Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19[edit]

Template:Salem–Vriddhachalam–Cuddalore Port line[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 19. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 19 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:Sheffield Tigers speedway team 2011[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox linking players from a 2011 team. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Such templates are a bad idea. If someone is in the team for 20 years he ends up with 20 templates on his page. Too much surely. This one is unused too. Personally I'd be happy to see all the speedway teams go: Category:Speedway team templates all date from 2006 to 2011 indicating that the idea died out. Nigej (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigej, Happy to support a bulk nomination! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:44, 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).

Template:Slovak mobile phone companies[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with only 3 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:47, 19 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:TOT S.C. 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Claims to be "current" squad, hasn't been updated in 3 years. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no 'current' squad on the parent article to link it to. GiantSnowman 08:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 19:15, 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:Thamusemeant[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. All albums redirect to parent article. No useful navigation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Everything redirects to the same article. Unused too. Nigej (talk) 19:17, 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:Turkey squad 2011 Women's Volleyball European 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that links players of the same team from 2011. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:46, 19 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 polyhedron navigator[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox. Simplified versions inuse where necessary. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 19 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:Unicode chart[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template reported to be under construction since 2014. Currently consist of nothing more than documentation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 19 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:Linggo Bingo sa Hapon[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with mostly redlinks/plaintext. No useful navigation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Some undefined list of Philippine TV programmes on the GMA Network but quite what is unclear. Not updated since 2013. Nigej (talk) 19:26, 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:Liloa/Piilani/Moana 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 relisted on 2019 April 19. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 19 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:Life on Earth[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. Randy Kryn has added to articles and explained its use. No reason to delete IMHO. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that is way too broad and non-specific. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, no longer unused. Will keep watch on the discussion. Maybe further define 'broad and non-specific', thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn, So here's my issue... With a page like Acoelomorpha which you added this too, doesn't {{Animalia}} suffice? Why does it also need {{Life on Earth}}? (please {{ping|zackmann08}} in your response!) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Zackmann08:. The first template is much longer and complex, which works on one level, but the template under discussion seems simpler and easier to follow, and gives another angle of the topic. Many pages have numerous templates which list the article that they are included upon, and each of those individually designed templates serve a purpose. I stopped distributing the template, but if kept will continue and finish the list if nobody else has done so. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn, you know what, that works for me. I will confess this is NOT a topic I know enough about to be authoritative on. Your explanation works for me. Will withdraw the nomination now. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should probably be moved to a better name, like "Template:Extant life phyla and divisions by domain". I know it's not catchy, but it would be more explanatory. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The visible name, which is really all that counts, is "Extant Life phyla/divisions by domain", which covers the topic well. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody has seen fit to use the template for a (very) long while, with good reason, barring the sudden rush of additions since this TfD came up. We already have very broad templates including Eukaryota; going for everything-that-lives is basically a bridge way too far. We don't need this template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template does the job well and provides a good overview in a manageable size. That it wasn't used doesn't mean it isn't useful, just that nobody took the time to distribute it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 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:Lichen genera taxonomy[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused MASSIVE navbox that is way too large to provide any useful navigation. WP:NAVBOXCREEP and WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, this is an absurdly large structure, indeed so large as to be a reductio ad absurdum argument against its own continued existence. It's not practicable and not necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too big to be of any use. List, categories and smaller templates would work better than this. --Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 19:27, 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:Legislative buildings of Europe[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Most links go to the country's page, not to an article about the building. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:40, 19 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:Legal Quays of London[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with mostly WP:REDLINKS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:40, 19 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:La Serena 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 relisted on 2019 April 19. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 19 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:LGBT rights in Australia[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. Already deleted (log entry) by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that seems to duplicate LGBT in Australia Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Bizarrely, much of the content relates to Brazil, so seems to an abandoned attempt. Surplus to {{LGBT in Australia}} which is widely used. Nigej (talk) 19:43, 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:LSD LegCo members[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with only 1 link. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 19 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:La Romana, Dom Rep TV[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 19 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:La Ronge Radio[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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. It's used now... just forgot to put the template into its articles... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 07:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. La Ronge is a small market which only has one true radio station of its own, and literally everything else here is a rebroadcaster of a station from another market. But per WP:TCREEP, radio stations are not supposed to contain an explosion of market navboxes for every individual city or town where they have a rebroadcaster — they are only supposed to have the navbox for their originating market. For example, the Prince Albert radio market navbox is the only one that belongs on CHQX-FM, not three additional submarket navboxes for Big River and La Ronge and Waskesiu Lake. So the only page this template belongs on is CBKA-FM, and a navbox for one page is not needed. CBKA is already navboxed for its network anyway, so deleting this will not depopulate the article's inbound links. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Bearcat, too small of a market. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 6 May 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:List of NBC Red Network Programs from 1926-27[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:34, 19 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:List of crambid genera[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Uses have been replaced with {{A-Z multipage list}} already. