Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

Closing instructions

Skip to table of contents  · Skip to current discussions  · Purge this page

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

How to use this page

What not to propose for deletion here

The majority of pages in the Template: namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

• Speedy deletion candidates

  If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at TfD, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.

• Stub templates

  Should be listed at Stub types for deletion.

• Policy or guideline templates

  Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, like the CSD templates cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.

• Userboxes

  Should be listed at MfD, regardless of what namespace they reside in.

• Template redirects

  Redirects for deletion.

• Renaming a template

  Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

• The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
• The template is redundant to a better-designed template
• The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
• The template violates some other key policy such as NPOV or CIVIL

Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process (replace TemplateName, not including the namespace identifier "Template:", with the name of the template to be deleted unless otherwise noted):

{{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}

{{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}

{{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. ~~~~}}

{{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} ~~~~

It is generally considered civil to notify the creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.

Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to term a proposed action: "keep until orphaned" or anything similar as administrators will generally orphan any template before deletion. Please instead phrase it simply as "delete".

Current discussions

October 14

Template:Hockey linescore

Template:Hockey linescore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template hasn't been edited in over a year and is used on no pages. Djsasso (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPDERM

Template:WPDERM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Recently created template has been superseded by an expansion of {{WPMED}}. It is not used and has no likelihood of ever being used. The development and deletion of this template have been discussed on the task force's talk page at WT:DERM, with no objections to deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. As one of the authors, I have no issues with this template being deleted. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHL Schedule Start

Template:NHL Schedule Start (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template that was created a year ago which was never used as it was intended as WP:HOCKEY ended up going with another format. Djsasso (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHL Schedule End

Template:NHL Schedule End (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template that was created a year ago which was never used as it was intended as WP:HOCKEY ended up going with another format. Djsasso (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHL Schedule Entry

Template:NHL Schedule Entry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template that was created a year ago which was never used as it was intended as WP:HOCKEY ended up going with another format. Djsasso (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

October 13

Template:Abortion by country

Template:Abortion by country (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

The only article which employs this template is the Abortion in the Netherlands article. All other "Abortion by country" articles employ continent-specific templates, such as Template:Abortion in Europe. The continent-specific templates are much more appropriate, as this template will be quite unwieldy when all countries of the world have "Abortion by country" articles. Neelix (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This template should be on all abortion by country pages, as it is allows for easy navigation between countries. CTJF83Talk 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Replace and delete. This template will, when finished, contain a link for every member state of the UN, all two hundred of them. That's not easy navigation at all. It would help if the continent-specific templates linked to each other, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing adding every country to the template, only ones with pages. CTJF83Talk 19:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • And by WP:DEADLINE, every country with an abortion law, past, present, or proposed, should have an article. Which countries don't satisfy that condition? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • We don't really have to rearrange things right now to accommodate hypothetical future events. If the list gets to be too long to be handy in the future, then it can be rearranged in the future. Also, it's not necessary to use separate templates; the countries could trivially be organized into separate rows by continent (see {{Abortion law}} for an example of a navigational template that is organized into rows). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Underconstruction

Template:Underconstruction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:PageRefurb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Revisions sandboxed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Inuse-section (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Inuse/doc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

When I first saw 'under construction' templates, I thought that I was not supposed to edit the page and it seems that discouraging editing is exactly the purpose. I think I may even have been told by another editor that I needed to wait until he/she had removed the template. However, people are abusing what should be a rare privilige. If the argument is that active editing is in process then they must be tapping away at their keyboards and that seems to be an argument for perhaps 15 minutes to an hour grace.

