Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

January 29

Template:Do for every Dutch municipality code, Template:Do for every Dutch municipality code/short/doc and Template:Do for every Dutch municipality code/short

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) 02:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Do for every Dutch municipality code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:01, 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:LifeOnMarsWiki

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) 03:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-functional unused template AussieLegend (talk) 21:13, 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:Prior

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

The result of the discussion was Replace with {{for}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A hatnote, narrowed into a single topic & situation. The more general standard {{for}} does the job (~~even better~~: it has the option to name multiple pages too): {{for|previous discussions|PAGE1|PAGE2}} → . The template not used. Also, deleting helps reducing the long list of hatnotes, easying and simplifying the overview, help & documentation. -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the template does have the possibility of multiple links too, so I struck that point. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary hatnote. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the fact that "would reduce the long list of pages in the category" has to be one of the weakest deletion rationales I have ever read, the nomination misunderstands the purpose of the template and that which it proposes replace it. {{for}} is a disambiguation template, posing the question "were you looking for this other page?". Where {{prior}} is called for, there is no ambiguity, no need to direct the reader to a separate irrelevant page; {{prior}}} is a concise and straightforward direction to a highly relevant page. It has a clear distinct use. No harm done, but suggest the misguided nomination be withdrawn. Skomorokh 22:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The true purpose of these templates is to produce a Hatnote. If the resulting text is OK (including links, markup &tc), there is no need to differentiate between possibly intended, invisible "purposes". Any such original purpose is not enforced or maintained in the ~60,000 transclusions of {{for}}. This is true for all hatnotes, currently ~75. There is no reason to separate those related to "ambiguous" situations from those for other situations. And regarding the "long list" quote you use: the quote was not the argument. What follows is the argument: documentation and help (finding the right hatnote, and using it correctly), surely can do without doubles, repetitions, variants per single word and so. -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a project side template, and now I know it exists, it looks useful. Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Keep an important function & will be widely used; it's good to keep it separate from the template for articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG, the template is from May 2009, with zero links to article space and project (WP) space. Why would it "will be widely used"? More in general, how do you expect the diff between using "For" and this "Prior" will be stimulated, enforced, or maintained? This whole Hatnote-industry has grown mainly from disambiguation & redirection. But hell, even the primary article-dab keeps a full Project alive, with PhD-requirements and all (as I know). And now after ten years, the Hatnote-business is still a myriad, inadmissible, unstructured & under documented. I mean to say that using a hatnote is not inviting.

I think a Hatnote should be available by its situation & effect (say resulting text), and not by its "intended" purpose. Because a) that intention cannot be found easily -- if at all, b) the intention is not present in current usage and c) noone, except for the current experienced dab-editor, is able to find such a 'right' template easily. Instead, I state: A) a hatnote is to be used by its (visible) presence. There should be no need for a disambiguation of hatnotes. -DePiep (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after replacement with Template:for, which is more widely used, and less specific in function. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 20:29, 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) 21:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Superfluous. Does nothing significant (as far as I can tell) that the more generic For does. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed. Superfluous, per Willscrlt. Hatnotes are bad on project pages anyway - us hardened users who browse project-space need big boxes for this sort of navigation, as hatnotes are easily overlooked. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:11, 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:Makemake

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) 03:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A "see also" list in navbox form. All these articles appear to be linked from Makemake (dwarf planet), the only article where this template appears. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete egregious misuse of a navbox; these belong under a "see also". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that this navbox is useful (obviously since I created it) and I made it in line with the other Universe navboxes that I created (such as Template:Ceres). I certainly think this navbox could be improved but I see no reason for its deletion. The facts that the links could be placed under "See also" does not seem to be a compelling argument why they can't be placed in a Navbox. As for the fact that this is the only place that the Navbox appears, I am more than happy to put it on the Michael E. Brown article if that would save it. Remember (talk) 21:49, 10 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) 15:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A template should not combine such general links, only tangentially related to its primary object. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm I have sympathy for this navbox. Let's look at the arguments against it - some may be mere observations:

"A "see also" list in navbox form." (reiterated by 10LB) - that's what Navboxes are, effectively, structured "see also"s. Often they merely reiterate a set category.
"All these articles appear to be linked from Makemake (dwarf planet)" - and this template gathers the links together, how is that bad?
"the only article where this template appears" There's nothing wrong with single use templates - the elements have them.
"should not combine such general links" Why not (apart form reflecting telescope which does seem out of place)?

However, I think what I would suggest is Merge to the planetoid infobox. Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Planet, Dwarf planet, Definition of planet, Tenth planet? Not distinctive. Debresser (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that one of the defining features of Makemake is the discussion over its classification. Rich Farmbrough, 10:26, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

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) 21:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are all the links in the template:

All bluelinked.

Currently in "See also" section:

   * Astronomical naming conventions
   * Clearing the neighbourhood
   * Planets beyond Neptune
   * International Astronomical Union

So: not a single double -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. None of these articles should be in the navbox, except Michael E. Brown. While the Makemake article should link to them in body text, those articles should not link back to Makemake. Navboxes rely on two-way connections to work. Perhaps a "Planets" or "Dwarf planets" navbox could be created that contains these links. But not a "Makemake" navbox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per the above line of reasoning by User:Ttato. The concept of navbox is misunderstood -- in good faith. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 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:Agência Brasil

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 for now. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agência Brasil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused image license. Kelly ^hi! 18:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous listings. The free licensed images tend go to Commons, but it is useful to have the template availible when any are here on en:W even temporarily (eg, before moving to Commons, featured on main page, etc.) Infrogmation (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be in use on Commons, therefore we should have it here on enwiki. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:13, 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:Verbandsliga Niedersachsen-Ost

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) 03:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Verbandsliga Niedersachsen-Ost (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused: The Oberligas (formerly Verbandsligas) East (Ost) and West have merged to form a single league for Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen), only one league template is therefore needed, which I used the West one for and moved it. East and its redirect can therefore be deleted. Calistemon (talk) 12:22, 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:Oberliga Niedersachsen-Ost

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) 03:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oberliga Niedersachsen-Ost (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused: The Oberligas (formerly Verbandsligas) East (Ost) and West have merged to form a single league for Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen), only one league template is therefore needed, which I used the West one for and moved it. East and its redirect can therefore be deleted. Calistemon (talk) 12:22, 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.

