longer needed, and there is an excessive proliferation of similar-looking and poorly-documented disambiguation templates. Could not have put it better. Added 2nd, more earlier TfD. -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate extant cases to {{for}} and delete per nom. I say that as the principal author of the template. This was created when {{for}} was not as functional as it now is; it does now subsume all functionality of {{otheruses6}}. (And who spaced that into {{other uses6}}? That looks ridiculous. What're "uses6", and why do we need other ones? ;-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:01, 17 January 2011 (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:TC stats CY5 cell format

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TC stats CY5 cell format (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats CY4 cell format (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats CY3 cell format (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats CY2 cell format (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats CY1 cell format (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats CY5 desc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats CY4 desc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats CY3 desc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats CY2 desc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats CY1 desc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No longer necessary. Mhiji 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. They are still necessary and are used as is demonstrated by the page "This template controls the cells colors for category 5 Cyclone statistics in a template-driven tropical cyclones statistics table. It is used by template:TC stats cyclone, template:TC stats first landfall, and template:TC stats next landfall when cat=CY5."Jason Rees (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't used. Click on the links button for each of them above. I know it says that, but none of those templates now actually link to or transclude them...? Mhiji 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect The output of Template:TC stats auscat1 desc is the same as Template:TC stats CY1 desc, so one could be redirected to the other. Someone should modify this template to use switch statements, rather than having a large category filled with tiny templates. 134.253.26.4 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redir per 134..., above. This is just messy coding. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:13, 17 January 2011 (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:Salatut elämät

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salatut elämät (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template has only characters, but all of them are redirects to the main article, as shown here. --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace it, out of courtesy. While the TV show in question is perhaps of less interest to English speakers than, say, The Simpsons, it's at least somewhat reasonable to expect that the principal author of the main article on the series and this template has plans to develop subarticles. As server space is not a relevant issue in XfDs, there's not really any strong reason to delete this outright, which would make the template code and content unavailable to its creator unless said person has admin privileges. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when content at Wikipedia should be kept "out of courtesy"? All links in the template redirect to the main article, which makes this navbox completely useless since there is no "navigation" at all. --LoЯd ۞pεth 07:08, 17 January 2011 (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:Redirect5

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) 07:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Full functional copy of {{Redirect}}. {{Redirect|RPAGE|TOPIC2|PAGE2}} does the same. See doc for example. Not even shortcutting or easing input. -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only used on 13 articles at present and all can be updated by just removing the 5 and stay exactly as they are. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix extant usage and delete per nom & WOSlinker. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It'd be good to have less hatnotes so they are not so complicated. — sligocki (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (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:You can 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 move to userspace. Not used apart from the user who created it. WOSlinker (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:You can edit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Where is this meant to be placed? Not on articles, obviously. So where? — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably meant for userspace drafts but not used anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is meant for userspace pages, like so, and anywhere else where readers might benefit from a reminder that they are encouraged to edit. –SJ + 11:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it might be useful to document this into the workpage and sandbox templates. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2011 (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:West Midlands Two

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Midlands Two (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 14#Template:Midland_Combination_Three for rationale. To sum up, unused, not notable and full of redlinks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2011 (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:West Indies Squad 2006 ICC Champions Trophy

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Indies Squad 2006 ICC Champions Trophy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Other, similar squad templates exist for the World Cup, etc. but I can't find similar ones for the ICC Champions Trophy (a less important cricket competition). I don't think this is quite notable enough to have a navbox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2011 (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:West Ham

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Ham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I am surprised that this is unused, but the fact that it is suggests it is forgotten or unwanted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of templates were used for the league boxes at the bottom and on the club ones at the top. They are quite common in the Italian Wikipedia for this purpose but they tend to not be used here. It's Malpass ⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 09:22, 17 January 2011 (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:West Coast Express

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Coast Express (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by other templates; see, for example, bottom of infobox in Pitt Meadows Station. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2011 (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:Weekend editing

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. WOSlinker (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weekend editing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. What words are supposed to go in the parameters? It's not clear at all. Users can make this notice using {{ombox}} or a similar template as they need it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2011 (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:Wesley College, Melbourne

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wesley College, Melbourne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Only two articles should be in this infobox-y navbox. This one even has disambiguation - what is the world coming to? — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2011 (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:Rome Line B date

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) 07:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rome Line B date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Appears to be a subst'ing template for starting new articles. However, all Line B articles now exist. So this is not needed anymore. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2011 (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:Round8-with second

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) 07:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round8-with second (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Appears to be a half-finished template, with unknown purpose. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to {{Round8-with third}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:46, 23 January 2011 (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:Thermodynamics timeline context

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. See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_16#Template:Thermodynamics_philosophical_context. Airplaneman ✈ 20:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thermodynamics timeline context (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This text should be in the lead, not in a hatnote per Hatnote guidelines. Earlier TfD here. Twin TfD is discussed below. -DePiep (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2011 (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:Maincat2

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. WOSlinker (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maincat2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only for {{Main5}}, which is TfD below. (I suggest Main5 is leading in this) -DePiep (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2011 (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:Main5

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. WOSlinker (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Maincat2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Also creates composed category names, which is less desired. DePiep (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: {{Maincat2}} is used only by {{Main5}}, and so should go too. -DePiep (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2011 (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:Rocket specifications-all

