Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 16

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Sutton 13}}

No indication that this "group" of 13 uni's is used outside the scope of one UK charity. Mtking ^(edits) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

: Support deletion - this was purely a group of universities identified by one charity for the purposes of enabling it to monitor social inclusion and a template is WP:UNDUE. The description of the 13 in the Sutton Trust article is sufficient.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

: Delete. This isn't a formal association of universities, just a list compiled by the Sutton Trust and so I don't think it warrants a template. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

: Delete per nom. --John (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Teargarden}}

According to WP:NAVBOX, a navigational template is for easing navigation between related and existing articles. On this template, Teargarden by Kaleidyscope, Vol. 1: Songs for a Sailor, Teargarden by Kaleidyscope, Vol. 2: The Solstice Bare, Vol. 3 and Owata all redirect back to Teargarden by Kaleidyscope. Sweet Relief Musicians Fund and The Tear Garden are completely irrelevant, and The Vampire Diaries and The Fool (Tarot card) are only marginally related. This only leaves four directly related articles—Oceania (album), A Song for a Son, Widow Wake My Mind (The Smashing Pumpkins song) (which probably wouldn't survive an AFD) and Freak (The Smashing Pumpkins song)—all of which are already collected on {{tl|The Smashing Pumpkins}}. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Half the items are redirects, and another group of them should probably be removed altogether due to being irrelevant. Once you remove the things that shouldn't be on there, there's only 3 or so actual items, which is not enough to warrant the template, especially since those items are already on the overall band navbox. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

: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 after substitution Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Ship fate box target}}

Most of these are unused, see below, but this one is still being used in a handful of articles. I think it should be substituted and deleted, or, create a more advanced, single {{tld|ship fate}} template which includes "target" as one of the options. I would have grouped this one with the ones below, but it is technically still in use. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Substitute and delete. Simple text substitution. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Substitute and delete and the other templates you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Ship+Homeport&namespace=10 mentioned] should go the same way albeit with a separate nom. Brad (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

: {{Tfd links|Ship aircraft box Arleigh Burke class destroyer II}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship aircraft box Arleigh Burke class destroyer I}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship aircraft box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship aircraft box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship aircraft table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship aircraft}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship armament}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship armament box Arleigh Burke class destroyer III}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship armament box Arleigh Burke class destroyer II}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship armament box Arleigh Burke class destroyer I}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship armament box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship armament box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship armament table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship armour table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship armor table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship boats table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship box USS Radford (DD-120)}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship builder table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship capacity table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship capacity table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship captured table 2 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship captured table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship captured table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship career table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship career 2 table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship christened table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship commissioned table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship commissioned table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship commissioned table 2 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship complement box Arleigh Burke class destroyer II}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship complement box Arleigh Burke class destroyer I}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship complement box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship complement box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship complement}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship decommissioned table 1 no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship decommissioned table 2 no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship decommissioned table 2 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship decommissioned table 2nd yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship decommissioned table 3 no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship decommissioned table 3 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship decommissioned table 4 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship decommissioned table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship displacement box Arleigh Burke class destroyer III}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship displacement box Arleigh Burke class destroyer II}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship displacement box Arleigh Burke class destroyer I}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship displacement box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship displacement box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship displacement}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship draught box Arleigh Burke class destroyer}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship draught box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship draught box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship draught table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship draught variant uk}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship draught variant us}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship draught}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship endurance box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship endurance box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship endurance table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship endurance table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 building}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 in reserve}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 museum ship}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 ordered}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 scrapped}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 sunk enemy action}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 target}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 transferred}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 unknown}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box 2 wrecked}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box awaiting disposal}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box disposed}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box exploded}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box in reserve}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box museum ship}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box ordered}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box scrapped}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box scuttled}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box sold for commercial service}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box sunk enemy action}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box transferred}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box unknown}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate box wrecked}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate table 2 fate}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate table 2 status}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship fate table status}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship homeport table 2 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship homeport table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship homeport table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship honours table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship in service table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship in service table 2 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship in service table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship length box Arleigh Burke class destroyer I}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship length box Arleigh Burke class destroyer II}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship length box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship length box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship length}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship motto table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship nickname table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship out of service table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship out of service table 2 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship out of service table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship propulsion box Arleigh Burke class destroyer}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship propulsion box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship propulsion box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship purchased table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship purchased table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship range box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship range table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship recommissioned table 1 no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship recommissioned table 2 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship recommissioned table 2 no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship recommissioned table 3 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship recommissioned table 3 no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship recommissioned table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship recommissioned table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship reinstated table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship reinstated table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship renamed table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship sensors box Arleigh Burke class destroyer II}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship sensors box Arleigh Burke class destroyer I}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship sensors box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship sensors box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship sensors table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship sensors table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship speed box Arleigh Burke class destroyer}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship speed}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship status table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship struck table 2 yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship struck table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table box EW yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table box armament yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table box armour yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table box capacity yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table box home port yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table box range yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table box sensors yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table box time to activate yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table career yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table code decommissioned}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table code}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table commissioned}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship table decommissioned}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship time to activate box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship time to activate table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship time to activate table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship EW box Arleigh Burke class destroyer II}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship EW box Arleigh Burke class destroyer I}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship EW box Invincible class aircraft carrier}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship EW box none}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship EW table no}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship EW table yes}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship EW}}

