Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7[edit]

Template:Trademark-EU[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 15. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 15 March 2019 (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).

Template:Swiss Federal Council election result[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template with no actual data. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless someone can point to its usage, the lack of editing by its creator after the initial day and no documentation seems to suggest this has never been used. --Gonnym (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has apparently never been used (author did not employ it in the two weeks following creation, and used manually written tables in relevant articles). —Kusma (t·c) 09:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Trinidad and Tobago legislative election, 2007[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election box. data already present on necessary page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Transnistrian presidential election, 2001[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election box. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Tokelau Island council election, 2005[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election box. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is not even an article for the 2005 elections so no place to even place it, but even if it existed, this simple table should be placed on the article itself. --Gonnym (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:United States House of Representatives elections, 2016 imagemap[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:United Kingdom local elections, 1909[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox, no parent article, nearly entirely redlinks and plain text. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zackmann. I gave this a look over and have created the related page. MrPenguin21 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Urologic procedures in women[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:United Kingdom Independent Broadcasters[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for this nav template that just links other nav templates. The templates should be linked on pages they are relevant at and grouped together by this template. --Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Tokyo Anime Award for Domestic Feature Film[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this can be used as it does have a parent article at Tokyo Anime Award#Domestic Feature Film Category, so the award is notable and a complete list appears on the article, however, if it not actively maintained by anyone, there is no reason to add these to articles (which by the look of the article, seems is the case). --Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Telford and Wrekin[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. No real opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author removed it from the parent article Telford and Wrekin here: [1]. Don't know enough about Shropshire to say whether that was a good or a bad idea. —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kusma, to clarify, Author being the author of the template who removed it EIGHT years ago... Not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmann08 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems it can be used on the articles it is linked, but like Kusma, I have no idea if the removal was done with some valid reason behind it. Would help if anyone from the UK could answer this. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2019 (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).

Template:Tamil Nadu legislative election results by alliance 1996[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was substitute and delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election box. data already present on necessary page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Turkish general election, 1950[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Turkish general election, 1954[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Turkish general election, 1957[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Turkish general election, June 2015 nationwide and overseas[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Turkmenistani presidential election, 2012[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Turkmenistani presidential election, 2017[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page in a much more complete format. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:US Virgin Islands governor election, 2002[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is not even an article for the 2002 elections so no place to even place it, but even if it existed, common practice is to place the results table on the article and not in a template. --Gonnym (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:US Virgin Islands senate election, 2004[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template with no actual data Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is not even an article for the 2002 elections so no place to even place it, but even if it existed, common practice is to place the results table on the article and not in a template. --Gonnym (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:United Kingdom general election, 2005[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Western Cape provincial election, 2004[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Wikipedia categorization navbox[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Now widely used (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What would you expect the parent article to be? All the pages to which it links are project pages. And it's not orphaned, as I've now added the template to a number of the linked pages. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it seems an informative and well put together template. Thank you for bringing this nomination if it causes the template to be distributed to its container pages (I saw this nom from the template being added to a page). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I could see no reason why it shouldn't be on each of the pages that it links to, so I did it. If it needs a "parent article" (whatever that is), try Wikipedia:Categorization. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2019 (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).

Template:Boys' Youth European Volleyball Championship[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Bora Bora family tree[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Don't subst[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 15. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 15 March 2019 (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).

Template:Doosan Bears roster[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused roster that is redundant to Template:Doosan Bears roster navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:52, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Donbass War detailed map[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Happy to restore it if anyone wishes to work on incorporating it into an article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused massive image Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — there are indeed many-many articles linked to this template, in case if anyone should be interested where the action takes place.—Pietadè (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pietade-Pietade. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For normal "content" templates (as opposed to templates used for internal project purposes, e.g. {{uw-vand2}}), usage and usefulness are the only things that generally matter. How could such a huge image be useful anywhere? It's 2500px wide, or almost twice the width of my widescreen monitor, and because it doesn't seem to have a width= parameter or anything similar, there's no way to reduce it to a more manageable size. Consequently, it can't properly fit in any page: it's not useful. The only way that this should be kept is if someone's willing to redo everything and cut it down to a reasonable size. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-do. It is useful but unmanageable. Possibly split as a map and a navbox, rather than a map in a template. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2019 (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).

Template:DC Streetcar infobox header[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused styling template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creator, replaced by Template:DC Streetcar style last month. Cards84664 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:DAG[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused flag shortcut. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; part of a huge series of flag templates, and whether it's in use now or not, it's a plausible member of the club. I've just added it to Laks (Caucasus), where the image was already used but with more-complex coding. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2019 (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).

