{{Dylseixa}}-Created as some amazingly funny vandal decided to miss-spell the template name, some helpful individual then deleted it rather than fixing it. This type of vandal is particularly common on the Dyslexia page (look @ the history) so having the redirect used until it is fixed is handy as the vandal fails. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, deliberately introducing spelling errors is an extremely common vandal on the Dyslexia page, one of these was done in the template so breaking the link. I created this redirect so that if it happens again the link will not be broken till we try & fix it. It's not essential but handy as someone helpfully removed the dead template link without checking the history to realise it had been vandalised. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Linear algebra - It survived a very strange VfD with the deletion argument of "there's a category, so why do we need a navigation template?" Well, to not take up tons of room in a "See also" section. The Germany article, for example, has Template:Germany topics at the end rather than a huge See also; plus, the List of linear algebra topics article is a disaster zone. I think this should be restored to the linear algebra article. SnowFire20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Lowercase/Sandbox - While the template itself is not useful anymore, it contains part of the edit history of Template:Lowercase. Part of the editing of that template was done in the Sandbox template to avoid disruptig the browsing experience of other Wikipedians, but it is nonetheless part of its editing history. If you delete it, you should merge the edit histories. Shinobu19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Nocaps : This is part of a trilogy of templates altering the display of text, {{Smallcaps}}, {{Allcaps}}, and {{Nocaps}} – they offer three tools covering the three main possible needs for altering the output of a text, especially from a variable or another template. I also object to the reasons given in the edit summary flagging it for deletion: about "unused", this was created very recently on 30 June2007, so it'll need some time to diffuse, especially since it is not an everyday need; and about "can be accomplished via <span style>)" is nonsense since the whole point of templates is to wrap unfriendly HTML into short and extensible templates. I see no vital reason to hastily delete this tool. (P.S. I am not the template creator, I happened to overhaul {{Smallcaps}} and wanted to link the three interrelated templates, and I saw this deletion notice. I have now improved its documentation to make it more useful, but wasn't involved with it before this.) — Komusoutalk @ 04:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template hasn't been put into full use yet because of the fact that I'm not entirely sure that all of the most relevant articles have been included on it yet. I actually have plans (which will hopefully be met) to do a good deal of work on the subject area this weekend, and hope to be able to at least add all the major names to the template, and then place it in the related articles. John Carter21:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely totally disagree with removing Template:Arianism. Very important movement. Nonsensical to remove it. However, I am confused. At the top of this page it says THIS PAGE should be closed. Why is it opening and harrassing this legitimate template? --Blue Tie06:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tag has been removed; it must have been tagged because (at the time of tagging) it was not used in any articles. As for the "speedy close" at the top of this page, it refers to the speedy closure of the deletion discussion, not of this page. Cheers, Black Falcon(Talk)15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:On RM was intended to be parallel to Template:On AFD, for notice to projects that a page was proposed to be moved. Unfortunately, I've failed to categorize it or announce it so that other editors know it exists. Improvements would be appreciated, but it's not a G6 candidate, merely a rarely used template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WSPA Article. This template is used with the project Wikipedia Saves Public Art utilizing the substitution {{subst:WSPA Article}}. This template has been vetted and agreed upon and is an important part of keeping Public Art articles consistent. You can see where we encourage the use of this template here. After seeing the discussion below, it seems as if we fell victim to the templates being used for substitution. So it seems to just be an automated-misunderstanding. Thanks! HstryQT (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are excluded. Right now, there is no mechanism or method to know if a template is subst'd all the time or not. I brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Template substitution, but no one has responded. Mistakes have been made (see above). The {{deprecated}} template is not put inside a <noinclude> tag, specifically so if a template is substituted, the big bold message will be shown. If you have a proposal or method of knowing which templates are substituted and which ones aren't, please share. Generally speaking, most templates are not substituted, so this really isn't an issue. Cheers. --MZMcBride01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if a template is meant to be used only by substitution, there should ideally be some indication of that in the usage documentation on the template page itself. If this is missing from a template and it causes confusion, hopefully adding some documentation after the confusion is sorted out will prevent future recurrence. Bryan Derksen02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I brought that up here, however, there was absolutely no response. There needs to be standardized way to mark templates that are always substituted. Perhaps someone should take this to WP:VPR. --MZMcBride02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of those would qualify as being transclusion-less, however, others have many, many transclusions. I'll start going through them soon; any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to mark LoPbN entries for bios that appeared deletable,
to help find those entries again in order to move the corresponding bios a step further along the "deletion track" (say, from CSD to ProD, or Prod to AfD) if deletion did not occur in the earlier step,
to prevent the red-link entries resulting from deletion from serving as distractions or soliciting recreation of the deleted bios, once deletion occured, and
to help find the uses of the template, for
removal of the entry (in case of deletion)
or conversion of the entry back to template-free form (in case of AfD retention or a compelling argument for retention under CSD or ProD procedures).