I have the following suggestions:

1. Ban 'under construction' templates. Wikipedia is always work in progress. I don't believe that the number of templates on articles matches a real requirement. However, I don't think many people will support this option.
2. Rationalise the many similar templates into one template.
3. Each 'under construction' template shall have a visible expiry time. This will make it much easier to see that the template is due for removal. Currently, you have to be determined to work out how long it has been there, who added it, and whether they are showing signs of activity.
4. The expiry time for 'under construction' templates shall not exceed one hour. The time of one hour is arbitarily chosen but is consistent with active editing of text by the editor that wants to use the template to discourage contributions by other editors. Nominated by Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

• Keep {{Underconstruction}}, no opinion as to the rest. We've been through this and this twice before as far as the {{Underconstruction}} template is concerned. It is necessary to avoid having articles speedy deleted for having lack of content or lack of assertion of notability. I do think that with the {{Underconstruction}} template the other templates are redundant, but I think at least one template is necessary. As currently worded, the {{Underconstruction}} template does not discourage other people from editing, and in fact encourages it. --Nlu (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you support points 2, 3, and 4? Your second to last sentence appears to support point 2 at least. Lightmouse (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect all to {{Underconstruction}}, per Lightmouse's point #2. I don't think it's necessary to delete them all (suggestion #1), but I do think more than one template for the same purpose ("go away while I WP:OWN this page") is a little overkill. I personally don't hold with Nlu's arguments regarding speedy deletion: it is quite simple to construct the article in userspace and then move it into mainspace when it's ready for inclusion. However, I have no objection to the underconstruction template being used when pages are being revamped (I've used it myself for this purpose). I also have no objection to Lightmouse's suggestions #3 and #4, although they seem a little WP:CREEPy to me. I agree with them, I just think they are quite unlikely to be followed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by 'unlikely to be followed'. There are already voluntary time options in the templates but they are not used. So I agree with you that a voluntary time option would not work. My suggestion was for the template to have a fixed time period that the user cannot change i.e.

• This page is undergoing active editing blah blah blah. This notice is valid until <timestamp>.