Template:Czarni Radom team[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:48, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Cyclist data 2014[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cyclist data. Not sure how or where it would be used, but no templates or pages are calling it. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems to relate to {{Cyclingresult2}}, an attempt to create some clever system for cycling results. Seems to have been abandoned after 2015, and never used in 2014. Creator is currently banned indefinitely so won't be commenting here, I assume. Nigej (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:CrossCountry stations[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that just produced a simply wikilink. No reason for this to be a template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:45, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Cricket Squad[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused squad template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Over 6 years old and seemingly unused and forgotten. Nigej (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Console[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cell style Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Connecticut Radio Markets[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused list with no real purpose. Not a navbox, just a block of text. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Templates like this were originally created to transclude into the navbox templates, so that related radio market templates could crossreference each other by calling this template. That approach has since been deprecated, however, and the templates now do their crosslinks by directly linking to each other instead of by calling a second subtemplate. All of the templates listed here have already been converted to the contemporary format, which is why this is unused. Most of the other templates like this that used to exist were already deleted a few years ago — the only reason this one is actually still here is that it somehow got missed in the process. But it's not so much that it has no purpose, as that its old purpose has been superseded by a different way. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bearcat. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:CatDescr1[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused relic of the 2000's. No longer needed. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:22, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Carmelit[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route map template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: restored to parent article. (Had been removed on 06:23, 19 November 2016‎ by Lourdes with the vague and misleading edit summary "fix format".) Useddenim (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Useddenim. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Caribbean Premier League results summary[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused results table Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Cancerindex[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused external link template. No need for it. Just use standard wiki-markup Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Canadian election images[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table of images from a random election Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no idea where or how this can be useful. --Gonnym (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just to be clear, this isn't actually images from one random election — what the images actually are is bar graphs of the popular vote breakdown across all Canadian elections of both the federal and provincial varieties throughout Canadian political history. But not all of the graphs have actually been updated to reflect the most recent elections; the federal one, frex, is missing both 2011 and 2015. I also haven't figured out why it's treating the Progressive Conservatives and the contemporary Conservatives as one continuous party with the same colour (apart from the 1990s, when the PCs get buried in "other" instead of being represented with their standard colour at all) while chunking Reform/Alliance out as a separate one, but I digress. But no, it's not actually useful: comparing the evolution of popular vote breakdowns across provincial and federal elections isn't a thing we need a navbox for, because it doesn't tell you anything that crosses provincial boundaries in a useful or defining way. That's why it's not actually in use, and why it isn't really salvageable. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not used, confusing, and not suitable for template namespace. Difficult to navigate --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Unrest in SR Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC) Template:Campaignbox Unrest in SR Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree on this, and I want a wide discussion. This template should be completed and added to the Bosnian War and added as a pre-template. I know that the Muslim and Turkish lobby in the US justifies Aliа Izetbegovich, but the fact is that the Clinton administration is pointing out that April 6 is the first day of the war and that I can not do it. I insist on the discussion and that if the chief administrator does not allow me to put into the main template the true start of the war in Bosnia, which is March 1, then at least I insist that it be retained and added this template as a pre-form within the main template like before - patterns of the Syrian Civil War. I think that Wikipedia is rejecting my pre-form for political reasons or by refusing patrol administrations year after year who are in favor of the current political nomenclature in the United States related to the State Department, as well as the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and want to cover up the period between March 1 and April 6 at all costs. I want a discussion and find some Modus Vivendi. With this pre-form, I wanted to be maximally NEUTRAL to everyone, but some admins do not give it and want to keep their distorted and frozen version of the beginning of this war PERMANENTLY PLASED. I am from the Balkans and while I'm alive I will not accept the BOSNIAN WAR template as it is today until some changes are corrected, and here I have presented them here.Baba Mica (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Campaignboxes are meant for a closely defined group of battles in a military campaign, e.g. {{Campaignbox Gettysburg Campaign}}, but it's not used for anything close to that purpose. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox South West Pacific theatre[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - have added the template to relevant articles. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not unused. Nuke (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Rebellion of Domhnall Dubh[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused campaign box with only 2 links WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I created this template but it is no longer used in any article and the links in it are now part of another template. Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Post-Deir ez-Zor period in the Syrian Civil War[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and non-functional campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Perso-Ottoman War (1730-1735)[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Military Operations of the Philippine Commonwealth Army[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Created by a long-running ban evader and vandal, and used as part of their campaign to insert misleading information into Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Islamic Conquest of Hispania[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN & WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We do not know enough details to produce separate articles for the many of the engagements listed. This campaignbox is unlikely ever to be useful. Srnec (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013)[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Indonesian National Revolution[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Deir ez-Zor escalation period and ISIS collapse in the Syrian civil war[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Nevada[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Arizona[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2019 (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).

Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Early Incidents[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:15, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Bengali desserts[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 April 3. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2019 (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).

Template:Balrampur district, Chhattisgarh[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2019 (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).

Template:Batangas labelled map[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents by years templates[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - Could be used if someone really wanted to add it to all of those template pages, but even the template creator it seems did not care enough to do it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (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).

Template:ESPN Montana[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. A merger was discussed, so there is NPASR if the other potential merge templates are added to the list. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article Update: Limited use navbox that is a clear case of WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I see 6 links in the infobox. It's being used. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:09 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
    • Update: Placed on 4 of the 6 pages. The other 2 were no longer sports formatted. One was Active Rock, the other was Sports but had gone off the air last month. Zackmann08, please don't be deletionist and actual help the project. It's easy to tag something for deletion, it's better to actually put the 10 minutes to make the project better. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
      • @Neutralhomer: comments like don't be deletionist and actual help the project are not helpful and also do not WP:AGF. We all help in our own ways. No ones methods of editing are any more or less important than anyone else and your implication that others are not being helpful just because you don't like their actions is absurd. You clearly lack familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures based on the recent comments on your talk page. As for me not being helpful, I've got over 300,000 edits on here, I do more than my fair share of helping out thank you. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Zackmann08: Having lots of edits and helping out allot are not necessarily the same thing. LorenzoMilano made over 40,000 edits to his NOTWEBHOST-violating sandbox, which doesn't mean he contributed to the project. Talking about you specifically, many of your recent edits are something that I could easily have requested that AnomieBOT do (Task: TemplateSubster), so they aren't exactly boast-worthy. (Not saying that those edits are bad, because the bot would have used a generic edit summary, but the general point remains). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the entire "X radio stations in the state of Montana" templates can be merged into one template. Some of these templates just have 3 links for each page (see {{Classic Hits Radio Stations in Montana}}, so merging them would solve the small navboxes. --Gonnym (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alot of these should/could be filled in. I think that was Dravecky's project before his passing. Perhaps Mlaffs could fill in the Montana ones? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:44 on March 5, 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Echox[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, not really clear what it would be used for. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Adelaide Lightning roster[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused roster template. The parent article (Adelaide Lightning) already has the roster directly on the page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:49, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Add horizontal bar[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that apparently would add a bar? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it is commented out in {{Timeline row}}, which itself has been deprecated and replaced with {{Simple Horizontal timeline}}. The whole group of deprecated horizontal timeline templates should be nominated so the few uses they still have, are replaced by the newer template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:USA topicon[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused custom {{top icon}} template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:55, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:USPP course table[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused broken table code Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:54, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:US Congress member archive[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template that is simply a link Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:54, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:US Army Aviation[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Classic case of WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:53, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:United Kingdom Supreme Court composition row[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused table template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Uniform hyperbolic tiling list table[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused table code Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Unblock-bot[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused unblock template. Thought it might be a substonly template, but per this search has never been substituted either (assuming it wasn't removed...). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete According to Category:Wikipedia adminbots, the only bots approved to block users are ProcseeBot and AnomieBOT III (sidenote: which appears to have stopped running that task). Neither of them does blocks of a kind that require any serious human judgement, and therefore don't use this template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • AnomieBOT III doesn't use this template. The task is still running, but probably the spammers moved on to links not on the bot's blocklist. Anomie⚔ 14:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template was used by Special:Contributions/AntiAbuseBot. Looks the reason it doesn't have transclusions is because when the blocks are right the template is removed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like a useful idea if we should choose to have a bot performing blocks on accounts or on IPs that aren't open proxies. The abuse filter also has the ability to block users (although it's not enabled), and with a little tweaking, this template would be useful as a you-got-filter-blocked message should we choose to enable that feature. As an internal project template, I don't see any problem in letting it hang around indefinitely, as it's not some sort of content-related template that might get used wrongly. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for now it isn't useful, but if we ever have a bot which does blocks which may require human judgement, it may become useful again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:29, 10 March 2019 (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).

