Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

Contents

March 8Edit

Template:Average temperature tableEdit

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 21. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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:AutosignatureEdit

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) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No need for a template to insert a signature. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Apparently it was intended for use in other templates assuming an automatic signature was wanted. Templates are sufficiently confusing and the simple rule of always adding four tildes is best. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Johnuniq. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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).

Unused and redundant sports tablesEdit

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) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused table templates. The articles in question already have the table directly implemented on the page. For example, 2016–17 Welsh Football League Division One already has a table on it that is a direct copy of {{2016–17 Welsh Football League Division One League table}}. No need for the templates. Almost feel like this can be WP:T3ed as duplicates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
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:A-League all clubs mapEdit

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) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused clulb map Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - not used, or needed. GiantSnowman 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
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:Welcomeip2Edit

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) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Undocumented template that is better served by Template:Welcome-anon and the several more specific templates at Category:IP user welcome templates. Only used 8 times. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unless strong reason otherwise. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed, it's redundant. It's been used many more times than 8, those are just the transclusions that will need to be substituted before deletion (welcome templates should always be substituted anyway). ··gracefool 💬 08:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not used 8 times, but a little over over 40 times (link for substitutions). – Uanfala (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
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:London-railway-routemapEdit

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) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Redundant. All uses have now been replaced with {{UK-railway-routemap|cat=London}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Extended football GK startEdit

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) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused template. No edits since creation in 2010. Remnant of the old ways of formatting. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - unused & not needed. GiantSnowman 12:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
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:Extended football squad 2 playerEdit

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) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused table template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - unused & not needed. GiantSnowman 12:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
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:Extended football squad minutesEdit

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) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused template. No edits since creation in 2009. Remnant of the old ways of formatting. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - unused & not needed. GiantSnowman 12:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
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:EstcatUkrgovernorateDecadeEdit

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) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused category navigation template. Redundant. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:EstcatUkrgovernorateEdit

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) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused category navigation template. Redundant. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Ethnic groups in ScotlandEdit

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) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused population table Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Should be in article space.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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:EssayproposalEdit

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) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused and long deprecated. No reason to keep it just so it can be marked as historical Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - unused, deprecated, replaced and unneeded. --Gonnym (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the event that this situation arises, we can use {{Proposal}}. I don't see the point of marking a meant-to-be-used-temporarily template as historical. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
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:ETSEdit

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) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused template that is just a stylized wikilink Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:EB Games Expo 2015Edit

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) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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:EC HungariaEdit

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) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused sidebar. No information on context. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Dukes of RichmondEdit

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) 23:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete - unused. out of date - 10th Duke died in 2017. Succession boxes seem to be preferred. Nigej (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
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:DiscatBCEdit

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) 23:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navigation template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Dimmed namespaceEdit

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) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused template. Was previously nominated and kept in June 2017 because people foresaw a possible use. A year and a half later and still unused. Serves no purpose. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete; I don't understand the point of dimming a namespace name while using the rest of the BASEPAGENAME. If someone found a use, rather than offering speculation like in the previous TFD, I would happily change my vote. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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:Denmark and the EUEdit

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) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused sidebar template. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - unused, probably never will be. Nigej (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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:DecadeYears USEdit

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) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused and redundant template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Debate summaryEdit

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) 23:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused template with no real purpose... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Daylight saving in time zone/techdocEdit

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 21. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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:DateheaderDdMYEdit

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) 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused date template. no edits since creation in 2012 Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Data AfricaEdit

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) 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused template with no edits since creation in 2010. No longer the way things are done. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:DBR SQLEdit

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) 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused source language template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Ctime:06Edit

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) 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused time template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:CricketyearcatEdit

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) 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused and reduntant to year in cat Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - superseded. Nigej (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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:Cow-Toe BarnstarEdit

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) 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

unused non-functional template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete - unused. Nigej (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
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).

Unused CC templatesEdit

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) 07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

All of these are unused and obsolete. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Just because the licenses are obsolete doesn't mean that the templates are. If an editor comes across an image licensed under one of these licenses, they shouldn't have to create a template from scratch. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 14:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. We accept images with these licenses (even if you upload one with {{cc-by-sa}}, it won't get deleted on licensing grounds), and we shouldn't make it nearly impossible for people to upload files with these licenses. We strongly encourage people to put freely licensed images on Commons, but we don't mandate that files with a certain license be uploaded there. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
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:1500sProtestantwomenEdit

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 21. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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 Jane Austen characterEdit

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:Infobox character. There is consensus to merge, but no strong consensus on which parameters to merge. Before adding any new parameters to Template:Infobox character, please start at thread at Template talk:Infobox character. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Jane Austen character with Template:Infobox character.