The editor could refresh it as many times as they like. I would not want to stop active editors seeking another period if they really are pounding the keyboard trying to get that updated text out. A visible-to-all fixed expiry time would end the problems caused by current fire-and-forget option. I am open to debate but I'm just trying to clarify things. Lightmouse (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't quite internalized that the timestamp would be mandatory (although it's going to be confusing for people who still aren't used to thinking in UTC). In that case I would support the time limits. However, I'd say you'd need to hardcode the time limit, something like {{prod}} does when subst:ed, or else it won't work. People will be putting in 6-month time limits or something like that. I agree with you that this shouldn't be used for more than an hour or so.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Your signature says '18:58, 13 October 2008'. If the expiry period is 1 hour, it would say something like 'this tag can be removed after 19:58, 13 October 2008'. As User:Greg implied, it is like a use-by date on food. The target for the design of the use-by timestamp is other people reading the page rather than the person that applied the tag. Page readers simply need to see when the tag is past its use-by date. Lightmouse (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And yes to hard-coding. No user configuration of the time. Lightmouse (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect all to {{Underconstruction}} with an expiry of 1 hour (users permitted to refresh an unlimited number of times but always in blocks of 1 hour, no more), per point #2, #3, and #4. Voting for what I consider to be realistic options. Proposer. Lightmouse (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note, this is the nominator. Woody (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Same same. I think the closing admin'll be smart enough to figure it out. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• These templates are not intended to discourage editors. Rather, they are a notice to readers: the article is in a mess, more than usually :)) don't count on it.. yet. keep at least {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse-section}}. NVO (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all but {{Revisions sandboxed}} and {{PageRefurb}} as they are superfluous. I thought this would happen when I mentioned these templates in the placeholder discussion. I have had occasion to use these templates numerous times. They are useful when overhauling an article for tedious issues like dates or reference formatting: things that cannot be easily resolved after edit conflicts. Some of these take longer than an hour, much longer, some larger text overhauls take days which necessitates the use of the Under construction template. Woody (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds to me like a vote for merge down from the current five. It also sounds like a recommendation to be able to mark either a 'whole article' or a 'section'. That sounds reasonable to me. What do you think of point #3 and point #4? Lightmouse (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would make it have a mandatory: "put on" date, so it is obvious when the template was put on the page. I think "In use" should have a time limit of three hours, which is usually when you lose the session data anyway. "Under construction" should have a time limit of two or three days; it is meant to be for longer periods, showing that an article is having a major overhaul. Woody (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose point #4. I would not use {{underconstruction}} (as opposed to {{inuse}}, which is "please don't edit-conflict with the current rush of edits") unless the page required real research; real research is unlikely to take less than a hour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How long do you think is reasonable for each tag that you want to retain? Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect all to {{Underconstruction}}. Instructions should state that every effort should be made to remove the template as soon as possible, even if some additional updates are required. It should be available for sections or articles. The time frame should be input by the person placing the template since he/she knows the scope of effort required. It's an essential template especially for new articles. It lets everyone know that someone is in the process of doing major work on the article. All other very similar templates should be merged. — Wjwalrus (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We already allow users to enter a maximum time period. The problem is when they don't (look and see if you can spot *any* tag with a time period). What do we do then, leave it on the article for the life of Wikipedia? Lightmouse (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So make the time limit the default, instead of no time limit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge only {{PageRefurb}}; Keep the others. The distinction of {{Revisions sandboxed}}, which adds bells and whistles for those who want them, is probably worth the minor distinction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The reasonable course is not to remove these with a bot at all. The proper course is to ask the constructor what his plan is, and whether he is continuing with it, on his talk page. I would not remove the tag without consultation unless this note is not replied to, or the page has been static for an extremely long time (say six months). Don't worry, we'll still root them out before publication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the point is that the merged tag would have all the bells and whistles as options. If the {{revisions sandboxed}} optional params were included in the final merger, would you be ok with the a merger down to one?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • No. {{in use}} and {{underconstruction}} are radically different things; the former is "don't touch" for a short time, the latter invites collaboration and is long-term. There is also a place for simple templates without bells and whistles; ((tl|underconstruction}} and {{Revisions sandboxed}} should both exist, although the more complex one could use a more transparent name: {{Uc-options}}? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep/Merge. on particularly active pages, it is useful to let people know that there is a large-scale revision occurring, otherwise there's a lot of cross-editing that can significantly confuse the process. the visible expiry time is a good idea (though may be fruitless in the case of very large reconstructions). --Ludwigs2 05:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep {{Revisions sandboxed}}, I like it. I felt pressured to do something about Bethmann bank by an editor who "remove[d] hatnote redlink [from Bethmann family] to Bethmann bank per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Non-existent articles)", so I rushed Bethmann bank into service before it was ready. {{Revisions sandboxed}} came in very handy for telling people not to jump on it just yet, and I like its flashy, noisy appearance. I cannot comment on the other templates. If you guys can agree on some kind of merger that preserves the purpose and effect of {{Revisions sandboxed}}, I would not oppose.--Goodmorningworld (talk)

• Keep and bot-expire faster. I agree with the nominator’s premiss that all of Wikipedia is under construction. I’ve never liked these “under construction” templates because they tend to be like that old 1987 calendar in your grandfather’s barn: why doesn’t someone just take it down? These templates serve a valuable purpose but they simply aren’t being pulled down soon enough. By exploiting bots, we can have a win-win here where these templates effectively have a “sell-by” expiration date.

  If I’m creating an article, I do it on my own user page or sub-page and post it only after it’s halfway presentable. Perhaps not all editors do that; not all editors are registered so they can’t avail themselves of such resources. I would propose that the template be kept and that a bot remove all these templates after 24 hours. If the user still feels the page needs a disclaimer that says, in effect, “this page isn’t ready for prime time”, they can put the {under construction} back in (for another 24 hours).