Template:UkraineDecade[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused custom decade template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • can not even remember why i made it --Andrei (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andrew. Agree this is quite an unusual template.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Umessage[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused custom template for leaving user message. Anoptimistix nothing stopping you from doing this is your userspace. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:50, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Unblock an[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2019 (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).

Template:Infobox drug/simplified[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was move to User:CFCF/Infobox drug/simplified. There is no consensus to delete, but a weak one that until such time as it's actively being worked on there's no reason to have it in the template space. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. No reason for a "simplified" version of {{Infobox drug}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's used, and it's a beta version for a replacement. It should not be deleted, and I was going to suggest it be moved to Template:Infobox drug/beta, but I see it's already listed under that template, so it just makes this deletion request all the more over-zealous. Please leave this alone, it serves a very useful purpose for translation and is the base for much needed overhaul. Carl Fredrik talk 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no Template:Infobox drug/beta - your link is currently red. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @CFCF: Please leave this alone is not a reason to keep nor is how TFD works... You claim that is is being used but it has zero transclusions and you haven't touched the template since November of 2016... So how is it being used? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sandbox subpage with potential use explained by CFCF. —Kusma (t·c) 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Userfy to which page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - if used please explain how or where its used. The history shows that is hasn't been updated since the initial creation day in 2016 and the template itself has no documentation. Template space is not a private userpsace. --Gonnym (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CFCF. Seems to be planned for being use. Could be useful for articles. If consensus not for keeping, then I support moving to user space.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "planned" is very generous. Hasn't been updated once since November 2016. It can continue on being "planned" in their sandbox instead of masquerading as an actual infobox ready for use. --Gonnym (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2019 (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).

Module:See also if exists[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Module:See also if exists. Please make sure the related templates are updated accordingly after the merge is completed. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly duplicate modules, only difference is that Module:Category see also if exists hardcodes category namespace. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems like bad code design to me that neither template is a wrapper around the corresponding template without the "if exists" suffix, and instead hardcodes its text. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (as creator of both). No, that's not only difference. {{Category see also if exists}} does not require the "Category:" namespace prefix when linking categories. Thousands of uses will break if this is required.
See these examples:
  1. {{See also if exists|Category:Spain}} →
    See also: Category:Spain
  2. {{Category see also if exists|Category:Spain}} →
    See also: Category:Spain
  3. {{See also if exists|Spain}} →
    See also: Spain
  4. {{Category see also if exists|Spain}} →
    See also: Category:Spain
Also, {{Category see also if exists}} displays a warning if none of the items exists. {{See also if exists}} gives no warning.
It would save everyone a lot of time if @Pppery did some WP:BEFORE and actually examined and tested modules&templates before nominating them as near-duplicates. This nom replicates the lack of homework in Pppery's nomination at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 29#Template:Cat_main. I just hope we don't have the same levels of bluster and obfuscation as Pppery displayed then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing merging the templates, I'm proposing merging the modules while having the two templates still do their separate things, which can be done without breaking thousands of uses. {{category see also if exists}} and {{see also if exists}} will continue to exist, and both will use the same module, passing it different parameters which the module can use to distinguish between the two cases. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Still no acknowledgement that you had not spotted the key difference, nor any clarity about whether/how you propose to retain the distinctions. Just like last time.
@Pppery, for the avoidance of drama, why don't you simply:
  • withdraw this nom
  • design the merged module in a sandbox, so that you can actually show that what you propose is possible without creating unwieldy code
  • if we agree that it works, then we can just boldly merge. If not, bring it back to TFD.
Personally, I think that this whole thing is waste of time, but if you do want to spend your time this way, then I don't see why you would object to demonstrating your proposed code before an XFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I've written a merged module at Module:See also if exists/sandbox, with Template:Category see also if exists/sandbox and Template:See also if exists/sandbox calling it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: please don't make me do the spadework. Please do a sandbox for both templates, and demonstrate them with a set of testcases like I did above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Done. Both tests are green at both Template:Category see also if exists/testcases and Template:See also if exists/testcases and both Template:See also if exists/sandbox and Template:Category see also if exists/sandbox call Module:See also if exists/sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is better to let other editors (apart from BHG and Pppery) comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: What exactly do you mean the the relisting comment: It is better to pend other editors comments. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, fixed. Just mean I hope other editors comment here in next 7 days Hhkohh (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's a great pity that the nomination was made without a demo of the proposed combined module, and without a clear explanation of the actual difference in functionality ... but thanks to @Pppery for sorting all that out. And sorry I have been so slow to respond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 20 March 2019 (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).

Template:Railway line header[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that since {{railway line header}} is deprecated it should be replaced, but there is no agreement on whether that will mean conversion to {{BS-map}} or {{Routemap}}. If and when a consensus on this can be reached, the matter can be re-evaluated here. Just to reiterate, there is no consensus currently for which template to use as a replacement, but if "railway line header" is fully orphaned then there is no reason to keep it around and it can be deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Railway line header, Template:BS-header, Template:BS-table, Template:BS-table1 and Template:Infobox route diagram with Template:Routemap.
These templates have been deprecated since the creation of {{BS-map}} in 2011, and should already have been replaced by {{BS-map}} or by {{Routemap}} (which is newer than {{BS-map}} and has several advantages and additional features). A majority of route diagrams on the English Wikipedia use {{Routemap}}. {{BS-map}} is also currently nominated for merging with {{Routemap}}.