My recollection is that i never noticed anyone but myself using the template; if there were instances of the template in use when the roughly a thousand pages of LoPbN content and infrastructure were deleted under Deletion Review, some bios on "the deletion track" may have escaped attention, since i was indisposed from even the normal process of following up on them at the time, let alone doing so under the conditions of disruption of the templates function that the LoPbN deletion imposed. But that would be of small moment, and no objection to the template's deletion will come from me. --Jerzy•t02:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why two sections?
There are currently two sections: "Templates currently marked for deletion" and "Templates ready to be deleted" - What's the difference? — Sebastian04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so we have to wait 14 days before actually deleting them? I see now that it is implicit in the text above the sections, but I didn't make the connection. I'll therefore write it more explicitly on the page. — Sebastian08:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the notice sent to me by User:Black Falcon, I have removed the {{deprecated}} tag from this template, as I disagree with the nomination for deletion.
As a member of Canada's military forces, there are times when it is important to me to have a disclaimer that what I am saying is personal opinion and not representative of the Government of Canada. I created the template so that other users who might feel a similar requirement could easily include such a disclaimer. I would be happy to generalize the template so that it could be used by a member of any nation's military. Thanks. ¥Jacky Tar05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I tagged the template, I assumed that you had created it for your personal use and subsequently substed it (there were no incoming links). However, given your explanation above, I agree that the template is not a good candidate for speedy deletion under the general housekeeping criterion. Thanks, Black Falcon(Talk)05:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- In wp:NRHP there is rapidly expanding use of {{dts2}} for date-sorting in tables, but i was just informed (by Belhalla at wp:ships) that DTS2 is "deprecated". I see that there is a category tag "Templates deprecated since March 25, 2008", on DTS2, but the category link is a red-link.
What does that mean, and what does "deprecated" mean? And i have tried some searches, but do not find my way to discussion of deprecating DTS2, so I don't understand what the issue with it is. I happen to prefer the syntax for dts2 entry over dts syntax, and dts2 is now built into a NRHP list-table generator tool that is getting increased usage. Any clarifications would be appreciated. doncram (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why this template was orphaned; having created it as potentially useful to anyone trying to understand the relationship of past and present Aintree stations I had forgotten to plug it in to anything. Having added a hatnote to Aintree railway station I will try to add similar links to the other stations it features over the next few days. Britmax (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the proposed deletion of the {{CAS registry}} template, I have a more general question about the deletion of templates that were formerly widely used (in this example, the {{CAS registry}} template was trancluded into ~3000 articles). As discussed here, I expressed a concern that if this template were deleted, then it would compromise the viewing of older versions of articles that transcluded these templates. I don't have any strong objections to deleting the {{CAS registry}} template (and the closely related {{enzyme links}}, {{enzyme references}}, {{GO code links}} templates). However I wanted to bring up the issue of maintaining the history of articles that translcluded these templates. Any thoughts? Boghog (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