Guru Kalyan external link templates

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) 03:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Template:KOTTI2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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

Template:TOI2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

All are external link templates that are only used in one article (Guru Kalyan), apart from KBW which is by the same editor but is unused. WOSlinker (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subst (if appropriate, otherwise remove from article) and delete. Not needed as templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:KBW tagged and then deleted under WP:G2. Airplaneman ✈ 08:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete we don't use templates to insert individual external links. Them From Space 22:30, 4 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:Ruhuna current squad

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) 03:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ruhuna current squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by more up-to-date table at Ruhuna cricket team#Current Squad. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:27, 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:Rule of 72

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. For future reference, if a template is unused and comprises nothing but puked up code with a syntax error in it, it's probably safe to speedy delete it. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rule of 72 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. Broken. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:25, 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:Run-page-shutoff

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 to User:Ipatrol/Run-page-shutoff, as it is no longer required in template space. The resulting redirect was deleted. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Run-page-shutoff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Bot operators generally invent their own methods for this to happen (any post on talk page, etc.) depending on the programming of their bot. This template is not likely to be used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, userspace it. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per Ipatrol. – Allen4names 01:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfy Ipatrol is the creator and only contributor, and I see no evidence anyone else has ever cared about the template. Anomie ⚔ 02:53, 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:Russell Norvig 2009

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) 03:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russell Norvig 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. These reference templates are intended to save time when frequently using a source. This one is not used at all, so it is not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:28, 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:Rune poem

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 per G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rune poem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Looks forgotten/abandoned. Rune poems don't need expandable boxes anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template is not in use at the moment and I have the code saved, so you may go ahead and delete it. –Holt (T•C) 19:09, 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:Rt article nom

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) 18:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rt article nom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rt picture nom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think listing on a portal is quite worthy of a talk page message box. Currently unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:22, 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:RssBox

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) 05:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Don't know what it is for. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:26, 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.

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. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template. Appears to be a misplaced file summary page for a file that was apparently never uploaded. Not used in any useful fashion in articles. Used on user pages, but these uses are not of this template, they are of an earlier redirect that was deleted in 2009.[1] AussieLegend (talk) 08:46, 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:Wikijoint

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. I nominated this mainly because I believed it was unused. But it turns out that this is not the case. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uh... WikiJoints are... heh... ~~unused or something~~... yeah... crass humor. WikiLove in the form of illicit drugs? Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a bit less cheesy Wikilove template for once (one that I could actually use -and I never smoked marijuana!). --Cyclopia ^talk 14:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template is used by substitution, try a slightly less-specific search. Mr.Z-man 06:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But it's still in poor taste. Maybe this is an "I don't like it" argument, though. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is. (Mine is a WP:ILIKEIT however). --Cyclopia ^talk 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not censored. Conservapedia actively censors their material, maybe you would be more at home there? Okip 21:46, 4 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:Texas State Highway WikiProject

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 Wrong forum. Needs relisting at WP:RFD. WOSlinker (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Texas State Highway WikiProject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused redirect. Redirected to {{USRD}} over three years ago. –Fredddie ™ 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 04:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though shouldn't this be listed on WP:RFD not TFD? --Admrboltz (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close wrong forum, this should be listed at RfD. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:34, 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:RCHamilton

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 deleted per WP:CSD#T3. –anemone projectors– 01:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blanked in 2009. Unused. Same reason applies as for this other one. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:41, 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:Berlin Thunder seasons

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) 03:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Berlin Thunder seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template redundant to info contained in Template:Berlin Thunder, although for some reason, both seem to be on the pages. EmanWilm (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after removing from pages. Superfluous. Template that are subsets (proper or not) of others are probably eligible for CSD T3. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:45, 1 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:R/

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) 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R/ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unnecessary, non-standard way of inserting a reflist. Confusing to editors who are unfamiliar with it (i.e. everyone). Unused at the moment. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:26, 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:R-

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) 03:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R- (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Not necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:25, 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:Sheep-start

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) 03:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sheep-start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used as start class articles are not tagged, unlike stubs. WOSlinker (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply unnecessary template. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:51, 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:Russian Federal Ministries

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) 03:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russian Federal Ministries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by {{Executive Authorities of Russia}} (although that template is not looking too healthy itself.). — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant, incomplete, and unused.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 2, 2011; 14:35 (UTC)

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:Russian AAMs

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russian AAMs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by the top expandable section in {{Russian and Soviet missiles}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to other template. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:36, 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:Russian mobile phone companies

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, now in use, but still only has 3 links. No prejudice against renomination. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russian mobile phone companies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

3 items. WP:NENAN. Currently unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave it. Now it is used and needs expanding. There are more than 20 mobile phone companies in Russia. --Dima1 (talk) 07:53, 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:Rut Northern Free State Griffons

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) 05:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rut Northern Free State Griffons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Rut Griffons}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:05, 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.