  I would further propose that a bot also troll for {dubious} tags and similar tags. They should be removed if the issue hasn’t been actively worked after a reasonable period of time. I’ve seen stale, old {dubious} tags on articles and when I looked at the talk page, the issue had been discussed for a few days six months prior and hadn’t been worked since. Whoever placed the tag in the first place would have to be active enough on the debate to notice that a bot removed it and could then put the {dubious} tag back in. Having a bot doing this would obviously get rid of tags on long-abandoned issues. And it has another virtue: in most cases there are vitriolic disputes that results in an editor placing the {disputed} tag. In many of those cases, editors who have slapped the {disputed} tag have embroiled themselves in an RfC as a result of their conduct. Such a bot can help these disputes to die a natural death while giving parties a way to save face. Greg L (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I very strongly oppose this suggestion. Quite often, one knows enough to find a statement implausible without necessarily being able to replace it; this would shift the burden from the editor who wishes to include a statement in Wikipedia onto the skeptic; that's contrary to WP:V. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I believe, you are referring to my last point above (easy-out for editors who placed a {disputed} tag). The idea isn’t to stack the deck against the vociferous protester (although that seems appealing to my inner child). If the {disputed} tag is removed by a bot after a week and the debate is still ongoing, it’s trivial enough for the editor to put it back. But this bot action would give such an editor a way of saving face if they’ve bitten off more than they can chew and are looking for a way out. I’ve seen this sort of thing before: {dispute} tag → bickering on talk page → RfC → ANI → administrator rolling their eyes over childish behavior on both sides → mediation requests → (rinse & repeat). Having a bot automatically delete the {disputed} tag just gives everyone a chance to step away from the scrap because the first-round bell rang. I’m sure there are plenty of instances where the complaining editor will slap the {disputed} tag right back in and go for round #2… for another week. There is no problem.

  And if you’re talking about {dubious} tags, why leave such a tag in place if everyone had a three-day debate and walked away and the tag is still there a half-year later? I’ve removed several of these because the issues had been abandoned. No one ever put them back in. A bot can do this better than I can. Greg L (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Because quite often there is no debate, just a tag and a question on talk, which is never replied to. It is that point at which the burden of proof is shifted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not something a bot should be doing; it rquires reading the discussion and seeing if it was settled. Start a taskforce; they're likely to be clueless, but a bot is certain to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I’m just not understanding the logic of your point. I would have thought that if a bot fells a “dubious-tag tree” in a forest and there is no one around to hear it fall (no human who gives a holy dump about the deletion who could restore it for another week), then by definition, it makes no noise; the issue had been abandoned. Let me ask you this: If a bot deletes a tag and no one even notices that it was deleted, then how would having left that rusty ol’ tag in the article have been a good thing? Greg L (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You assume that everyone who ever wrote an article, everyone who ever posted a "this seems dubious" note, is still actively watching the page. That is plainly not the case.
  • We could, under such circumstances, routinely remove the challenged text; we could also, as you suggest, routinely remove the tag. Both would be wrong, because such matters should not be decided as bureaucratic routine; routinely removing the tag is the worse of the two. Leave the claim; leave the tag; and eventually someone will come along who has a source, and will decide the matter intelligently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep/Merge: The one main reason this template is because it says so on the very first line: This page is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. On active and constructive pages, it should be useful for users to be aware abotu how there are large-scale edits occuring. Ay ^{(Reply!,Contribs!)} 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep {{inuse}} (even though it's not explicitly nominated here), it is very useful to some to have a template saying "I am actively editing this article, please don't edit conflict me". See for example the discussion here. I have no opinion on the rest, except to note that merging {{underconstruction}} with {{inuse}} would effectively destroy the utility of {{inuse}}. Anomie⚔ 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment User:JL-Bot is currently approved to remove stale under-construction templates, and appears to be currently running. Anomie⚔ 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge Hopefully someone could develop a single template that would do all of the current functionality. The {{inuse}} and {{inuse-section}} templates are critical for reducing conflicts and they need to be kept if merging is not possible. I think I'm the king of getting edit conflicts. I would support an expiry time on these templates. I'm not sure it should be only an hour, but contributors are given too much leeway with no limit. Royalbroil 02:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all except {{PageRefurb}} and {{Revisions sandboxed}}. The system is fine as it is, other than that. I therefore also oppose all of Lightmouse's additional suggestions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Parserfunctions maybe able to help out with stale templates. Using the {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} we can tell when the page was last edited magic word. For example this page was last edited 521 minutes ago, although this is a buggy being off by whatever the timezone is set to. — Dispenser 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep one meaning under construction and one meaning in use. I see these as two different things. I never understand "under construction" to mean "don't touch". To me it serves two purposes: (1) "I *know* this doesn't look like a great article yet, please excuse the appearance, I'm working on it in place (though it seems to me that in that case the person could have built it in a sandbox first) and (2) please don't delete it yet, I know what the deficiencies are but they're fixable and I'm working on them." "In use", on the other hand, should be used for a very short period of time to mean, "I'm making a series of short edits and instead of subjecting me to dozens of 'Edit Conflict' messages it would be nice if I could just get through this." I didn't know about the sandbox revisions one, and I don't think it's fair to other users. I think the policy says, and rightly so, that it's the sandboxing person who's then responsible for merging his work with changes that were made subsequent to his original copy.—Largo Plazo (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep {{Underconstruction}} and {{Inuse}} and merge the rest. --Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• This sprawling discussion makes clear one thing: these templates should have been nominated and discussed individually. I've used {{Underconstruction}} (so keep) in an article that has no lead section because I write the introduction last when I'm writing about a topic I've not surveyed sufficiently. The {{inuse}} would have been helpful in avoiding some edit conflicts, but I prefer avoiding the "big lock" approach (so weak keep). VG ☎ 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:FGwiki