: {{Tfd links|Ship Homeport PEN}}

: :Category:Military shipbox templates

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Does that include everything at User:GraemeLeggett#A_little_project? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, plus about 20 more. If you do a prefix search, you will find about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Ship+Homeport&namespace=10 six or seven more] which I didn't list (because they were not orphaned) and a load of redirects, which should probably go with these if they are orphaned. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, provided they are all in fact "old and unused". I can see no reason to keep these arcane and obsolete templates, many of which seem to date from the days before ParserFunctions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Most of these templates were discussed at WP:ships here in November 2009 but they were never deleted. The templates were used in an outdated infobox which has long been replaced and deleted. Brad (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Sheffield Supertram insert}}

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:Yes, a much more generalised system of railway templates has been developed since I created this template in 2005, so it is no longer required. David Arthur (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Settlecollapse}}

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, I'm the sole author and have no need for it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Serkland Runestones}}

superceded by template:Ingvar Runestones. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:Since the article it was created for no longer exists I'd support a delete /Lokal_Profil 13:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Serie A de Ecuador}}

unused and provides no useful navigation. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Serbian historical regions}}

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Sgn}}

This template was created five years ago and remains without a single transclusion (discounting the doc & the template page itself). It's a very simple mathematical function that can easily be coded using #expr. I suppose that it's not used because it's too simplistic to be worth having a template for. (I know I've coded the same thing with {{#expr:({{{1}}}>0)-({{{1}}}<0)}}.) JIMp _talk·cont 02:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• We really don't need to maintain general-purpose mathematical helper templates just for the sake of it. Were it in use then there might be a reason to keep this around, but not when it's been long unused. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

: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, given that this is one of a larger series, it would seem useful to keep it for consistency. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Gmina Chełm Śląski}}

WP:NENAN or how I learned to stop worrying and three articles does not a template warrant. Liquidcheeze (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

---

• Relisting comment, this appears to be one of a large series of templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Cite GameFAQs}}

The template is used on 3 articles to cite unreliable pages on the website. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources, GameFAQs is not generally considered a reliable source. Template is also superseded by, and a wrapper of, {{tl|cite web}}. Odie5533 (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:The page that it is used to cite are deemed reliable at WP:VG/S#Situational sources. It is the data page where the info comes from developers and shared databases across IGN, Gamespot, and others. If it is unreliable, then so is every date out there from any database.

:There are a few select dates that are user-submitted and reviewed. Those are clearly marked as such. Those we do not consider reliable, but as mentioned, they will be clearly marked as such with the user's alias to give them credit. If they lack anything, they are from that database or sumbitted by the game's developer.