As the nominator, I support replacing the templates with {{Routemap}}. If the discussion is closed with a consensus to merge, the templates should be replaced manually after using the Routemap module to convert each diagram; fixing errors and stylistic issues should be expected. I would also support manual replacement of the nominated templates with either {{Routemap}} or {{BS-map}}. Bot replacement would be unusually difficult due to the use of the pre-2011 templates through {{Infobox route diagram}}, especially if there is an expectation to update diagrams to current conventions (navbar, continuation icons, text placement/size, etc.). Jc86035 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Useddenim (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support replacement with {{Routemap}}, as the former is tagged as superseded. --Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to Template:bs-map, leaving the issue of whether to convert to Template:Routemap to a later discussion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Useddenim, Gonnym, and Pppery: I've added {{Infobox route diagram}} to the nomination. Jc86035 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the sort of conversion that is proposed. It has exactly the same problems that I mentioned at 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC), i.e. the syntax being weird and non-intuitive. If any conversion should be done, it is from {{Railway line header}}/{{BS-header}}/{{BS-table}} to {{BS-map}}; this is not difficult (example), and the syntax for the actual rows of the RDT is exactly the same as with Railway line header etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: In defense of {{Routemap}}, the original syntax was opaque to begin with, and I personally find the Routemap syntax more intuitive because it has an explicit separation between icons and text and doesn't require named overlay parameters. Newer users – particularly those who joined post-2015 – are also likely to have only learned how to use {{Routemap}}. Jc86035 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All editors (other than those using VisualEditor) have to learn how template paramaters work. The point Redrose64 is trying to make is that {{BS-map}} maps use the same syntax as all other templates do, whereas {{routemap}} uses its own entirely new syntax that one has to learn separately. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: Yes, I'm aware of that, and it was the main point of discussion in the 2016 RfC, but I was referring to the template as a whole (i.e. including the icon naming system).
    As noted below, introducing {{RDTr}} would ease a {{BS-map}} transition; but the end result would probably be that a few years down the line someone nominates that template for deletion because it's functionally completely unnecessary since it just makes Routemap code, and then we're right back to "convert all of the templates to Routemap". It's like artificially creating a middle step. Jc86035 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing so would segregate the discussion into two phases:
    1. should routemaps be generated using Lua or Wikitext
    2. should the syntax for generating routemaps be using templates or using {{routemap}}'s backslash-and-tilde syntax
    . I would support the first step but not the second, and therefore think they should be done independently of each other. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Pppery: I don't think it's likely that all of the current {{Routemap}} diagrams will be converted to use {{RDTr}} or something like it (I would oppose that, because I'm familiar with the current Routemap syntax, as are most of the other Routemap users on the 37 other WMF wikis where the template exists), so deleting/deprecating {{RDTr}} as well as the pre-Routemap templates is pretty much the only likely outcome of any successful attempt to institute a single diagram format.
    I also think {{RDTr}} could be viewed unfavourably as a bad compromise, because a new set of templates wrapping {{RDTr}} would have to be created to replicate the functionality of the original templates (and imperfectly at that). Jc86035 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support replacement with Template:BS-map, Oppose replacement with Template:Routemap; that should be decided by #Template:BS-map below. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:10, 7 March 2019 (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).

Module:Listify[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 April 1. Primefac (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2019 (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).

Module:Find sources template pages[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overcomplicated, see no reason that this information needs to be in module data pages rather than the wikitext of the template itself. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All relevant code changes to accomodate the new style of been written to the sandboxes. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate? What templates should the code go into? what sandboxes have you edited? --Gonnym (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Find sources, Template:Find sources mainspace, and Template:Find sources video games, with changes to the backend modules at Module:Find sources and Module:Find sources/autodoc (to be renamed Module:Find sources/template) to match. I've edited the sandboxes of all of those pages {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The advantage of the current system is that it is known to work. It is more complex than required because it's creator aimed for generality with an extensible system, although not much has been needed since creation. As usual, Pppery poses an enigma whereby each onlooker would need to spend half an hour working out what templates/modules are proposed to be replaced with what templates/modules. What existing pages would be deleted? What new pages would be created? What existing pages would be edited? (I can work out some of that, but the information should be presented clearly.) What is the proposed benefit of this turmoil? Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The existing pages that would be deleted by this are exactly the ones I listed above, as they will be rendered obsolete. No new pages are created by this TfD, and the edits made are to sync the sandboxes of Module:Find sources, Module:Find sources/autodoc and all three templates that invoke it (Template:Find sources, Template:Find sources mainspace and Template:Find sources video games). One can't exactly say that my proposed system is not known to work, given that it exists in the sandbox without producing any errors. (Template:Find sources/testcases is yellow because of a trivial encoding difference of a literal space versus &#32;, it's HTML entity form) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing to be wary of with putting the config in the templates themselves is that it will increase the post-expand include size. I remember there were problems with the daily AfD log pages going over the limit, which I helped to fix by converting Template:Find sources AFD to use Module:Find sources. Also, parsing the template parameters in wikitext will be slower than using the config modules, as a) parsing Lua tables is generally quicker than parsing wikitext, and b) the config modules are only loaded once per page with mw.loadData, although the post-expand include size is probably more important. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't seem to be able to reproduce any significant change in post-expand include size via testing. (A page containing only "{{find sources}}" uses 2,130 bytes, whereas a page containing only {{find sources/sandbox}} uses 2,139 bytes. ) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, looks like you're right. I think what must be happening is that parameters to #invoke aren't counted towards the limit. 5 bytes of the 9-byte difference can be attributed to the the use of &#32; instead of a regular space, and the extra "q" before the start of the template (I'm guessing the "q" was just for testing something). The other 4 bytes, I'm not so sure. But 9 bytes isn't something to be worried about, I agree. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning oppose - If a template has been converted to use a module, then it is more correct to have that module handle everything, with the template just being used as an access point. In the case of Wikipedia template code, for me, that makes it an even stronger case, as template code is much harder to read than module code. Why can't these be under Module:Find sources/data if the 3 separate sub-modules are the issue? --Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The module is still handling all of the logic of creating the find sources links, and each template is an access point. While you may be right about the readability of Lua vs. Wikitext as a general rule, in this case, |introlink=google is just as readable as 
    introLink = {
		code = 'google'
	}
    and all this TfD does is convert the latter to the former. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the template passes data then it isn't only an access point. Design pattern-wise, if we already have a module, let the module handle everything, including a sub-module for /data information. That's at least how I view them. Regarding the readbility of the template code, when you have only one line, then maybe they are the same, but here it becomes harder to read, while the lua code stays the same. --Gonnym (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Including lots of extra curly brackets and quotes is not "more readable". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your opinion, mine is different. --Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The module provides the tool, and the template provides the implementation. That seems more efficient than these intermediary module subpages. --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:08, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:WorksDecade navigation[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Merge to Template:Navseasoncats per consensus below. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WorksDecade navigation with Template:Navseasoncats.
{{WorksDecade navigation}} is redundant to the newer generic {{Navseasoncats}}.

Before {{Navseasoncats}} was developed, there were many of these topic-specific by-year or by-decade navigation templates. Now that we have a generic template, it's better for readers to see a consistent style of navigation, and pointless for editors to have to figure out and apply a separate syntax for by-year/decade categories in each topic area. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS If the merger happens, I think that {{WorksDecadeNavEntry}} will become redundant and can be deleted. However, that won't be confirmed until merger is complete. --13:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Visual arts notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - {{WorksDecade navigation}} has a feature which {{Navseasoncats}} does not - the ability to navigate 100 years forwards and backwards (if those cats exist). Is this functionality undesirable, or would it be incorporated into {{Navseasoncats}} prior to merge? WP:WikiProject Visual arts should probably be notified if the display is going to change significantly.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tom.Reding, I don't think it's a significant feature. {{Navseasoncats}} goes 5 decades before the current decades, and five decades ahead. There will be only a v few exceptional cases where the preceding 5 decades are all-non-existent and the 10-decades-earlier cat also exists (and same for succeeding decades), so it will just take an extra click to jump back further.
If there is merit in expanding the number of decades in the navbox, it applies equally to all types of decade category, so that option should be considered at Template talk:Navseasoncats. A widely-used navigational tool is much easier to use if standardised, so I think we should be wary of creating variants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: you're right - it only really saves 1 mouse click per 100 years, since {{Navseasoncats}} currently goes (in this case) in steps of 50. If desired, that can be added {{Navseasoncats}} after some discussion (maybe with a "|" or "..." separating the larger steps at either end, to avoid confusion with the " • "), but I don't see a problem now with merging as-is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this discussion temporarily. At the moment, two separate pages have been nominated for merger into Navseasoncats: this one and {{Cat topic in year}}. We ought to discuss them one at a time. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone do something please - the items are being utilised still as if nothing is happening - could someone knowing what they are doing fix this up? just sitting here unresolved is a problem... JarrahTree 13:30, 11 March 2019 (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).

