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. Garion96 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template. Has trivial content about election results of particular year in particular Constituency. Used only in 1 page (constituency) and at times in state results page. The data has been substituted into the page or subpage has been created and used as template. Hence delete these templates and 1 category. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - substituted and unused, and inappropriate use of templates. Terraxos (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only if template has been substituted into article or subpage in appropriate namespace. Subpages in article space are disallowed, as they may be reached via "random article." See Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses and Wikipedia:Subpages#Articles do not have sub-pages (main namespace). (I voice this concern because I have deleted several "templates" created in article subpage today.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (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 --The Helpful One 11:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Whole Day Edit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A self-reference. And a bossy one at that. This kind of thing shouldn't be visible to readers. If the message is necessary it should be done with invisible HTML comments. Flowerparty^☀ 10:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sentiment is covered by {{current sport}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as far as I know, there is no policy on this, and it's up to the individual editor to determine how he or she will edit. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Really bad idea. People who see this sort of thing will simply respond by not editing the articles at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally unnecessary. //roux   20:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - offputting and usually not even applicable six out of seven days of the week. —Ed Cormany (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - bossy, stupid, and unneeded. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 00:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really bad idea indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is inconveniant tryng to edit a page that has a fair amount of statistics on it when its half done. NeilCanada (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sentiment of this template is about as subtle as a brick in the face. {{current sport}} does the same job but in a much more informative and user-friendly way. Bettia (rawr!) 11:41, 15 December 2008 (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. Happy‑melon 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Herb and spice mixtures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template. I am nominating this because it is no longer used on any article and the redirect is unneeded as such. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is nice of you to go through this lengthy process. It might qualify for Speedy Delete (T3-Unused template (duplicate/functionality provided by other template)). Kingturtle (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am doing it because of past disagreement over speedy deletes. I do not wish to go through them again. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 13:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely keep - Template was consolidated by proposing editor into a huge, unmanageable quite against consensus several months ago. Go back, develop consensus for the consolidation, then this proposal would be proper. Badagnani (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There has been no call for restoration of these templates since the time they were modified into redirects, or of the single use template that replaced them. They have laid unused since July, 2008. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - Good for herb and spice pages. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe that this user was referring to the template that replaced these three as they now redirect to it. I cannot ask for his reasoning as he has since been blocked. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete for the same reason the nominator states, it is no longer used. It is fine for a speedy delete as stated, but as there is a personal issue between editors, this is the most professional way.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2008 (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. Happy‑melon 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template. I am nominating this because it is no longer used on any article and the redirect is unneeded as such. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely keep - Template was consolidated by proposing editor into a huge, unmanageable quite against consensus several months ago. Go back, develop consensus for the consolidation, then this proposal would be proper. Badagnani (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Silence = consensus. If it was consolidated several months ago and there has been no consensus to change it back, then the consensus is de facto for the consolidated version. //roux   20:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete - as redundant. //roux   20:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete for the same reason the nominator states, it is no longer used, and is unnecessary from the redirect. If anyone cared, other than the one disentor here, an issue would've arisen earlier, but it has not I will be glad to delete it. --Chef Tanner (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2008 (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. Happy‑melon 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template. I am nominating this because it is no longer used on any article and the redirect is unneeded as such. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely keep - Template was consolidated by proposing editor into a huge, unmanageable quite against consensus several months ago. Go back, develop consensus for the consolidation, then this proposal would be proper. Badagnani (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per comments in Template:Herbs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) //roux   20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete for the same reason the nominator states, it is no longer used, and is unnecessary from the redirect.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A template being deprecated is not a reason for deletion, meaning this nomination is not reasonable. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - it isn't just depreciated, it is unused. There are no examples of these templates being used anywhere on WP and the redirects have no links to them at all. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at "What links here" and found many articles where transclusions are present. Did you bother to look. I don't see how deprecated templates should be deleted just because they are deprecated. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er... no. It's linked to a wikiproject page, and on its own talkpage, and nowhere else:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink (← links)
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Herbs and Spices task force (← links)
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Herbs and Spices task force (← links)
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink (← links)

That's kind of the definition of 'unused'. //roux   00:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, those pages that link to them are links are on the "AfD/TfD/CfD notices" sections of the project pages or links placed in discussions as opposed to usage on articles. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:09, 15 December 2008 (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. Happy‑melon 18:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Associations/Orders of magnitude (time) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ordersofmagnitudeseconds gives the same data and is all the same pages, also this template needs less work than the other to fix. Zginder 2008-12-10T03:17Z (UTC)

Delete. And remove its usage in related pages. Template:Ordersofmagnitudeseconds is already present on the pages where Template:Associations/Orders of magnitude (time) is used. Also, the latter has some redundant links, like 1 E-15 s, 1 E-14 s and 1 E-13 s which all point to 1 E-15 s. These have been elegantly linked in the former navbox template. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:05, 17 December 2008 (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) 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Own wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, used on no pages. Redundant to external links section in any case. roux   02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Super speedy ultra delete Doesn't make sense, doesn't even have a documentation subpage. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 00:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – no comment but mine.

• Delete Uesless template, also uses the wrong form of "its". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Has no point as a template. It is unnecessary, and, as mentioned by Ten Pound Hammer, it is useless. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 December 2008 (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.