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:33, 19 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:List of rivers of Tajikistan[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 30. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:46, 30 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:Lists of hills of English counties[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that is almost entirely WP:REDLINKS. WP:EXISTING violation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was created in good faith and in anticipation that, eventually, every county would have a list of hills. However, as only the southern counties are covered to date, it has been replaced, for those counties that are linked, by Template:Hills of Southern England. I've saved a copy of this one in my user space in case lists for the other counties are created. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bermicourt, to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't created in good faith!!! That was never a question in my mind. I was merely stating the facts of its current state. For all I know, every one of those pages existed when the navbox was created but have since been deleted. I want to be clear I'm not suggesting you did ANYTHING wrong. I'm simply pointing out that as the template currently sits it is mostly WP:REDLINKS and thus violates WP:EXISTING. My apologies if you felt I was saying you did something wrong. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08. No worries, no offence taken. It appears unlikely that the remaining articles will be created any time soon, so the template may as well be deleted and re-created when they do. Bermicourt (talk) 20:01, 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:Lists of women by occupation[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that just links list of women... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:31, 19 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:Los Caminantes[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 and use (it is now used). However, if the musical group's articles are deleted another TfD could be filed. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox for a musical group of questionable notability. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The articles exist for most but they should probably be redirected anyway thus still making this an unnecessary navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The navbox is now used. User:The Source Within removed the navboxes from the articles. In any event, AFD comes before TFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the articles are still here - if the articles aren't notable, they should be AfD, but as long as they are still here, this nav templates helps with navigation between them. --Gonnym (talk) 17:24, 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:Lord High Constable of England[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 19 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:Lombard Kingdom[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with numerous redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 19 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:Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Premier (soccer)[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 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:Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Division 1A[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no clear parent article. It appears to link to the 2011 season, but actually links to the division as a whole. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 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:MalaysiaFedDeleg[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 19 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:Major railway stations in the United Kingdom[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. Already deleted (log entry) by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that duplicates two other navbox. Those navbox are implemented on the necessary pages. No need for a merged template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - serves no useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 20:31, 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:Macedonian Footballer of the 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that is WP:NAVBOXCREEP. Even if added to the articles, all it does is link people with one award in common. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale here - notable award. Respectfully, the nominator perhaps should stop being so lazy and start adding 'unused' navbox templates to the articles they link... GiantSnowman 09:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GiantSnowman, just because it is a notable award doesn't mean it needs its own navigational box. Not everything needs a navbox. And perhaps you, as an admin, should know better than to engage in personal attacks by suggesting that I'm just too lazy to add it to articles. I don't think the navbox is needed per WP:NAVBOXCREEP. THAT is why I nominated it for discussion. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as in here. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another instance of systemic bias against our football, all European nations have hall of fame articles. 31.15.225.128 (talk) 17:54, 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:Super Over[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 May 19. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 19 May 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:Navbox Province of Italy[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. Please make sure that the templates that call this template are properly converted to call {{navbox}} directly before deletion. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And associated template Template:Navbox Province of Italy/testcases. For reasons stated at Template talk:Navbox Province of Italy - overly complicated and unnecessary template; can just have individual province templates. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There appears to be a misunderstanding here; this is a metatemplate used by indivudal navboxes like Template:Province of Nuoro. Nevertheless, delete, as this template appears to exist only to call on templates used to store data which has no possibility of being changed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And what will happen to {{Province of Nuoro}} if you do that, Pppery? – it's marked as under consideration for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justlettersandnumbers: It will be converted to call Template:Navbox directly ({{Province of Nuoro}} itself isn't marked as under consideration, it's transcluding a notice from {{Navbox Province of Italy}}, as is standard for TfDs). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I should’ve asked this question here instead of on the template in question:
    @Pppery: Deleting this meta template won't thereby delete the individual templates, right? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vaselineeeeeeee: No, they'll get converted to call Template:Navbox directly. Also, we seem to be having a discussion fork here, and further discussion should take place at the TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's transcluding a message that doesn't concern it? Isn't that just a little misleading? I suggest that that should be fixed before we spend any more time deleting templates that appear to be working perfectly well. If someone wants {{Province of Nuoro}} to call {{Navbox}} directly, couldn't they just edit it so that it does so? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just the way TfD works. As the message clearly states, "the template Navbox Province of Italy ...", which is the template it applies to. The arguments for converting {{Province of Nuoro}} apply just as well to all other uses of the template, which means a TfD is necessary, and the custom is to TfD first to avoid a fait accompli. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this template, and keep the individual province navboxes separately.--Darwinek (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The fate of the individual province navboxes is not in dispute. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after converting the individual province navboxes to use {{navbox}} directly. Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after converting individual province navboxes. It is clear from Template talk:Navbox Province of Italy#Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2019 that this template is hindering rather than helping make individual province navboxes readable and editable. Daask (talk) 09:40, 14 May 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:If affirmed[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:Yesno. There is overall support for this merger. Given that this merger could potentially affect millions of pages, it needs to be heavily sandboxed to make sure nothing breaks. I believe that the best implementation will be to convert the two "if" templates into wrappers and then proceed from there, but regardless of the exact method there should be as close to 0% error as possible. Please feel free to ping me for input/implementation. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:If affirmed and Template:If declined with Template:Yesno.