Template:Old Bara District[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was rename to {{Villages in Bara District}}, which seems to have a decent consensus for a new name. Uses of {{Bara District}} should be reviewed and changed to the "old" template as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox, replaced with {{Bara District}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Old Bara District template does not relate to "Old Bara" but is simply an old version of the Bara District template. Nigej (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse move (that is, move Template:Old Bara District back to Template:Bara District) and restore to this version. I'm not sure why Haribanshnp made the changes that they did, but whatever their intentions they don't seem to have seen them through. If the idea was for this navbox to exclude the villages, then the appropriate action is to create another navbox specific for the villages and have it replace instances of this template on the village articles. If the goal was not to have a navbox on the village articles, then this navbox ought to be removed from them. What we have at the moment is a bit of a mess: {{Bara District}} is used on a very large number of articles that aren't included in the current, trimmed, version of the navbox. – Uanfala (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, in light of the comments by Haribanshnp and Nyttend, I'm not that sure anymore. If it's not desirable to have the former VDCs listed in this template, then we'll need a separate template for that, which can be be added to the the articles of the VDCs. – Uanfala (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here in Nepal, all the former VDC's have been modified to rural and urban municipalities; with different names and numbers. Thus, I created Template:Bara District which is used and we certainly need to show what we have here at Nepal. Similarly, the contents of former template, i.e. Template:Old Bara District, we need it too, since this is about the place and history must not be deleted. Thus, both may not be used now, but we must need to keep it and may be used in future. Haribanshnp (talk) 2:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2019 (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).

All templates in Category:Unused taxobox templates/to be deleted[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 02:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a temporary holding area for taxobox templates whose deletion will be uncontroversial, because the templates have been replaced with Module:Autotaxobox and Module:Automated taxobox. For more details, see this talk page thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system. Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Cat topic in year[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Navseasoncats. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Cat topic in year with Template:Navseasoncats.
{{Cat topic in year}} does the same job as {{Navseasoncats}}, but not as well:

  • {{Navseasoncats}} requires no parameters, so it is easier for editors to apply, and eliminates errors
  • {{Navseasoncats}} links to a total of 11 categories, whereas {{Cat topic in year}} links to only 7
  • {{Navseasoncats}} omits the superfluous "topic in year" prefix, which is already evident from the category name
  • {{Navseasoncats}} is aligned to the centre of the screen, which allows space on the right for a portal box or a commons category link. {{Cat topic in year}} forces then downwards, unnecessarily pushing the category listing downwards, thereby increasing the need for readers to scroll BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait... First of all, the proposed merge target has a note at the top of its documentation saying it is "***UNDER DEVELOPMENT***"; I would think the template should be in its final state before being considered the merge target. Although I can see benefits from merging through reducing the number of templates to maintain, not everything mentioned is a positive. Reducing the number of required parameters for a template like this is good, and in trying it out on a couple categories in preview mode, it works as described, so I agree with the first point. Expanding out to five category links on each side of the target year can be helpful, so point two is valid. The third point, suggesting that the prefix is unnecessary, is counter to long-standing conventions here and on Wikimedia Commons. With no other text around the link, a new user might believe that the link will direct to the year page and not the year in topic page. The topic can be made an optional parameter of the target template so that it is displayed in similar fashion as already shows on the proposed mergefrom template. Showing the topic also allows expansion of the navbox to include rows with links to related parallel topics (perhaps using parameters like |topic1=, |topic2=, etc.). Finally, reducing the need to scroll is not really necessary. There is no need to keep relevant category items above the fold, and the other boxes won't be aligned next to the merge target's box unless they are listed first in the category page wikisource. It is normal for portal and commons boxes to be listed as the last navigation templates on a page, which still pushes them down below the navbox despite its center alignment. Slambo (Speak) 12:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: 'under development' - stale notice removed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Slambo, I'm glad we agree on the first two points. On the others:
3/ I do a lot of work on by-year and by-decade categories, and I strongly disagree about the convention including a prefix. {{Cat topic in year}} has only 18,000 transclusions. By contrast, {{Navseasoncats}} has 44,600 transclusions, and its by-year module (invoked directly by some templates) has 61,400 translusions. {{Year by category}} also uses no prefix, and it is transcluded in 84,000 pages.
So the labelled navbox is a small minority. The context is evident from the big bolded page title, and the destination by mousever.
The idea of expanding the navbox to include other topics is a horrible one, because it would clutter the navigation with non-core items. There's very good reason why effective signposting, whether on roads or on computing interfaces, keeps a tight focus.
4/ It's not normal for portal boxes to be placed below navboxes. Portals and commons links float right, so are routinely added to top top of cat pages, so that left and center-aligned text can remain at the top. {{Cat topic in year}} competes for that crowded space. Look at the effect on series such as Category:Airlines established in 1999 or Category:Internet properties established in 1990, where the navbox is squeezed down below the portal, while there is unused space to the left.
As to your claim that there is no need to keep relevant category items above the fold, that runs counter to all principles of good web design. Why would we avoidably force readers to scroll?
Per WP:CAT, categories are primarily a device for navigation between articles, and article navigation should be the most prominent part of the pages. Portals and commons links are non-article content, so they should be at the very bottom of category pages. Sadly, the mediawiki software doesn't allow us to that, so the least intrusive thing we can do is to push them to the right column. Why have this navboxes compete for that space, when more than ten times as many cat pages use the more prominent and otherwise unused space to the top left and center?
I did wee demo on Category:Internet properties established in 1990:
A/ As I found it, using Cat topic in year
B/ using navseasoncats.
Both verions are a bit cluttered by the TFD notivces, but as you can see, the version with Navseasoncats gives much more prominence to the by-year navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, sorry for my delay in getting back to this; I've had a busy week with travel around the state for work. My disagreement on the third and fourth points are more on the stylistic side than functionality, and your reasoning is for the betterment of the site. For me, the ease of use and reduction in maintenance are more important, both points on which we do agree. So I concede to the consensus. Slambo (Speak) 11:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:No personal headings[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. If renominating please provide a rationale for why you believe {{uw-npa}} is an adequate substitute for this template. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Template:Uw-npa [Username Needed] 14:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • If so, then redirect. However, where does {{Uw-npa}} mention section headings? Hyacinth (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2019 (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).