Template:FGwiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

As stated at WP:EL, external links shouldn't be made to open wikis. While WP:EL isn't policy, I believe that http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/FGwiki is a poor wiki in my opinion. I never understood why you would want to link to another wiki. It is kind of like Wal Mart advertising for Target CTJF83Talk 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Because they have detail we don't think notable; how many deletion discussions end by saying that the article belongs on the fannish wiki? This doesn't mean we shouldn't link to them. This boldly idenrifies the link as not to us, and not bound by our standards; that should be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:MtyMetro3

Template:MtyMetro3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused, appatently dropped in favor of Template:MtyMetro1 RUL3R (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As nom said, Template:MtyMetro1 is the same, and a better looking template, IMO. CTJF83Talk 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Roman myth (major)

Template:Roman myth (major) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Poor copy version of this template: Template:Roman religion. 91.77.93.127 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Template:Roman religion has the same, and more info. CTJF83Talk 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Certainly delete, but maybe even speedy delete, as this appears to be a {{db-t3}} candidate to me. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Not T3, this has a different functionality: it's a page footer. Such as it is, that is also the case to Keep; if someone, now or hereafter, wants myth articles done that way, here is the tool. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Variable Geo character

Template:Variable Geo character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused. Pagrashtak 13:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unused template CTJF83Talk 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:TOS character

Template:TOS character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused. Pagrashtak 13:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unused template CTJF83Talk 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Star Control race

Template:Infobox Star Control race (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused. Pagrashtak 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unused template CTJF83Talk 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:KCR Infobox

Template:KCR Infobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Does nothing but add a single category. Not an infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete but add the category Category:Former KCR stations to each templated article in the usual fashion (as the category seems fine, although KCR should be expanded). Occuli (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary

Template:Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This template has no navigational value without links. Probably not particularly useful even if it did. Wolfer68 (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no navigational value and Template:Billboard takes care of the charts that have pages. CTJF83Talk 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-flag

Template:PD-US-flag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

All US State, District or Insular area flags are public domain? ^{[citation needed]}

Basically, there is no rationale or citation supporting this claim. ViperSnake151 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 06:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) -- Seems a little more complex than an unnecessary template or something, so I'm not comfortable deleting without a little more input. delldot ∇. 06:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Indiana Jones character