Duplicate templates, it seems undesirable to me for there not to be a consistent definition of what values been "yes" and what values mean "no". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If merged then do not call the template yesno. E.g. does "remove", "exclude", "include", "on", "off", "add", "none", means yes or no? Christian75 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Your proposal would affect a template transcluded on almost a quarter of all pages on Wikipedia. Such a huge change needs a much wider discussion than an ordinary TFD; please go to WP:VP/Pr or something of the sort, so that you can get a wider audience. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think the proposal makes sense. Care must be taken in its implementation, of course. TfD is the correct forum for this discussion, as that's exactly its purpose; posting notice of this discussion at other forums can resolve any concern this this discussion is not visible enough. --Bsherr (talk) 19:00, 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) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Makes sense. Extra care must be taken, and a better name may be needed. Rehman 12:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there does appear to be the beginnings of a consensus to merge these three templates, the (currently sole) opposition makes a valid point that a template family that affects 10 million pages should receive a little bit more discussion than is currently present. TFD is the proper location for this discussion to take place, but I will place notices at WT:WPT and WP:VPT in an effort to drum up more comments from potentially interested parties.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this can be done without touching anything on yesno, then sure start replacing the others - but touching yesno is pretty much a no-no. — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger; just don't break anything. @Pppery: Is Module:Yesno relevant to this discussion in any way? The only differences between the module and {{Yesno}} (as far as I can tell) are that "t" and "f" are accepted as true/false inputs in the module and not in {{Yesno}}, and that the module does not handle blank/¬ inputs specially. Jc86035 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, assuming nothing breaks. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as long as no new values for yes or no are added to {{Yesno}}. A quick glance through incoming links doesn't reveal a need for the add, affirm, etc. values, but if for some reason they are needed, then I would support a separate {{if affirmed}} that no longer accepts yes, y, or true as values. Daask (talk) 09:10, 14 May 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:Samanid Provinces[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. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It's used in the Samanid Empire article, and will eventually be used more places in the future. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The links in this navbox appear to go to articles about modern cities in the region, not to articles about the provinces within the Samanid Empire. I looked at a few of the linked articles, and they do not mention this empire or the city's role in it. This linking may violate MOS:EGG or a similar guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The majority of the links don't. And if there are cities, that because the province was situated at those cities. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 11 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:Bernice Summerfield audios[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) 19:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It seems I created this navbox and never got round to adding it to the articles. Will you still want to delete it if I do? Fifty of these pages have no navboxes, despite clearly being closely related (instalments of a single series, with clear boundaries for inclusion). I don't know of any strict rule that navboxes need a parent article, and the Bernice Summerfield one comes pretty close here anyway. If the rule is that strict, dozens of navboxes like Template:Eighth Doctor audios will also have to be deleted, because there isn't an Eighth Doctor audios parent article. —Flax5 15:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no strict rule that navboxes need a parent article but #4 at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates notes it for good templates. Personally I'd say this was an ideal use of a template, although noting that many of the articles are tagged as perhaps being not notable (but that's another issue). Nigej (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Flax5: - If I understand the propose of this template, it is meant for Bernice Summerfield#Audio plays (That should be its own article btw and not inside a character article, two very different articles)? If so, that is a valid and good template which should be added to articles. One question though, I noticed a very large overlap with {{Virgin New Adventures}}. Is that template for the same thing just in a different layout? --Gonnym (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Virgin New Adventures}} are a series of Doctor Who novels, some featuring Bernice Summerfield, who then became the protagonist of a spin-off novel series also published by Virgin. Big Finish's {{Bernice Summerfield audios}} are a subsequent spin-off series, with a handful of special audio episodes adapting old novels. The former template arranges the novels by the in-universe logic of which characters are featured rather than the real-world production/release history, which might be the source of some of the confusion. —Flax5 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currently {{Virgin New Adventures}} does not have all the links of {{Bernice Summerfield audios}}, but I'm not sure if that is because it wasn't updated or because they don't belong. If the reason is that they don't belong, then {{Bernice Summerfield audios}} has a use and should be added. I just don't want to see 2 templates, with one having all the links of the other. --Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're separate series, the only overlap is the seven articles about VNA novels that were later adapted into audio dramas. I've gone ahead and added the navbox to the correct pages. —Flax5 10:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This template now has 57 transclusions in article space. Whatever the opposite of WP:FAITACCOMPLI is, this one has