Infobox settlement wrappers[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Valid arguments have been made on both sides of the issue, and despite there being 25 separate templates the issues presented affect them all. I think before any re-nomination of these templates happens, a discussion about why certain wrappers (for example, these 25) are not acceptable while others (for example, the 29 other wrappers not currently being nominated) are fine. This might save some time in future discussions if some sort of consensus can be linked. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered list, to see the quantity of templates proposed for substitution:

  1. Template:Infobox Austrian district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 88 transclusions
  2. Template:Infobox Bangladesh district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 60 transclusions
  3. Template:Infobox Cape Verde settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 240 transclusions (used on different types: municipalities, parishes, and others)
  4. Template:Infobox Colombian province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 47 transclusions // Created 2017 - 1 editor, 2 others fixing broken things
  5. Template:Infobox District Slovakia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 78 transclusions
  6. Template:Infobox England region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 8 transclusions on region pages, 9 on list pages
  7. Template:Infobox French communauté (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 49 222 transclusions (is that one type at all? used on items with different type name: Communauté d'agglomération/Agglomeration community, Métropole, Communauté urbaine/Urban community)
  8. Template:Infobox French region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 32 transclusions
  9. Template:Infobox German Regierungsbezirk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 34 transclusions
  10. Template:Infobox Helsinki subdivision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 90 transclusions
  11. Template:Infobox Latvian municipalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 112 transclusions
  12. Template:Infobox London Borough (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 32 transclusions
  13. Template:Infobox Neighborhood Portland OR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 93 transclusions
  14. Template:Infobox Nepal district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 78 transclusions
  15. Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 55 transclusions
  16. Template:Infobox Province Peru (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 189 transclusions
  17. Template:Infobox Province Spain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 38 transclusions
  18. Template:Infobox Province TR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 81 transclusions
  19. Template:Infobox Russian federal subject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 89 transclusions
  20. Template:Infobox Singapore neighbourhood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 118 transclusions
  21. Template:Infobox South African municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 292 transclusions : Moved to own TFD for clarity: HERE
  22. Template:Infobox St. Louis neighborhood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 79 transclusions
  23. Template:Infobox townlands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 87 transclusions (used on different types: townlands and parishes)
  24. Template:Infobox Venezuelan municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 216 transclusions
  25. Template:Infobox UAE community (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 74 transclusions

Unnecessary wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template. Direct transclusion of Infobox settlement is common practice.

Background
495 765 transclusions of Infobox settlement in article space.
The 25 wrappers in this deletion proposal account for 0.48% of these transclusions.
  1. Recent batches of similar wrappers, which were all deleted: 2018 November 23, 2019 February 6, 2019 February 16.
  2. Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". That is practice for over a decade, it is used on ~ 500000 articles.
  3. The transclusions of the above templates sum up to 2675 transclusions of Infobox settlement. That is 0.48 % of the total of ~ 500 000 transclusions. Each has less than 300 transclusions, hence each has less than 0.060 % of the total transclusions.
  4. As of now there are 54 active templates in Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement. The above proposal would therefore reduce the quantity of these templates to 29, and 54 % of the current quantity.