Per WP:INFOCOL. 30 uses. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Disagree for moment. There are lots of unique fields in Jane Austen character that aren't in character infobox. How will all those fields get merged?--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Some of these (|Height=, |Income=, |LondonResidence= for example) are fancruft and should be discarded. The rest would be included, as in any merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Tom (LT): I tend to agree with what Pigsonthewing said. Can you be most specific than lots of unique fields? Which specific fields are you worried about. Certainly don't want to delete important data, but I think most of the fields in question are WP:FANCRUFT. Let me know your thoughts. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Tom (LT): bump... Can you expand your comments? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Sure. You have stated these could be merged, without providing any details about lots of fields which are different. Andy has said in a general way that lots of the varied ones can be discarded and you have said that you agree. I feel the main point of this particular merge is ideological, however I don't think in this particular circumstance it's practical given the wide discrepancy. I think it will make the reading experience worse and because of the discrepancies, also make the editing experience more confusing. I support other mergers of a similar ilk but for stated reasons oppose this one at this time.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and not merge - Most of the unique parameters here are trivia and uselss for an infobox such as |Height=, |Income=, |Education=, |LondonResidence=, |FavoritePasttimes=, |Age=. These should be removed and not added. Similar, |Birth= and |Death= were not included in the current infobox and it seems this was done on purpose and should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree Most of the fields in the character infobox are irrelevant to Jane Austen characters and will only make life more difficult for prospective Austen editors. I agree that some of the Jane Austen fields are unnecessary. e.g. age, birth, death are unhelpful; height irrelevant; romantic interest and favourite pastimes are probably fancruft. Income is relevant, I think, as this is a major feature in Austen's writings and is indicative of social status, which is also very important. Family tree type info could benefit from addition of other significant relatives. Petrosbizar (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Petrosbizar: is there a reason that this information cannot simply be displayed using |data1=, |data2=, etc? That is the entire point of having those parameters on {{Infobox character}}. Every series/show has a few custom parameters so those were added so that EVERY character type doesn't need its own infobox. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Zackmann08: 1. Thanks for your comment. That sounds perfectly reasonable. 2. What you say seems to reinforce the idea of merging with, say, similar groups of novels but not with the overly large one at present suggested. 3. In practice, I'm finding the Austen Character box to be inconsistent in management (that may be my lack of experience with infoboxes). For example, in the Fanny Price infobox there is a line available for Guardian. It is filled in with the name of Sir Thomas Bertram, but this does not appear in the box. Advice?Petrosbizar (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Petrosbizar: at the end of the day, the more up-merging we can do, the better. There are times where overgeneralizing can get back, I don't think this is one of those cases. {{Infobox character}} is more than capable of displaying all the needed information. As for why guardian doesn't display, {{Infobox Jane Austen character}} doesn't have a parameter |Guardian=. That is why it doesn't work. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
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) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. All of the extra parameters, including |Income=, seem quite crufty to me. But any detail deemed appropriate can certainly be accommodated with the |dataX= parameters.— TAnthonyTalk 16:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge and remove fan-centric parameters but allow |income= (in some form). It does tend to be a big aspect of some authors' character-building. Socialist authors, for example. I'd prefer something like |social status= or |social_class=, though. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Mr. Guye: |social status= sounds more like "is that character single or married?" so |social class= would be better and it does make it much more encyclopidiac than "income". One issue though is how do you assign that without WP:OR? What would "£50 per annum" at Elizabeth Bennet be converted to? --Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per TAnthony and WP:WAF. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It sure sounds as if the unique features of this infobox really don't belong in an infobox at all. I'm routinely unimpressed by the concept of merging almost everything into a few massive templates, since such a situation creates a good deal of unneeded complexity, but when all the important parameters are already present elsewhere, it makes sense to use the other template and discard the trivia. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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:BedrockEdit

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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

not everything needs a navbox. DannyS712 (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not needed, short of links anyway. Digweed has his own template already. Nigej (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Does not need a navbox.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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:Uw-navboxEdit

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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. An author of an article may not even know such a navigation box exists, especially newer editors. A navbox could end up being created after the article but not added to the article, but someone come across the article not seeing a navbox can warn the original author? What if someone removes the navbox from a navbox (either purposely or accidentally) and it isn't noticed? Because there isn't one, we can use this to warn the author for not adding one? Note that this warning template was created by someone who creates a lot of navboxes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - In one example, Mirror Master was created after {{Young the Giant}}, but did not have the navigation box placed on it, like it probably should have been. Yes, "a navbox could end up being created after the article but not added to the article", in which case the navbox should be placed on there in due time. How can one "remove a navbox from a navbox", unless a navbox is embedded in another navbox? If the navbox is accidentally removed from an article that should have that navbox, we can warn the editor who removed that navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a ridiculous warning. How is someone supposed to know what articles have navboxes that could apply to them? Natureium (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Overkill. Not sure what "associated with a navigation box" means. Can't we just add it ourselves or write a brief note on a talk page somewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - I have just warned a user about "Pushing 20". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'm completely mystified. I go to Pushing 20, click on "what links here", select "Template" namespace and get the message "No pages link to Pushing 20 in the chosen namespace." Nigej (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Reply - Check this out. Obviously, if the song has not been added to the template, the song will not be linked to the template. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Reply - So you're saying it isn't really "associated with a navigation box" but it should be and you're also not going to tell the user what the template is that it should be in, wasting his time finding it. To me its all bonkers. Why not just add it to the template and put the template where it should go. Nigej (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Reply - @Nigej:, many templates are a work in progress, and we can add the navbox as one of the parameters. With "Pushing 20", it is somewhat intuitive that it is a song by Sabrina Carpenter. Like {{uw-catimprove}}, it is important to let editors know that navboxes should be added to articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete What's next, a template to warn someone who writes an article that the content is not at featured article level and they should do better, in fact why don't they go to some other website which welcomes useful content. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Reply - Featured articles, by definition, are the exception, not the rule. Adding a navbox is quicker than bringing an article up to featured status. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Just add the navbox yourself: no need to make a stink about it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons given above. Awful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • delete if just you want it, userfy! Hhkohh (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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:BufoEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Redundant to article Bufo and Category:Bufo. Navbox creates maitenance burden and is in fact missing many species of Bufo. Species in genus navboxes are routinely deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I added the template to Bufo, so now it is used and has a parent. Per WP:CLN, categories, lists, and navboxes like this one can live together in harmony. And I don't think a single discussion qualifies as "routinely." UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why is it just selected toad species, rather than everything in the genus? If there are too many to provide a complete list, we need to have inclusion criteria (why these ones are more link-worthy than others), but no criteria are given or apparent. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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:Headless TOCEdit

