Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 3 January 5 >

January 4 edit

Element Infoboxes 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. There was a suggestion of adding a note to the talk page, but it looks like {{Old TfD}} is already on most of them. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of templates

I don’t think we need 118 separate templates for each element, since each is used only on the corresponding article. Instead, I suggest transcluding {{Infobox element}} on each page. For technical reasons, I can only go up to tin, element 50, in the initial nomination. I’ll add the remaining 68 later. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Added the rest, and three undiscovered elements. 23:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because it is not a deletion. It is a reverse-merge (upmerge?). -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a reverse-merge be a split? If a merge brings things together, the reverse or opposite of a merge would be taking things apart (i.e., a split), I think? :-) Maybe this term has a Wikipedia-specific meaning.
In the case of this templates discussion, it's not quite clear whether templates such as Template:Infobox hydrogen are being proposed for deletion or redirection, though they're functionally pretty similar. My point, and I believe Pppery's point as well, was that this discussion should be appropriately advertised. Given that several editors are weighing in here, I'm not very concerned about this now. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also no need to add a tag in articles, because this is not a deletion, nor content change. It is a technical change. When done, no content change will happen at all (we must hope)! No visual (rendered) change even, to mainspace. (and, btw, adding a tag to all infoboxes could be done quite simply, just ask me. But I will revert). - DePiep (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to be uninterested in exact hairsplitted wording of the process. The proposal is: add {{Infobox element}} to each element article, with data (parameter input) exactly as is now in the individual infobox (So: hydrogen |melting point K=13.99 will be in the top section of hydrogen etc.). IOW: by definition and by intention, no change of the article at all (not for data, nor visual, nor rendering). That is: technical background, not relevant to the article space. Even when this infobox changed from wikitable to {{Infobox}}, no TfD was required or started, let alone tagging the articles. -DePiep (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created Template:Infobox hydrogen and others. I don't need to be convinced that it could be done with the use of TFD. The process here matters in the sense that we have a standardized way of nominating templates for deletion that tries to ensure that relevant parties are notified of the discussion. Tagging all of the affected templates is a nice and usual courtesy. Your argument that there's no content change here is irrelevant, since a templates discussion is about the technical implementation. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not try to 'convince' you, I responded to your post on a TfD page (not a User talk page). It is not a deletion proposal (as your earlier comment stated). Of all the flaws in the proposal, the cumulative issue is that it still has not resulted in a Speedy Keep, burning editor's energy. -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What is the gain to convert everything? It is well maintained it works fine there is no exponential growth in numbers expected. First and foremost we had the discussion years ago and the arguments are still valid. Are there new ones? The old discussions yielded no Delete vote, where should they come from now?--Stone (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The reasons given by the proposer are identical to the reasons given in the past. In the links given above, all !votes listed appear to be keep except for the proposer. It seems every discussion was closed either by WP:SNOW or because the proposer withdrew the proposal. YBG (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only argument that keeps coming up, is that templates "may" not be used as single-instance, "maskerading as article text" (well, this time not even that is mentioned, which indicates poor preparation and research). I'll explain why this is too short-sighted, or Wikilawyering. Disclosure: my involvement.
First of all, being a guideline allows for reasoned exceptions. And even within the relevant guidelines, the very first sentence says "Templates should not normally be used ..." (which comes nearest to the objections, to fill that in by lack of true arguments in nom). Now, this is a "not normally". I do not simply claim Be Bold/Ignore All Rules, I claim a Reasoned Exception.
Second, having article data in a template is as common as the weather. Navboxes are the easiest example. Of course, every such template has the view-talk-edit links. This way of editing is fully acceptable for Wikipedia, and is supporting "the encyclopedia everyone can edit". Important to note: this way of editing is irrelevant wrt the number of transclusions. Let me repeat this: no editor is hindered because of the fact that a template is transcluded only once.
Third: transclusion is core of internet pages. If we want to build serious webpages, we'll have to include the option to transclude. And OTOH, no editor is helped when having all content in one page. Not for structuring the page, not for editing the page (to think about: we also have section editing).
Fourth: While these templates are set up this way since inception, we can and do maintain a high grade of perfectionism and correctness. Checking, editing and improving the 121 element templates is made easy and well-controlled by their being standalone. I would not wish any editor or maintainer having to go through 121 articles to find a specific data point for check or change. Some years ago, moving the metatemplate from wikitable form into {{infobox}} form could not have been done having to check individual article pages. We would have to create sandboxes of all articles. At the moment, a similar big change is in the air wrt using Wikidata.
Also, the complementary non-infobox part of the article, that is all other page content, is maintained very good, I can say, since 107/121 (88%) (corrected) of the articles are FA/GA. None of these FA/GA creating editors has ever complained about this infobox situation.
TL;DR; a. It is about a guideline, so allows reasoned exception (not even simply claiming Be Bold/IAR in this). b. Editing templates through view-talk-edit links is accepted as Wikipedia article setup. Number of transclusions does not matter to the editor. c. Transclusion is a basic feature of webpages. Wikipedia does accomodate that, while maintaining "everyone can edit". d. Infobox and article maintenance and editing are not helped by adding infobox data to the article. e. No involved WP:ELEMENTS editor asked for this—ever. Articles and their infoboxes have 88% FA/GA, so something must be done right. Big changes, like going from wikitable to {{Infobox}} (done) and using Wikidata (todo), cannot be done smoothly nor easily, if at all, when code is in article.
Speedy keep per my comment, and earlier TfDs. -DePiep (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and thank you for taking the time to explain these views. I wonder, given that this issue seems to reoccur every year or two, whether it makes sense to add an explanatory template note on the talk pages of these element infoboxes explaining why they're separate. This might reduce the likelihood of deletion nominations that do not consider the history. Or at least would provide a place to point users when this question about single-use templates arises. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything here, except the 104/121 figure which has already become 107/121 if I'm counting correctly. ^_^ We should be able to get it up into the 110's this year: stay tuned! Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is 88%. Corrected for the archives (including Double sharp's promise ;-) ). - DePiep (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made this speedy keep for SNOW; would have been more obvious were the nom complete. No need to spend more editor's time. -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2018 (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:Short Circuit 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. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With two films and one song, this just doesn't seem necessary. Navigation is not really improved by having this. WP:NENAN. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:23, 4 January 2018 (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:NPSL South Playoffs 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redundant tournament bracket template Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2018 (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:NPSL Winter 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It seems out of date or need to be updated. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2018 (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:NFL WR stats start 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2018 (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:NFL punting and returning stats start 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2018 (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:NDB/Nativeno 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not used by Template:NDB Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2018 (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:NaturalCompoundImage 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; unclear purpose Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2018 (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:Native 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; unclear purpose Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2018 (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:National rugby union team 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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused navboxes wrapper for a group of other navboxes Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2018 (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:National football top goalscorers player 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2018 (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:National football squad break (debut) 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2018 (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:National football squad player (light) 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember exactly what the argument was for creating it... I could imagine there may be some use for it, but no article is in fact using it, so that does make it pretty pointless. So I don't mind. Sygmoral (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unused, not needed. GiantSnowman 16:08, 7 January 2018 (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:National Youth Competition season 2010 ladder progression 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

