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.
Unused Mhiji (talk) 18:08, 12 December 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.
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.
Useless navbox Mhiji (talk) 18:02, 12 December 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.
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.
Unused. Blanked in April and not touched since. Mhiji (talk) 18:01, 12 December 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.
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.
Unused. Now unnecessary Mhiji (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been standard practice to use these calendars on Olympics pages. Please reference 2008 Summer Olympics and 2010 Winter Olympics. I'd suggest re-integrating it back into the article instead of deleting it all together. Jared(t) 03:17, 17 December 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.
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.
Unused. Not a template. Mhiji (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and not useful for anything in its current state. --RL0919 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 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.
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 speedily deleted by Athaenara Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. All red links Mhiji (talk) 17:59, 12 December 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.
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.
Delete. Unused and redundant to a better-formatted template. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 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.
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/Speedy delete. Joke, or otherwise useless template. RichFarmbrough, 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unused. Pointless! Mhiji (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – {{multiple issues}} already takes care of this. —mc10 (t/c) 21:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Wow, there's a lot of tags on this article! I guess I'll have to add another tag to it to tell everyone that there are a lot of tags on it." --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this was a joke anyway...
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 delete. JPG-GR (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:24, 15 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. Nearly all red. Mhiji (talk) 13:10, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. Nearly all red. Mhiji (talk) 13:09, 12 December 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.
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. Mhiji (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Used again now. Standardised template (used for all election articles). —Nightstallion 09:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 10:19, 15 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And also inaccurate. I'm not sure if ActiveWiki does public domain anymore. CompuHacker (talk) 19:25, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 13:00, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary Mhiji (talk) 13:00, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Not a template. Mhiji (talk) 12:26, 12 December 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.
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 as redundant to {{WPbox}}Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unless there is a duplicate somewhere. CompuHacker (talk) 19:26, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Not a template - just text Mhiji (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simple text inappropriate for a template. Seems to be an Arabic name itself, so should not be a template anyways. 65.93.15.73 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 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.
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.
Keep this is the older template, and "The Arctic Tundra" seems to be misnamed, since many of the topics are not about the tundra. Therefore, merge "The Arctic Tundra" into this template and replace all instances with this template. 65.93.15.73 (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concur with above analyses by Anon user, good argument. SriMesh | talk 02:27, 14 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like it goes against policy and guidelines for article layout. 65.93.15.73 (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. If people are confused they can get to the talk page themselves. I also don't like the informal wording of the button. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:51, 13 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:06, 19 December 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.
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. Mhiji (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A brief look at the templates shows a crucial difference between the two. (I unaccountably forgot to transclude it too, hrm!) Miracle Pen (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what is the crucial difference? Mhiji (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
REDNOT doesn't say that. All it says is that templates shouldn't have links to articles that will never be created. Miracle Pen (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It says, "Red links are generally not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes". Mhiji (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it says "generally" - redlinks are OK for completeness' sake if the articles are going to be created; that's why there are so many templates with red links that never get removed. It also serves as a reminder to actually commence the articles. We can speedy close this discussion now. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic you could ignore every guideline or policy which has the word generally in it... The reason that sentence is there is to state that it is common practice and thus consensus so we should follow it the most of the time, unless there are exceptional circumstances where we should ignore it. Mhiji (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The template is part of a series of election templates for all states (and countries) - see Category:Australia election year templates - and as noted above, also covers referendums. The solution is to remove them from the other template to avoid duplication. Number57 16:48, 13 December 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.
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 G2 and G7. Mhiji (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been off WP for a while. I'm intending to come back and make this a useful template. The JS found atUser:Inductiveload/Template autoloader.js would allow you to paste in the relevant code from the edit page without having to load up the Template docs and find the bit you want. It's already working for Infobox book, but that obviously not the only use for it. If every long template like an infobox had that, it would be much easier to get a blank template in place than it is now. Inductiveload (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad, I forgot that that page was a test page. Delete it, the JS no longer requires it. Inductiveload (talk) 15:16, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 12:11, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 12:07, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. Nearly all red. Not useful. Mhiji (talk) 12:03, 12 December 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.
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. Mhiji (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary Mhiji (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' I posted it on the page now. FYI, the Militia are one of the more notable teams in women's football, having won their league's championship last year. BTW, I have no idea where you come across as dismissing templates without a thought or care-it's gonna take more than just two words to get this deleted. (You can add "uncivil" to your description) Tom Danson (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you're saying - those last 2 sentences don't make sense... But keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 16:23, 13 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary Mhiji (talk) 12:00, 12 December 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.
