Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 5

< June 4	June 6 >

June 5[edit]

Template:Thongchai McIntyre[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) 22:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thongchai McIntyre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A very red-linked template making it non-navigable which is what a navbox is supposed to be for. Not against recreation should the articles be created but it's been almost a year since the template was. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in theory there are enough links for a navbox here, but I don't think it should be used until more of the articles have been created. Robofish (talk) 12:51, 7 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:Infobox Ruler Japan[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 and replace with {{infobox officeholder}}. There appears to be consensus for replacing this infobox, but {{infobox monarch}} is indeed not entirely appropriate. Given that the majority of the other shogun articles use the "officeholder" infobox, this seems appropriate. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ruler Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox Monarch Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, seems redundant to the more general template. Robofish (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreement with opinions above. Tenmei (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am afraid there is a misunderstanding here. Japanese rules on whose pages the template is used were not Emperors, but shoguns. Since they were not monarchs, {{Infobox Ruler Japan}} can not be replaced with {{Infobox monarch}}. Ruslik_Zero 11:53, 13 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:Twinning[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) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template puts a flag icon and a wikilinked country with an article. Trouble is flag icons are not encouraged within prose and wiklinking countries is considered overlinking. I can see no reason for retaining a template that encourages lazy, bad practice. Simple Bob (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weak keep. Heh, obviously I'm going to !vote for my own template.<gr> Seriously, though. 1) this is an attempt to emulate the French Jumelage template. a) yes, just 'cause another wiki does something doesn't mean it's appropriate for English Wiki, and b) my attempt currently doesn't have anywhere the functionality of the French version, so it's far less useful. OTOH, it could be expanded to deal with years,etc. 2) the use of flagicon and country is already common - this just regularizes a common practice. OTOH, if it regularizes BAD practice, I can see that it would be considered counter-productive.

Are there any guidelines you guys could point me to? (I'm getting used to the the guidelines at AfD, but no one has proposed one of my templates before.) And what happens to the existing instances if a template is taken away? Yours in Service to Wiki David V Houston (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this does not look like a prose template to me, since it appears to be a list entry template. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator, this is not in keeping with our practice on the use of flags and country links. (The French wiki may do things differently.) I've got no problem with listing twin towns in articles, but all that's needed is a link to the town - not a flag or link to the country - and no template is needed for that. Robofish (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it IS keeping with PRACTICE. It may not be in keeping with POLICY. Still, I see your point. David V Houston (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only advantage this has over wikitext is the addition of a flag, which MOS:ICON discourages. That flag icons are overused right now is a problem to be fixed, not emulated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query. When this template is deleted, as I suspect it will be, does the Admin who closes the discussion have to go through and fix all instances? That sounds like a chunk of work. Surely you can't leave redlinks... Just asking. David V Houston (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I can have User:SporkBot do it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would an automated script just unroll the template, and e.g. leave the flag icons there? An automated bot can't do much in the way of turning it into prose... David V Houston (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the flag icons are deprecated, it would replace it with something very simple like * [[{{{1}}}]], [[{{{2}}}]]. Converting this to prose would be up to someone else. However, given there are only about 12 transclusions, I don't see it as that big of an issue. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template is obviously going to be deleted (since I was the only one who spoke up for it, and that, weakly), I've already removed most of the occurrences of it. David V Houston (talk) 21:28, 11 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:Related pages[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 redirect to {{navboxes}}. I'm deleting Template:Related pages/doc. delldot ∇. 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Navboxes}}. The documentation says that this template is easier to use, but I don't see why. The only difference is that there is a different default title, and the use of "1=", rather than "list=". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to navboxes. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to navboxes - plausible name, but redundant. Robofish (talk) 12:45, 7 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:Luke Messer[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 as test page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Luke Messer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External images don't work. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:40, 5 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:MHA[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 as test page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redlinked image, shouldn't be used like this anyway. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:40, 5 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:PardonTheMess[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) 01:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Under construction}} does this template's purpose much better. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Under construction}} FinalRapture - † ☪ 16:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused, broke, redundant; not really a plausible redirect ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this template is horrible. --B (talk) 21:19, 6 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:Richard vauls[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 as test page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richard vauls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparenttly, someone confused template space with the main space. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not useful or a template. FinalRapture - † ☪ 16:03, 5 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:ZAR[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 as test page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless FinalRapture - † ☪ 16:05, 5 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:Suki[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 as test page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, no documentation, seems pointless and external images don't work. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:21, 5 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.