:I will also note I reverted the long-standing change made by the nominator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Video_games%2FSources&action=historysubmit&diff=448440069&oldid=447374673 here]o the guideline in order to help get this template removed. There was no discussion at WT:VG/S or the main talk page prior to his nominator that would support this. I request this as a SPEEDY KEEP considering the circumstances.陣内_Jinnai 18:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::My change was not vandalism as your edit summary suggests. I did not even know this template existed when I made that change and it had absolutely nothing to do with this nomination. The change was made 6 days ago and is hardly long-standing. Your accusations clearly go against the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, are misguided, and false. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• We don't need wrappers for citation of every given website, especially those which aren't generally reliable sources. Nor does the argument for a speedy keep here carry any water. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• It is because there are numerous points we need to cite dates for release, and only such dates. The template is designed to reduce page load on larger articles and list articles with numerous links. It is being used and it is a reliable source for what I've mentioned above. It is designed in such a way that it cannot be used to cite anything but said page.陣内_Jinnai 03:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• How does it "reduce page load" to call {{tl|cite web}} through a wrapper template? You'd reduce load even more just by calling it directly. It's still not obvious why a sub-template is needed here: are you suggesting that using a sub-template somehow blesses these particular transclusions with "slightly more reliable" status? Because that's an editorial issue to be enforced with consensus on those few pages where this comes up rather than enforced through a template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete overly specific, just use {{tl|cite web}}. It saves what? Two characters? Yeah, that's really gonna save the strain. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• It's quite a pain in the ass when you have to add 50 cites to the same website that can be handled much more smoothly with a template.
• Anyway, if this is deleted, I would ask that a bot go in and change the references to cite web because it'll impact multiple pages which will suddenly have unusable refs.陣内_Jinnai 03:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would ask that any vote to keep or delete this template wait until the discussion at WT:VG/S#Gamespot concludes. Gamespot shares the database with GameFAQs as noted from the link there and Gamespot is generally considered reliable for its dates. As the main arguments for deleting this are based on the fact that GameFAQs is was recently changed its status from a situational source (reliable for their release info page) to unreliable.陣内_Jinnai 22:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'd argue that even if GameFAQs was a reliable source, we still don't need this template. So there is no need to wait. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Just because you don't personally use it, doesn't mean it doesn't have uses, especially in long lists.陣内_Jinnai 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

---

{{{{
safesubst:}}}#tag:ref| {{cite web|url=http://www.gamefaqs.com/{{{num|{{{id}}}}}}/data|title= {{{title|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}PAGENAME}}}}}|publisher=GameFAQs|accessdate={{{date
}}}} }}

• delete after replacement with a standard {{tl|cite web}} template. If the author wants a fast method for generating these references, I would be happy to help him develop a shortcut in userspace which can be substituted to generate the same result (see above) and include the ref tags around it. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

: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, unused, can be revived if needed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|WikiProject Myrtle Beach}}

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for now - Althought his template is currently deprecated (only became so in the last month) I think we need to keep it for a little while longer along with the others associated to WikiProject United States. I will modify the template to be a wrapper and I think that will sufficiently solve the problem. I don't think there's any harm in leaving it for a while in case the project decides to break away from US. --Kumioko (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Cumbrian Coast Line}}

Superseded by "Cumbrian Coast Line" section of {{tl|Cumbria railway stations}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I prefer its vertical format to the cramped format of {{tl|Cumbria railway stations}}. But if anyone ever wants it back, it can easily be re-created from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cumbrian_Coast_Line&oldid=15735233 this historical state] - I should have acknowledged in the edit summary whence I had copied it. — RHaworth {{toolbar|separator=dot|talk | contribs }} 08:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• KeepDelete (see below) and expand to a route map. There's a big difference between the coast line as a primarily geographic list and a vast block of station names that is almost unintelligible, owing to its size. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep the two templates seem to be designed for different purposes - {{temp|Cumbrian Coast Line}} looks to be intended as an inline listing of principal stations on the line in the style of a routebox (which it could easily become); {{temp|Cumbria railway stations}} is an end-of-article navbox listing every station. Neither it redundant to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

---

• delete as unused and redundant or redirect to {{tl|Cumbrian Coast Line RDT}}. Andy Dingley and Thryduulf say we should convert it to a routebox, but if we did that it would then be redundant to {{tld|Cumbrian Coast Line RDT}}. So, I see no valid keep votes here. Frietjes (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

: Even better. I'm for deletion then, after we've changed any uses of it to use {{tl|Cumbrian Coast Line RDT}} instead. There's no even a problem with size. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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