should be added to 2010 National Youth Competition (rugby league) season or deleted Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2018 (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:National World University Championships baseball record 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused infobox Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2018 (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:National Rugby League Teams 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2018 (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:Named 2017 FIA World Endurance 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; appears to duplicate Template:2017 FIA World Endurance Championship Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2018 (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:NYNH&H lines 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 2018 January 12. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2018 (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:NWLLR lines 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2018 (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:NS Sneltrein lines 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2018 (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:NSSR color 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2018 (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:NRW-Liga 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2018 (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:NRL map2 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 2018 January 12. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2018 (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:NRHP in Crater Lake NP 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

appears to have been replaced by Template:Crater Lake Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (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:NIRDublinLineColor 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; replaced by Template:NIRColor Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2018 (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:NIRRail start 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⚡ 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; replaced by other s-line templates Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2018 (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:Page metrics 2013-2014 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 after substituting existing uses. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template which will probably not be used again in the future. Substitute all transclusions (less than 5 not counting the pages related to itself), then delete. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2018 (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:Distilled beverages 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 Portal:Liquor/Topics/Distilled beverages. It seems transclusion at the portal is desired, so we'll go with that. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; appears to duplicate a section in Template:Alcoholic drinks Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2018 (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:The X-Files RT scores S10 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 2018 January 12. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2018 (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/2018_January_4&oldid=820041326"