Descopy 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 Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 11:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

We shouldn't duplicate Commons file pages like this for trivial reasons. If necessary, go to Commons, write an English caption and add the links there. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant with the file page at Commons; the copy will never be synchronized ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:36, 6 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:Info box Actor[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 as test page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Info box Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looks like someone tried to make an infobox but didn't succeed. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused, not useful FinalRapture - † ☪ 16:04, 5 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:CLP-2 Seasons[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) 22:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only one article link exists within the navbox, the rest are redlinks. It is conceivable that some of these articles *could* be created at some point in the future, but given that this navbox was created in August 2008, I'd have expected to have seen some of them materialise by now. Jameboy (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful without articles to link. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of no use until the articles are created. Robofish (talk) 12:44, 7 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:Birth year 1982[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 as test page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birth year 1982 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Shouldn't be used like this, we have {{Birth date}} and {{Birth date and age}} for this. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:55, 5 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:Oscar Wilde portal[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oscar Wilde portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to {{Portal|Oscar Wilde}}, which eases maintaining templates. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems redundant to {{Portal}}. Robofish (talk) 12:44, 7 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:Africa portal[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) 22:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, redundant to {{Portal|Africa}}, which is better for maintaining the template. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is it unused because someone recently delinked it? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it uses a different image than the one under "Portal". 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems unnecessary to me. Anyone know why we have two in the first place?--Banana (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people have been modifying {{portal}} . Instead of a generic portal template, it's being added with each portal. Previously, "portal" generated a generic portal link, while if you wanted a specific representation (like an image) standard across portal links to the portal in portal boxes, you had to make your own portal template. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems redundant to {{Portal}}. Robofish (talk) 12:43, 7 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:Northern Premier League Division One seasons[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Premier League Division One seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox template contains only redlinks. Furthermore, it would seem unlikely that these articles will be created in the future, as the information resides within the articles contained in Category:Northern Premier League seasons. Jameboy (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of no use until the articles are created. Robofish (talk) 12:43, 7 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:American Idol 4th Place Contestants[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Idol 4th Place Contestants (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a notable grouping of people Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4th place is not notable. --Jameboy (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate and unhelpful for navigation. Robofish (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused template and people are unlikely to want to navigate between 4th place finishers that only have been on American Idol and finishing in fourth place in different seasons. Aspects (talk) 16:10, 7 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:Cake Boss[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cake Boss (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful as a navigation template since all the links go to the same article Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Navboxes should link related articles, not sections of one article. --Jameboy (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The TOC does the job within articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:30, 6 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:California sports[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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. The scope seems a bit wide for a useful navigation box. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason it was created...almost all the other states have sports templates, and we should try for the full set. Though it is orphaned, it doesn't qualify for TFD as there are dozens of pages it could potentially be placed. Why delete the template with the most information? Purple backpack89 15:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No longer orphaned. I've started applying it to articles. Thanks for the heads-up. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:04, 6 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:Bbyee[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Billboard Year-End no longer links the years, so it appears this template is no longer in use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, apparently whatever it linked to when I created it has been replaced by something else.Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - deprecated and unused. Robofish (talk) 12:41, 7 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:AT[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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not belong in template space, created by indefinitely-blocked user via sock. User previously created Template:A which was previously deleted. nhjm449 (talk) 02:25, 5 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:Di-no license-caption[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 Template:Di-no license-caption and replace it with Template:Deletable image-caption. Ruslik_Zero 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Di-no license-caption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Deletable image-caption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Di-no license-caption with Template:Deletable image-caption.
Pretty much the same templates, the first one isn't even mentioned within {{Di-no license}}. Using only one template is easier for editors and eases maintenance work. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems redundant to {{Deletable image-caption}}, which is more flexible. Should be replaced where it is used. Robofish (talk) 12:40, 7 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.