it. Recommend keeping, now that it is useful, as its creator intended. Thanks to Zackmann08 for helping editors navigate this series of articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:38, 19 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:Authority control/BIBSYS[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. All already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have been, or should have been, unused in article space since the 2013 conversion of {{authority control}} to a Lua module. Any remaining uses should be able to be converted or substituted. See this talk page for a brief discussion about these templates and a link to a five-year-old discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, and there were only two active transclusions of any of the above templates outside of the pages themselves. In the interest of transparency, I should say that I put nowiki tags around the one that appeared on an archived talk page for the {{Authority control}} template, since the discussion was about the name of the template. I converted the other instance at User:MikeParker to a simple call to {{Authority control}}, which updated the display a bit while preserving the functionality. The only remaining transclusions are of {{Authority control/categories}}, all of which occur within the templates listed above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 19 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:4 17/11/2014[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Used on one article. Substitute and delete. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 17:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Substitute and delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:39, 19 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 official account[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the need or application for this template is, or where such a need would exist here on Wikipedia. This appears to be a template for official accounts, but we generally don't give coverage to official social media accounts and rather cover the person or organization in question instead. Furthermore this template was created as the first edit of a brand new user, and appears to have been copied from some other template. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:23, 19 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).

One Nation party 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 merge as described. No opposition, valid arguments made. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:One Nation/meta/color and Template:One Nation (Australia)/meta/color with Template:Pauline Hanson's One Nation/meta/color
Propose merging Template:One Nation (Australia)/meta/shortname with Template:Pauline Hanson's One Nation/meta/shortname.
Outdated and duplicate color templates. All three represent the same political party, albeit one which changed its name in 2015. A mixture of all three templates are linked to in political articles spanning more than 20 years. --Heyitsstevo (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, except use the yellow colour in Template:One Nation/meta/color. For most of their 20-year history, they have used the yellow. They have recently been using an orange, which is difficult to differentiate from another significant minor party, the Democrats, in elections from 1998 to 2005. With minor parties especially, we sometimes need to depart from the exact colour that they use in order to help differentiate them from other parties. We should maintain the yellow for now. Frickeg (talk) 07:36, 24 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).

Unnecessary file 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 merge as described. Concerns seem to have been addressed. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Now commons dated and Template:Now Commons
Propose merging Template:OP and Template:OTRS pending.
Needless complexity, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 5#Unnecessary file wrappers {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noincluded the tfd tags, given that this proposal causes almost no user-visible changes ({{subst:OP}} and {{subst:Now commons dated}}/{{subst:ncd}} will continue to work). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know much about how these work, but either way, at the end of the day I would like to keep the OTRS pending over OP, and redirect OP to OTRS pending. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of these as they are. The purpose of {{OP}} is that you use {{subst:OP}} to get {{OTRS pending}} with today's date. {{subst:OP}} will expand to {{OTRS pending|year=2019|month=March|day=19}}, Tomorrow, it will have day=20, etc. {{subst:ncd}} works the same way. ({{ncd}} is a redirect to {{subst:now commons dated}}.) Nobody actually types out the full template - they use {{subst:ncd}}. I'm sure that magic could probably be done to make {{subst:OTRS pending}} render as {{OTRS pending|year=2019|month=03|day=19}} and I thought from @Pppery:'s nomination that that is what you were saying you had done. But I just tested it in my sandbox and {{subst:OTRS pending}} renders a subst'd version of the mbox template. --B (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @B: I was saying that I will do that if the TfD closes as merge; doing it now would be improperly preempting the outcome of this TfD discussion. See Template:Dfu for an example of what the new style looks like; you can substitute it and it comes to a dated transclusion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Coded at Template:OTRS pending/sandbox {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: Looks good -  Works for me. I think this is fine to do. I don't know that it even needs to be !voted on - since {{subst:OP}} is still going to work, then there is no change in functionality - it's a non-controversial technical improvement to a template with no adverse consequences to anyone. --B (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both as suggested. Current setup is needlessly confusing and unfriendly to users who are not familiar with the file namespace -FASTILY 23:49, 22 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:Urban public transport in Algeria[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:Rapid transit in Africa. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 28 April 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, Sheldybett (talk) 00:38, 19 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_19&oldid=897880439"