Template:Indiana Jones character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Used only by 5 articles. Magioladitis (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - I agree, it is redundant. 71.183.225.182 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

October 12

Template:Football Clubs in Cheshire

Template:Football Clubs in Cheshire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

A seemingly arbitrary template; there is no criteria for inclusion beyond being in Cheshire (and there are probably thousands of football clubs in the county). Unclear why this is necessary. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - if this stays, we would have similar templates for every county/city in the UK, followed by the rest of the world. Furthermore, the template does not appear to be used on any of the articles included in it. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. - fchd (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Category:Sport in Cheshire is more than sufficient. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cquote

Template:Cquote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This was just brought up at a Featured article candidacy, but curly quotes violate the Manual of Style. Redundant with other quote templates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

They don't violate the MOS. Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation marks says there are two options, and merely recommends typewriter quotes. But the latter would look extra stupid in this template which emphasizes this typographic element. Nevertheless, the formatting violates the MOS regarding block quotations, which shouldn't have quotation marks (so the template should have a background image instead of literal quotation mark characters), we have too many such presentational templates, and the cartoony “blog” look doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. So I vote to delete. —Michael Z. 2008-10-12 16:18 z

• Speedy keep - We've been here before.--Qyd (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A TfD from almost two years ago means consensus can change... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Concerns raised then (regarding accessibility) have been addressed, while the appearance and MOS compliancy (point raised here) has not changed. Furthermore, this is a widely used template, the tfd message defaces thousands of pages, all the more reason to speedy . Speedier even than wait for WP:SNOW. --Qyd (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • With any due respect, the fact that there are tfd messages on pages where the template is used is a crappy (and invalid) reason to speedy keep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:User Roma Antica

Template:User Roma Antica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Much like the Ancient Rome templates already in existence. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please Keep this Template. I have reviewed the other Templates dealing with Rome and Ancient Rome, and request this template be kept as different in interest and intent. It's purpose is to reflect a keen interest in Latinity and it's history. Also, let me mention, I wasn't able to finish the Template before you have already requested it's deletion. Thanks. Gaston200 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as I don't see how deleting this template will help anyone or improve Wikipedia in any way. If people want to use that particular template on their user pages, why not? Also, userboxes should be listed at WP:MFD, not WP:TFD. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Thailand Hospitals

Template:Thailand Hospitals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This navbox template provides absolutely no advantage over the existing category. As it is virtually impossible to include all 1,604 Thai hospitals (see http://www.rajavejubol.com/board/index.php?topic=10.0 ) in the template, this template will only serve as a reflection of the category and will require constant effort in updating when new articles are created, likely resulting in out-of-datedness. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates recommends against the use of navigation templates in this situation. Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Utah college radio

Template:Utah college radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

unnecessary navbox template, includes only a single link Rtphokie (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

delete template for a single link?! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per my explanation here (which Utah is included). User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 06:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 11

Template:Pokémon locations

Template:Pokémon locations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Pokémon regions have been merged into a single article based a consensus discussion. There is no need for this template, as the table of contents of the article itself is sufficient for navigation. Randomran (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No longer necessary. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No longer any use for it. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete redundant, all locations are in one article now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, seeing as the articles included in the template have now all been merged into one article. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no longer useful for inter-article navigation. Pagrashtak 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Carolingian templates

Template:Carolingians, Aquitaine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) (second nomination)

Template:Carolingians, Middle Francia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) (third nomination)

Template:Carolingians, East Francia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) (second nomination)

Template:Carolingians, West Francia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) (third nomination)

All these templates are cluttersome sidebars that squeeze text, create white space, and prevent the efficient use of images. They are useless to boot because they are nothing but incomplete genealogies with no clear indicator to the reader of the (ir)relevance of the (limited) information they contain. Each of these templates could be replaced with a less obstructive footer template, as has already been made available for the West Frankish kings. Srnec (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

October 10

Template:BILru and Template:PIru

Template:BILru (edit|talk|history|