Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 28

< January 27	January 29 >

January 28 edit

Template:Romanization 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) 22:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

All subpages of Template:Romanizations

Category:Romanization templates

None of these are used. No scope for use. No reason why the romanization can't just be written in the article. It is hard enough to insert Asian/Arabic characters for most users - no reason to require it in this way. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all article text masquerading as a template. Article text boilerplates are not what templates are for. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 04:36, 31 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:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox graphical timeline 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) 05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox graphical timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that doesn't seem to serve a purpose c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 22:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a test of some kind. Not useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:17, 29 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:Alternateunderconstruction 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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move to userspace, only used by one person. WOSlinker (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. A TfD nom is probably not required for userfications; I tend to just BOLDly userfy the page and delete the redirect under G6. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:17, 29 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:Jon Kortajarena in Ad Campaigns 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 Merge with article Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jon Kortajarena in Ad Campaigns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per here. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier discussions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a model known to do a lot of ad campaigns it's hard to keep up and mention all of them in the article. The template makes it easier to look at his yearly work. I don't think this should be deleted.--Anen87 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 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:River Viiperi in Ad Campaigns 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) 05:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River Viiperi in Ad Campaigns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per here. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier discussions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:24, 2 February 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:RudyGiulianiSegments 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) 05:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Looks unnecessary. Needs to be fixed if it is going to be used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:05, 28 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:Rs S14 mid 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) 05:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rs S14 mid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unknown. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:58, 28 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:Rspan 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 Userfy, redundant to {{splitspan}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unused. <span>s are inline HTML elements and should not be floated. If needed (which it shouldn't be, for that reason), just write the code. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:58, 28 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:Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 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) 05:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded - infobox at Royal Scots Dragoon Guards does the job nicely. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 28 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:Royal Scots 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) 05:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Royal Scots (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded - infobox at Royal Scots takes care of this nicely. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:36, 28 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:Royal Palaces Hungary 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 per WP:T3 (should have been WP:G7). Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Royal Palaces Hungary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

2 blue links. WP:NENAN. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the template, and the deletion is actually ok with me. Gryffindor (talk) 16:12, 28 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:Royal Marines 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) 05:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Royal Marines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded - infobox at Royal Marines takes care of this nicely — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:33, 28 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:Royal Gurkha Rifles 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) 05:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Royal Gurkha Rifles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded - infobox at Royal Gurkha Rifles takes care of this nicely. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:31, 28 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:Routeboxca next 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) 05:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routeboxca next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. What have language names got to do with route boxes? Not necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have to say I don't quite get the point of this template, and since it is unused and I cannot conceive a good use for it, it must go. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:19, 29 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:Round16ext no third 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 per WP:T3. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round16ext no third (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Surely there is a duplicate of this that is actually used. If someone can find it, this template can be deleted. If there isn't one, that suggests this is not needed and can be deleted anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to {{Round16}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to {{Round16}}, per Armbrust. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:23, 29 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:Round16-3legs 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) 05:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round16-3legs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. Seems broken. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would gather to believe it is a modification of {{Round16}}, which is a highly practical template, but for which there are three matches per stage. I agree that it seems to be broken and unused, so I do not see why it should be around. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:22, 29 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:Round16-LiverpoolSeniorCup 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) 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round16-LiverpoolSeniorCup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No scope for use, as there are no articles on the Liverpool Senior Cup other than the main article, and that article includes no tournament brackets. Not sure why this bizarre one with repechages is needed anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:06, 28 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:Rot90 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) 05:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rot90 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rot270 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Okay, so this is a {{rot90|nice effect}} (if your browser supports it). But it's not totally supported, most likely bad for readability (it's annoying to turn your head 90 degrees to read the screen), and not currently used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could be useful to illustrate things in discussions. Restrict to talk and wikipedia space. This should not be used in any other namespace. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment might be better renamed to {{moz-rotate}} and make the rotation amount be a passed parameter. Also, a special {{warning-moz-func}} template should be created to indicate that it requires Mozilla functions to work properly. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It apparently does work on WebKit browsers (Chrome and Safari). It also rotates inline text (but not images, etc.) on Internet Explorer. The documentation needs to updated to agree with this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added Rot270 to the nomination since it's part of the set. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. I have removed that template from the one article where it was used - premature, I know, but it is a non-standard template, and a real nasty head-turner. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the two should be merged together into the suggested {{moz-rotate}} then... 65.93.15.80 (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot for the life of me think of a suitable situation for using this. Seems like a lot of browsers don't support it, and those that do, render it in such a way as to make it nearly unreadable. Part of the problem with this type of template, is that certain types of editors think that if there is a template which allows something to be done, it is acceptable to use it (often in the most inappropriate circumstances). Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can see a use for them, since discussions sometimes talk about orientations, so if you can provide a visual illustration of what is being discussed (like rotating an image), it would be useful. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You may think that it could be used for rotating long headings in tables and making the columns narower but as can be seen below, it's not that useful. Looks ok in IE but not on Firefox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heading1	Rather Long Heading2	Rather Long Heading3
c1	c2	c3