89.12.133.115 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC) // withdraw LU per 2010-09-19 decision 89.12.43.84 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC) // add chart 89.14.48.38 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC) // remove Finnish municipality - was proposed by Zackmann08 - already in deletion 89.12.82.4 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Support although I find the name of the template very confusing, it's clear this is the parent template for settlements AND regions, and I strongly support a merge, as it benefits readers and editors. It's easier for editors to have a single template, and makes future maintenance and updates easier. Removing wrappers also has a secondary benefit, because it means that some attempt can be made and standardising and simplifying template code. This makes the template easier to maintain. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support replacement and delete - The process of consolidating all these wrappers helps standardize and simplify the whole process - including maintenance, documentation (which 11 of the nominated templates here have none). If the template name is an issue, it should be solved so this repeated issue can stop distracting from the actual process. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a reminder to the nom to not substitute templates without making sure they subst cleanly. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Templates tagged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, after replacement, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I created the Colombian province infobox with a unique entry for indigenous groups, which not only applies to these provinces, but can be used in many other cases too. There is no maintenance issue as long as it is maintained, but that needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It is not hurting anyone if these infoboxes exist. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That currently uses the parent infobox's |blank_name_sec1= and |blank_info_sec1=, so can continue to do so after substitution. However, if it is true that this "can be used in many other cases too" you can propose adding a specific parameter to that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't that parameter be relevant to other places in America (north and south), Australia and New Zealand? --Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There is no maintenance issue as long as it is maintained" - Exactly. And with these mini-infoboxes chances are higher, that suddenly no one maintains them. If outsiders need to understand them, it is waste of time. "It is not hurting anyone if these infoboxes exist." - User:Tisquesusa, that is simply not true. They are a burden for editors wanting to add some value for a variable that is not supported by them or named differently. 77.183.29.94 (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose say that I (or any other editor) want to automatically transclude population figures for Peruvian provinces from Wikidata. Right now, I would just edit the wrapper and add {{wikidata|property|P1082}} once. If the wrapper is deleted, achieving the same result would require editing 189 articles. That doesn't seem like an improvement.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true, User:Underlying lk, one can do that in infobox settlement too. And probably it is easier to do it right in a centralized place than in 1000s of templates, if your solution means to create one template per type of entity. 77.183.43.199 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Underlying lk, seeing as how that feature doesn't exist in that template, I'd say that argument doesn't really have much weight as you'd have to get consensus for any change like that, and no one can say if that change will get the consensus or not. However, if the feature should be good to implement for {{Infobox Province Peru}}, it can also be implemented for all other articles. --Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: this is exactly what ultimately happened for Austrian articles, which are now using outdated population figures, even though updated ones were used before the wrapper was deleted.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - dedicated wrappers are very useful to me as heavy user: for instance the Cape Verde template uses the official geographic code to look up the administrative divisions the settlement is in (with consistent links, which would be lost for new articles after substitution) and the population. When a new population census has been held, these can be updated in one edit instead of 240 edits. And I use the infobox templates for maintenance, vandalism for instance. I really don't see the maintenance burden these wrapper templates present, in the history of the Cape Verde template I see some minor edits like the new way to handle coordinates. Note that the way these infoboxes show up in the articles will not change at all, so there no advantage there. If people want to add extra information fields and don't know how to do that, they can ask on the template talk page. Markussep Talk 09:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was solved + you informed - use Wikidata [2] To store data in templates populating Infobox settlement is not the way to go. It is a fringe solution. You can easily monitor vandalism in WD. On, top, it will not be only you - what happens if you are gone? - but other users too. Cape Verde data is probably interesting to other Wikipedias too? 78.55.183.179 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikidata is not a solution: that would mean I have to make 240 edits there to update populations after a new census. You may call it a fringe solution (there is no official ban on data templates, is there?), but it works well and requires little maintenance. And what happens whem I’m gone? Well, that’s what the documentation is for. If for instance Portuguese wikipedia is interested (they’re only one that has a similar number of articles on Cape Verde), they can copy the data template. Markussep Talk 07:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hoax. No need to make 240 edits. You have asked and have been told how to do it. 77.183.172.102 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No need to be rude. Even if I could add all populations to wikidata at one go, I would still have to edit all individual articles to tell them to get their populations from wikidata, wouldn’t I? And this doesn’t solve the other problems I mentioned. Markussep Talk 18:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that the IP is suggesting that a single template can be made which draws the population data for the article where it is placed from Wikidata. I should remind them that this is still a grey area on enwiki where we only have explicit consensus to use Wikidata in infoboxes, and where we have consensus not to use Wikidata in article prose. Use in tables is quite likely to be challenged until a consensus emerges one way or the other. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - individual wrappers are a barrier for users that are not familiar with them. And every time a feature is missing the wrapper has to be edited. TerraCyprus (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Template {{Infobox Russian District}} was recently converted to wrapper after it was taken to TfD by people who prefer principles over actual usability, and against my objections. Now it does not work and shows false information (see Vokhomsky District for example). If {{Template:Infobox Russian federal subject}} gets converted to wrapper, against my objections - and I am currently the only user who works with these templates - it is not going to work and will show false information as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You offer nothing to substantiate your claim other than "see Vokhomsky District"; and have made no comment about the supposed issue with that article on its talk page, nor on the template's talk page. Even so, the supposed issue with a past wrapper creation does not mean that the alleged issue will affect the replacement of wrappers proposed above - the vast majority, furthermore, having nothing whatsoever to do with the mere 89 transclusions of Infobox Russian federal subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I provided enough information. This is a systemic problem for all settlement/division template converted to wrappers, not just for Russia. I am not really suprised you are not willing to see the problem, since you were one of the users lobbying the conversion in the first instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ymblanter: What false information are you referring to? If you mean the maps, they have nothing to do with the wrapper, and in fact they were added after someone (could be you, if I'm not mistaken) complained that showing both static and dynamic maps was pointless duplication. If you notice specific issues please let the editors know, so that we can work to fix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underlying lk (talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this case I mean indeed the map. I am pretty sure I have never added anything to the template. I complained that it had two maps, and in another instance (Mezensky District) one was wrong and one was ugly. Now it has one, which is both ugly and wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you allegtaions are FUD, and your opposition to the replacement of wrappers proposed here is as bogus as your ad hominem suggestion that I'm "not willing" to see the non-existent issue with the proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • To be honest, I do not feel I need to respond to this rant.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Having one solid "Infobox Settlement" benefits not only the general editors of Wikipedia but also enables the power users to center their efforts on improving the Infobox Settlement for any needs that may arise in the future.--Darwinek (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that 10, 15, and 20 have not been tagged. Agathoclea (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This proposal embraces 25 separate templates, and it's entirely possible that some might have issues that others don't. (Examples include the Peru and Russia bits mentioned above; they ought to get considered separately.) Please renominate everything individually or in smaller groups to permit discussion at a more granular level. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FUD. - it's entirely possible that some might have issues that others don't (bolding mine) - All are wrappers for the same Infobox template which is proposed to be transcluded directly, thus the presentation will not change and it is reasonable (same wrapped template) to put these in one batch, precedence for batch proposals has been presented. There have been 3 recent batches for such replacements, each passed. Dozens of other wrappers or similar templates have been deleted in favor of Infobox settlement. 410 000+ articles transclude Infobox settlement directly, so it is well established practice and editors have knowledge how to work with that infobox template. Of the mentioned two oppose votes, Peru was solved, and Russia identified as irrelevant to the proposal here, since the referenced case was about converting into a wrapper, but here it is about replacing a wrapper. If you have any concern regarding a specific replacement proposed above say so. Just saying that "there might [be] issues" is not a reason. Nothing would change in individual proposals or other groupings apart from splitting the discussion and repeating the standard reasons for the proposed standardization. The larger group made it even easier for the opposers to stop the batch, but they failed with 6:4 pro, which surprisingly made User:Hhkohh turn it into a relist. List of closed (not relisted) proposals since 2018 November 1:
    1. 2018 November 8#Template:Infobox Omaha Neighborhood - 1:0 pro
    2. 2018 November 8#Template:Infobox Kelurahan - 1:0 pro
    3. 2018 November 16#Template:Infobox Fylkeskommune (batch of 2) - 3:0 pro
    4. 2018 November 23 (batch of 6) - 2:0 pro
    5. 2019 February 6#Template:Infobox Belgium settlement - 3:0 pro
    6. 2019 February 6 (batch of 8) - 3:2 pro
    7. 2019 February 14#Template:Infobox district of Iraq - 2:1 pro
    8. 2019 February 16#Template:Infobox Maldives - 3:1 pro
    9. 2019 February 16 (batch of 10) - 3:0 pro
    10. 2019 February 17#Template:Infobox Town AT - 6:0 pro
    11. 2019 February 17#Template:Infobox Partido Argentina - 2:0 pro
    12. 2019 February 22#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality - 2:1 pro
    77.183.81.143 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Maybe User:Hhkohh can explain why s/he relisted when voting was 6:4 and one of the opposers was offtopic and all what was said by the opposer referencing Columbia can be done with the Infobox settlement w/o changing its code. 77.183.81.143 (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:NOTAVOTE. This time let an admin close it Hhkohh (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: there was certainly opposition at the {{Infobox Town AT}} discussion: mine. Moreover, contrary to what was said by the nominator Zackmann08 "To be clear, this specific TFD is NOT discussing removing the use of {{Metadata population AT-6}}. That would be discussed in a separate TFD. So if that is your only concern, that you need not worry about it. These pages can simply make a direct call to that template.", the population templates were immediately substed after the Infobox Town AT tfd had been closed. I haven't seen a single convincing argument to delete the infobox wrappers. Show me the maintenance burden that a wrapper like {{Infobox Town AT}} or {{Infobox Cape Verde settlement}} presents. It's not like there are hundreds of wrappers that need to be updated when something is changed at Infobox settlement, and judging from the history of Infobox Cape Verde settlement, these changes are only about once a year. Could someone please make a clear list of advantages of this deletion proposal? I can list some disadvantages:
        • Loss of consistency between articles about similar topics (municipalities of Austria, settlements of Cape Verde, etc.), e.g. links to higher administrative divisions. Several wrappers link to higher administrative divisions and use specific detailed pushpin maps based on their official geographic code
        • Loss of country-specific maintenance tools: several infobox wrappers place articles with (unintentional or vandalic) bad infobox content (like "state = disneyland") in a maintenance category
        • Loss of the facility to update population data for hundreds of settlements in one edit, see also this discussion. Markussep Talk 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Markussep. A replacement of this scale should take the main users of the templates onboard. —Kusma (t·c) 12:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is great that somebody finally made this argument. The previous templates were delete/ converted to wrappers despite the opposition of the main users of these templates. Let us at least here finally listen to them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter & Kusma While I support this TFD, I'm curious whether this might be a good case for a procedural closure based on the fact that these are all grouped. It might be better to discuss them one at a time. Critiques that apply to one or two of these may not apply to others. This is further supported by Nyttend's statement above.
    Note to closing admin: If the decision is keep, would you consider a note about no prejudice against renominating in smaller individual batches. I'm not saying immediately renominate all 25 in separate TFDs, but I think if these were done in smaller batches, a more helpful conversation could be had. Food for thought. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If these templates get discussed separately, the usual suspects who always vote for wrappers / merging / deletion will outnumber users of any particular template, and templates can not survive. When had a community using Russian-related templates we were able to defend them, but gradually all users left, I remained the only user of these templates, they were all nominated here and destroyed by people who are actually not using them, against my objections and without any policy-based arguments. At least right now there are many users here who use different templates, and, as far as I can see, all of them oppose deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Nyttend actually stated that he's opposing because this is a group nomination and some templates might have valid issues for being kept, giving only a reference to two templates which were already proven otherwise. --Gonnym (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Including the reasons above; It always puzzled me why people would assume that a single vanilla template would be expected to fit every article use case. I suspect the maintenance burden is overstated. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend procedural close At this point this discussion is too convoluted to be applied to so many templates. These really need to be examined on a case by case basis. Bulk nominating and trying to nuke them all in one go is not a good play. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Zackmann08, let's consider each wrapper on its own merits.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is some bad weird thing ongoing here. With one exception (#3) all of these wrappers to the settlement box are wrapping units which arent settlements at all. It's nonsense to use a settlement infobox for a province, a district or any other administrative unit. (That that is practice in the English WP for more than a decade is bad practise and should have been stopped years ago.) Unwrap those boxes and reinstate individual boxes. I strongly oppose also the "unification" of infoboxes for geographic units which has infected the English language Wikipedia and prevents it from unsing benefits of specialized boxes for each country as there are automatic categorization, less source text cluster, or much less work for article's editors because they habe a lot less parameters to fill in (which should be the main goal, not some "maintenance"). It are the editors who write Wikipedia. "Maintenance" doesn't write any article. Glad that my home Wiki (de) chose a more distinguished way. (Did you ever compare the byte length of EN:WP articles with other language versions? For example a normal filled-in de:Vorlage:Infobox Ort in den Vereinigten Staaten uses some 1200 byte, the same Template:Settlement adapted for US populated places needs about 4.500 to 5.000 byte.) It's time to make an u-turn. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This madness should be stopped and undone.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's clear from the above discussion that at least some of these templates use fields that aren't present in {{infobox settlement}} and so can't be merged without some loss of maintainability and ease of use. I think it's also important to point out that that these templates are overwhelmingly more likely to be used by the people who create, update and look after the relevant articles, and we shouldn't be making their job more difficult just so that the small number of infobox settlement experts might have a slightly easier time of it if they happen to want to edit one of the articles concerned. – Uanfala (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2019 (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).