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 UserfytoUser:Neelix/Asian topic so it can be improved prior to placing it back in template space or merging it with an existing template. --RL0919 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto{{Asia topic}} -- the standardized name for these templates, and for which it is entirely redundant with (which is not the case with "Countries of Asia". 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix - This template needs to be fixed, not deleted. It is supposed to create demonym strings such as "Iraqi literature" and "Russian cuisine". I don't know how to fix the code to make this happen, but this would be a very useful template if it worked properly. Neelix (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not intended to be a duplicate of Template:Asia topic. It only duplicates the functionality of that template currently because it isn't working properly. Broken templates do not need to be deleted; they need to be fixed. I do not understand the coding sufficiently to make it do what it is intended to do, but there must be someone who does. Template:Asia topic creates strings with country names, such as "Culture of Iraq" and "History of Russia". Template:Asian topic, however, is supposed to create strings with demonyms, such as "Iraqi literature" and "Russian literature". This is a valuable template, if only a user sufficiently knowledgeable about the code would fix it. Neelix (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what was intended, it's still a duplicate. Unused duplicates should be speedily deleted per T3. If in the future someone wishes to make a useful template they can still easily copy the code from {{Asia topic}} and adapt it. There's no point keeping this in it's current state. Mhiji (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Neelix. I did the same thing once before, several months ago. I began a deletion proceding on a similar-type demonym template. Can't remember the specific template, but the way it was explained to me (and there are several of these distinct model templates), they each have different functions, as Neelix very clearly explained. These are excellent templates, and some of them need tweaking, that's all.
After searching my archives and finding our old conversation in the section, Demonym-affixing templates, I feel it necessary to pull my "Keep". That discussion took place a little over a year ago, Neelix, so there has been ample time for you to find expert help to fix those templates. Since you feel they still are not ready to be transcluded to the various articles they would improve, then perhaps Mhiji is right. It might be better for you to userfy them until you can find a way to make them functional?
That would be fine. I just don't want the templates to be labelled recreations of deleted material once they are functional and are reinstated. I have left messages on the walls of relevant WikiProjects hoping that someone who knows enough about the code will be able to make them work; any suggestions at how else I might go about fixing them would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once they are functional and reinstated, the transclusion process will begin, and the article improvements made. When that happens, it might be a good idea to use images, or some other "eye-catcher", that would give editors a solid headsup to the fact that DATs perform a different function. I sincerely wish I had the code savvy to help you, but when I looked at them a year ago, I was unable to accurately assess the problem that needs fixed, let alone make suggestions about repairs. I couldn't figure out what they were not doing. The Projects idea sounds fair, but those people are usually pretty overworked and backed up. You've already brought the DATs a long way, so what are the chances of your learning more about the code yourself so you can finish them without help?
I may be able to figure out the code myself; I'll certainly give it another try. I may be able to order some books through my local library. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual has a section on editing with JavaScript. Do you know if that's the language I need to be better versed in so I can fix the DATs? Also, I want to be clear on what you mean by using images or other eye-catchers; are you suggesting that I make the DATs look different in some way from the country-name-affixing templates? Neelix (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the Java code, but the name of the code that I'm familiar with is the Wiki markup. You might also try the superb although overworked experts over at Bugzilla. Those guys truly know what they're doing when it comes to code. As for the "eye-catcher", I suppose it depends upon your final target. If you want to use the DATs as separate templates from the CNATs, then unless you devise a way to make them look different, you will have constant problems with DELETE and MERGE editors. If on the other hand your final target is more like editor Mhiji's merge idea below, which by the way does sound like a viable goal, then you'll probably get there shortly after you perfect the DATs and before you begin the transclusions. Either way, the global applications for both the CNATs and the DATs provide an excellent motivation to continue and finish the work. The DAT's, whether separate or internally combined with the CNATs, will be mindbending improvements to the articles that get them!
Just a thought, how about merging {{Asia topic}} and {{Asian topic}} (and similarly all of the other continents), with a parameter that could be turned on to switch between the two formats? (I have no idea about coding either but I'd have thought it should be possible just to adapt the Asia template to do this...?) Mhiji (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, and probably a lot easier than us non-experts could ever imagine! <g>
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 delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Nearly all red links Mhiji (talk) 01:55, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Originally had an image that was removed. No use for it now. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:45, 13 December 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.
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. G6 - consisted of non-free image. Jujutaculartalk 05:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. It's just a link to a picture. Mhiji (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. The picture in question apparently wasn't allowed to be used in templates. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:47, 13 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navboxes. Very little navigation. Loads of red links. Mhiji (talk) 01:41, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 01:37, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page, Shrink individual templates. On their own, these could be useful on their respective WikiProjects or on individual userpages. As they stand now though they are way too big. Shrink them, and maybe they can be put together in a template box. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:41, 13 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Not a template. Mhiji (talk) 01:36, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. Only actually links 2 bus station articles Mhiji (talk) 01:35, 12 December 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.
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.
Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and document into Template:Check mark templates ... seems like a good idea, since the image is used for more specific templates, and this is a generalized template. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above; I think I made this once when I needed it, couldn't find a template in amongst the other similar ones. Sorry, sadly didn't do the full documentation. I certainly see it doing no harm, and could be useful as a shortcut for the inline image. And we're not short on space. Chzz ► 16:19, 13 December 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.
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. Mhiji (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the navbox back to the appropriate pages. A user went around and removed them for some reason from the articles. I'll just remove the red links. Eagles24/7(C) 01:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Keep then. Mhiji (talk) 02:02, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, unnecessary. Just a link. Mhiji (talk) 01:32, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Mhiji (talk) 01:27, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page is redundant and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.163.255.25 (talk) 05:42, 14 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Nearly all red links. Mhiji (talk) 01:23, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused Mhiji (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We can convert the images into a gallery and delete the template. Chris (talk) 13:18, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. Nearly all red links. Mhiji (talk) 01:16, 12 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navboxes. Only links 2 players in all 6 navboxes. Mhiji (talk) 01:16, 12 December 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.
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.
Unused navbox. Nearly all red links. Mhiji (talk) 01:10, 12 December 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.
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.
Unused, unnecessary Mhiji (talk) 01:06, 12 December 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.
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. If there is something missing, it can be recovered from the edit history and merged. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had no idea of Template:Airports in Turkey when I created the Template:Airports of Turkey. After all, one spends a considerable time and energy to create a new template. Since they are almost the same, I have no objection against delation. However after comparing the two templates, I saw a slight difference between the two. The template "in Turkey" referes to all airports (including those airports out of service) and the "of Turkey" refers to active airports.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:30, 14 December 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.
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. There appears to be some desire to delete the other one, since Northern Ireland and Ireland are not part of the same country, but that should be debated in another discussion. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ireland and Republic of Ireland are not logically equivalent. One is an island, the other is a country and they are not coterminous. A big chunk in the Northeast is part of the island but not the country. These templates are usually country based. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what's the point in keeping both? Are you suggesting the airport articles should have both navboxes at the bottom?! Mhiji (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing both templates, since you only nominated this one. We're discussing the one for the Republic. 65.93.15.73 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep family of airports in templates are based on countries not geographical areas so this one should be used and the other one considered for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if you want to delete the other template you need to add the tfd template to it. I suggest directing the discussion to here rather than having two discussions in parallel. I would prefer to delete the Republic template and keep the island template; "usually" country based does not mean "necessarily" country based, and I think there are valid reasons for treating the two jurisdictions together (think of Aer Lingus transferring flights from Shannon to Belfast) Airports in Northern Ireland can use both {{Airports in Ireland}} and {{Airports in the United Kingdom}}, just as airports in Scotland are in both {{Airports in Scotland}} and {{Airports in the United Kingdom}}. jnestorius(talk) 13:15, 12 December 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.
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 T3 and G7. Mhiji (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. All links are redirects. Mhiji (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Mhiji. It seems to have been taken over in function by Template:Trudi_Canavan, Sadads (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also concur with Mhiji. Purpose has gone - it has changed content too much. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:41, 15 December 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.
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.
All unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The APBiology 2009/2010 (first three on the above list) are appended to various talk pages of the articles that were extensively edited by the AP Biology project; including several which moved from stub class to FA. (As an example Talk:Bog turtle). The "Bapst" - templates I suspect are not in use since that school's project never got off the ground.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, hadn't realised they were used as it said there weren't any transclusions. Therefore, keep{{APBiology2009 FA}}, {{APBiology2010}} and {{APBiology2010 FA}}. Do you have any objections to deleting the other 2? Mhiji (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other two - I'm reasonably sure that project never got off the ground.--JimmyButler (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised, they're not used - the one at Talk:Bog turtle article is {{APBiology2009FA}}. {{APBiology2009 FA}} is a duplicate of that. The other 4 aren't used either. Therefore, delete all. Mhiji (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - apparently we managed to create two versions of these in setting up the project - the diff being the space between Biology and the year. All of these templates can be deleted.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:13, 18 December 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.
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 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.
Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 22:48, 17 December 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.
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.
Unused navbox. Nearly all red. Mhiji (talk) 00:47, 12 December 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.
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 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.
Unused navbox. Mhiji (talk) 00:42, 12 December 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.
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 WP:G2, as tagged by the nominator. Airplaneman ✈ 05:04, 18 December 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.
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.
Unused navbox. The links are incorrect anyway as they are to English counties anyway? Think it may have been copied from Template:Bus routes in England. But don't think there's enough "List of bus route..." articles for Wales to justify a navbox. Mhiji (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: author removed tag so it wasn't on the template for just under 2 days. Mhiji (talk) 12:00, 15 December 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.