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:Rosie Rushton 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) 06:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rosie Rushton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be superseded by {{Rosie Rushton books}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:03, 28 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:Road designation Green 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) 17:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Road designation Green (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Appears to have been created for use in Roads in Serbia, per the user's contributions, but it has been superseded by SVG graphics. Also delete the redirect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:00, 28 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:Rfc-open 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) 17:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfc-open (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Five old substitutions. No longer used. No longer necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:36, 28 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:Rn2 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 Speedy delete by Malik Shabazz as templates that misrepresent policy; also housekeeping given that they are sister templates to a long-deleted template. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rn3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rn4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very specific user-warning templates. Used twice, in 2005 and 2006, by the creator. {{rn2}} is rather too complex, in my opinion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{rn}} was deleted in 2006. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. T3 has got stricter since then, unfortunately (hint hint!). — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:08, 28 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:Rfd speedy 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 by creator. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfd speedy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used, not subst'ed (at least not as long as I have been traversing RfD). This is always done manually anyway; no benefit from using this non-specific (just says "Speedy") template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:43, 28 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:Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics 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) 06:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sea of redlinks. No scope for use - all info is contained in the article Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't really think any of these articles should be created, although some might be plausible for redirects. What is left is a navbox with a single article. If a small number of articles were created, they should be stuck into the main navbox for those games. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:12, 29 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:Denali ImageMap 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 no consensus to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denali ImageMap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Yellowstone ImageMap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Yosemite ImageMap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NCascades ImageMap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nice images, and nice imagemaps. But, sad as I am to say so, I can't quite see the encyclopedic value of these unused templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All templates except {{Denali ImageMap}} are indeed used, once each. I'd go for keeping them, as the argument for their deletion as being unused is moot for all but one of them. As for encyclopedic value? They help illustrate the topic. Airplaneman ✈ 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usage on a userpage doesn't really count, in my view. They can be userfied if that user wants them. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska/Denali image map, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wyoming/Yellowstone image map, Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Yosemite image map, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington/North Cascades image map. Unless there is a wikiproject just for such image maps. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 20:27, 25 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) 03:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are useful to illustrate the respective national parks --Guerillero | My Talk 20:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one of Denali is absolutely awesome and I am off to integrate it into the article on Denali National Park and Preserve right now. Glad i happened by here on other business. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fantastic, useful linked maps. While only used on one article each, the code is much too big to transclude. Reywas92^Talk 19:35, 30 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:Ringwood District Baseball League 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G8. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ringwood District Baseball League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Ringwood District Baseball League has been deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G8 as dependent on deleted article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, forgot about that one. Thanks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:39, 28 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:Notable Joluo 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 Merge with Luo people of Kenya and Tanzania Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notable Joluo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Indiscriminate. Tries to join hockey players with politicians with rap artists based on a supposedly, but often unsourced, shared ethnicity. Maybe valuable as a cited list, but certainly not as a navbox. Reso lute 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The navbox is similar to Template:VietnamCorr. The hockey players, politicians and rap artists all identify themselves as Luo. Thaths (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that navbox is an entirely different concept, and WP:WAX is not a valid keep argument anyway. Comparing apples to apples: Would a template that lists "notable Americans" be useful? How about "notable Jews"? "Notable Inuit"? A shared ethnicity, if cited, is a good category, and a decent list, but a bad navbox. Reso lute 18:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete - this should be a list, not a navbox at the end of every article included in the box. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:33, 20 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, Airplaneman ✈ 01:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and turn into a list or a category. There is no reason to connect people via internal link which have nothing in common but their ethnicity.--GirasoleDE (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into list and delete this template. A list can have citations, whereas a category cannot. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:35, 5 February 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:CSCOTW article 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 project space Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSCOTW article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CSCOTW current (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Computer science Collaboration of the Week doesn't seem to have been very well used. Initally created in Aug 2006 to one article and never changed. Suggest substituting into Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Collaboration of the Week and then deleting. WOSlinker (talk) 20:15, 20 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, Airplaneman ✈ 01:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the template is now redundant, and move and archive to a sub-page of WP:WPCS seems to be more appropriate than deletion. --Der yck C. 08:16, 31 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:CRow navbox 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 under WP:G7. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CRow navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't really offer anything that can't easily be accomplished with the standard {{Navbox}} template. WOSlinker (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably intended as a meta-template for a series of navboxes. But since it is unused, it is not needed. I have orphaned the template (replaced uses with {{navbox}}). — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I created the template. I have no objection to the deletion since “the other” modified the only template using it. 09er (talk) 19:25, 30 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.