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 22. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:38, 22 March 2019 (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).

Template:Largest cities of Antigua and Barbuda[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Largest cities of'... templates. Content has already been placed directly onto proper articles. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Templates have been suitable included as simple tables in parent articles.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Tom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rename to "Most populous cities of... and populate the mentioned articles. USeful navigational aide. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:LNBA[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:EXISTING & WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:49, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:LCP[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template that is simply a plainlink Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This can be deleted, I'm not sure why I was even testing it in the Template namespace rather than a sandbox. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G2 per author. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2019 (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).

Template:Kantenji nav[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused large table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only content editor - I agree, this content's intended use in some kantenji / braille pattern articles was superseded long ago, and I neglected to delete it at that time. I have WP:Userfied the content as it still holds some research information, but it is not a functioning template. VanIsaacWScont 07:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Any closer watching - this is an easy G7 as the author and only editor agrees that should have been deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2019 (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).

Template:Iranian legislative election, 2012[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template that contains a note saying it isn't verified and highly suspect Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:46, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Iranian legislative election, 1988[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template. Data is already on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2019 (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).

Template:Iranian legislative election, 1980[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template. Data is already on the article's page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:45, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:House of Elis[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused house template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:42, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Honda truck timeline[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused massive timeline Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:42, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Cite short[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused broken template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unused and never updated since created. --Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:C1YearEnd[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused calendar templatet Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - all code was commented out in 2008 (a few days after created) and has never been changed since. --Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2019 (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).

Template:C-mh[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was userified to User:Gilgamesh~enwiki/Template:C-mh/Backup. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that has been deprecated since June 2017 Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:38, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Bundesrat composition[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused table Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:38, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Brazilian federative units by Human Development Index[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused maps template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:37, 7 March 2019 (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).

Template:Age in years, months, weeks, days and hours[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and deprecated for over 4 years. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - odd combination: "months, weeks, days and hours" unlikely ever to be used. Nigej (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nigej. Highly unlikely to be used given the lengthy name--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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).

Module:Vandal-m[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Module:UserLinks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Vandal-m with Module:UserLinks.
Same core function: Providing links about a specific user. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Excellent idea. --Bsherr (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Pppery: Do you know that Module:Vandal-m will not ping user while Module:UserLinks will ping user? Hhkohh (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hhkohh: No, I honestly did not know that, however I still think they should be merged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery:, that will be a complex merge. Because in some user conduct discussion, when putting a username in a discussion, we should not ping them in some cases. Hhkohh (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose unless someone coded the merged version Hhkohh (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:19, 7 March 2019 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_7&oldid=1142562336"