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 Withdrawn - apparently in use. See last comment. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rocket specifications-all (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. This sort of information should be in an infobox, not a bulleted list. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a WPAviation template is also a list, so I don't see a problem with that. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was actually looking for something like this. Contains considerable information not in Infobox Rocket. Also, as noted, WP:AIR's standards have a list-like specification template for all articles; WP:ROCKETRY should as well.
Comment this is still used, mostly through substitution, however it is being phased out. --G W… 05:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To avoid erroneous TfD nominations like this one, please document the template so its use and requirement of substitution are clear. I nominate these on sight because they have no transclusions or incoming links, and no documentation whatsoever. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's an old template, you should know, considering your activity here, that old templates frequently don't have documentation, or if it does, it's located on the talk page, or the first template of a set of templates. So if it doesn't have documentation, you should be able to seek out the proper people to contact. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The creator is seldom active. He was the only substantial contributor. I have no way of knowing who is using the template, as it is subst'ed. In my view, it is better to nominate this template for deletion and then determine, from the responses, if it is used or not. If I went and asked at WikiProjects before nominating templates, the whole process would become long, slow, tiring, and often fruitless. Anyway, I'm going to withdraw this nomination now. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2011 (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:Roc-a-fella discography

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) 07:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roc-a-fella discography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't believe it is appropriate to have a navbox for the albums, etc. released by a recording company. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a good idea for a navbox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:26, 16 January 2011 (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:Rivers/Categories

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rivers/Categories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Appears to be pre-{{WPBannerMeta}} (i.e. obsolete). Does not appear to be in use from any other templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why aren't you bothering to inform the wikiproject that you nominated one of its templates for deletion? 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I s'pose I should, really. Thanks for reminding me. I need a break... — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2011 (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:Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, old citation template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly specific reference template. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2011 (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:Rinkhclub

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2011 (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:Rimap

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, no scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2011 (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:Thermodynamics philosophical context

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thermodynamics philosophical context (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

From our style guideline on hatnotes, information relevant to the context of the article belongs in the lead, not in a hatnote, which are primarily for disambiguation only. This was nominated for deletion previously here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such information does indeed belong in the lead section. Also, the linked article is quite general, and would not help readers' specific understanding of the topics to the extent that it needs a specific hatnote. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a hatnote. And delete from the using pages first. -DePiep (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: its twin brother is added for TfD: Thermodynamics timeline context. -DePiep (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2011 (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:Ribbons

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like userpage spam decorations. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2011 (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:Rfl

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A "quick" way to start redirects. Fair enough, but the lack of incoming links suggests it has been forgotten. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{R from alternate language}} --- simple no? 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe in this case that redirecting would be a bad idea. The text of redirect categorization templates does not appear on the redirect page, due to software limitations. So using the full name of the template helps other editors who are reading the source to understand the purpose of the redirect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category appears on the redirect page, so, it does appear to indicate function if you're not editing the redirect. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2011 (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:Result not available

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Result not available (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Seems to be for sports match articles (???), but its old design (not using {{ambox}}, etc) suggests it has fallen out of use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{update}} with specialized text for sporting event articles needing updating. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2011 (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:RevisedRoman

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used. Not necessary to indicate that this revised romanisation has been used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's the official romanization method for Korea, so how can you say that "revised romaisation" hasn't been used? 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is really necessary to mark every single romanized Korean word with a marker indicating the romanization. In soem cases this is appropriate, but usually the full name of the romanization method is used (often via a template like {{infobox Korean name}}). this template is not in use at the moment, with no evidence to show that it will begin to be used in the future. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2011 (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:Reviewedfairusedisputed

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to be old, and no longer in use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (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:Retired Atlantic hurricanes assessment

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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retired Atlantic hurricanes assessment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unknown. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have WP:WPTC/T for that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, out of date, unused, and superseded by WP:WPTC/T. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:24, 16 January 2011 (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:RequestWikibooks

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. I'm not sure how this is meant to be used here on Wikipedia. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it were to be used, it'd have to be restricted to talk pages. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2011 (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:Reqrollback

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Belongs to failed proposal Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Old proposal. No longer necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:43, 16 January 2011 (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:Replaceable fair use Images subcategory starter 2

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replaceable fair use Images subcategory starter 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. Current dated categories use "F7" not the obsolete notation "I7", suggesting this is not even subst'ed any more. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2011 (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:Renewable energy in Australia

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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Renewable energy in Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Unfinished template ("foo"). Other templates exist, like {{Wind farms in Australia}}. The inclusion of some links is slightly tenuous. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete', unused and incomplete. Reh man 05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How embarrassing. It looks like I started work on that, then forgot about it. I've moved it to user space. Stevage 01:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and author above^.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:44, 22 January 2011 (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:Rel-mid

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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rel-mid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rel-top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rel-bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. ~~Heaven only knows what this is for.~~ ~~Superseded by {{collapsible list}}, which is more versatile.~~ — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tt is very easy to determine what it is for. It is the middle template for the set of templates {{rel-top}} , {{rel-mid}} , {{rel-bottom}} ; and is a formatting template, like many other templates that have top and bottom pairs. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of a set of templates, similar to alot of partial table templates that wikipedia has used. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that {{Rel-mid}} is documented, I can understand how it is used. However the new documentation does not make it clear what it is for. {{rel-top}} is only used in four articles about Laguna, where its use as a collapsing box is not appropriate. I have added the top and bottom templates to this nomination, and updated the rationale. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it's definitely not superceded by collapsible list, since this set of templates is a collapsible multicolumn box which does not require list item itemization. It is more a combination of {{hidden}} with {{col-begin}}/{{col-break}}/{{col-end}}. Now whether it is better to use rel or hidden+col is a different question from being redundant with collapsible list. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. I don't really know my way around the collapsing templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to add TFD tags to the other two templates. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2011 (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:Rejectedprettyquick

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. WOSlinker (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. No scope for use. Not formal enough for a template of this nature. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2011 (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:RegionsofAsia.png

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. WOSlinker (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RegionsofAsia.png (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, inferior, unfinished variant of {{Asia Labelled Map}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Adrian (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2011 (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.