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 21. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Glossing abbreviationsEdit

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 userfy to Module:Sandbox/Erutuon/Glossing abbreviations. Primefac (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Superseded per its own documentation. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm the user who created the template that I believe supersedes this, and I'm the one who replaced all its uses and then cheekily marked it as superseded. Now, if I'd thought it would be a good idea to delete this module I would have nominated it myself. And if I'd known that it would get nominated as "unused", I would have left one or two uses, to spare us having to debate it now. Why don't I think it's a good idea to delete it? The template that I created to replace it is a wrapper for one big complex module that also does other things; it's definitely more versatile and I like to think it's better, but it's also more complicated – it takes time for anyone to figure it out, it's more difficult to edit, it's easier to break. I don't like the idea that my complicated tool should be the only one available out there. It's possible someone would get unhappy about it and will want it to behave in a different way: then they're much better off building on this dedicated, simple and easy module than on mine. It's good to have more than one tool out there to do the same job, especially if there's such a stark difference in complexity. I know that to the regular participant here this argument doesn't sound like much – sure, there's presumably no actual use for this module now, but there's also no harm in keeping it, is there? I believe there are more long-term benefits in having access to an open and diverse set of templates, than in keeping everything absolutely tidy. – Uanfala (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Module cannot userfy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Hhkohh: actually Module's CAN be moved to a user sandbox. If you are going to be performing non-admin closures you really need to familiarize yourself much more with the process. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: Moving Module:Sandbox/DannyS712/learning to User:DannyS712/module/actual results in "Scribunto" content is not allowed on page User:DannyS712/module/actual in slot "main". If you are going to be critiquing how familiar others are with the process, you might want to double check that you are rights. But, modules can be moved to a subpage of Module:Sandbox, effectively allowing users to have their own sandbox modules, but not technically being userfied. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/Erutuon) or delete. Whatever original intention Uanfala had matters not anymore. The new module has replaced all usages and we shouldn't have 2 modules doing the same thing and having two different code bases. --Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I would have thought it's precisely the intentions of the editors who create, use and maintain a given template that matter :) – Uanfala (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
      • What I was referring to was your intention to replace all instances of it, but still leave it and not delete it. That intention matters not, as the bottom line is that we have 2 templates doing the same, one of them with zero uses. --Gonnym (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I wasn't trying to pick a quarrel with you, I was just trying to present a viewpoint on the whole situation. Your opinion is very reasonable, but it does ramify into the (unintended) conclusion that when deciding what tools should be available in a certain area it's irrelevant what the people who edit in this area want and instead the decision should be based on the opinions of people who do not edit in the area. But such a conclusion is in a way already presupposed in the setup of a place like TfD anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
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:Punjab Gharana Lineage TreeEdit

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) 23:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox, no parent article, mostly redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
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:GP3 Series circuitsEdit

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) 23:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:Franchises by IremEdit

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 as T3 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 07:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Might seem ironic considering I'm the author of the template, but I would prefer to have this deleted. Namcokid47 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
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:FoxMemorial 2008Edit

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) 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox with no parent article. There is no page for Fox Memorial (redirects to league). WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:WikiProject Rave/classEdit

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 08:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

unused classification template for inactive project Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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:WikiProject Rivers/rater-data.jsEdit

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) 07:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

unused raw javascript Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't javascript, it's JSON incorrectly labelled as Javascript. Neutral on deletion for now, but the content model should be changed if kept. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This appears to me to me part of User:Kephir/gadgets/rater.js, however the owner of that gadget has been inactive since 2017. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
That is indeed the use of it. The gadget works fine today. We should indeed change the contentmodel; the gadget doesn't look like it cares about the contentmodel and JSON would be more correct here. --Izno (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep (but change content model) per Izno: component of a still-in-use and working gadget. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Peppery; if it's technical code being used as intended, we shouldn't delete unless there's a demonstrable problem. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
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).