Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 9

Contents

March 9Edit

Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Editnotice-8Edit

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this really necessary to have an editnotice for? (also, this is in the wrong place, the correct place to add a warning against April Fools system messages would be Template:Editnotices/Namespace/MediaWiki, so this should be at Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Editnotices/Namespace/MediaWiki instead) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:57, 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).

Old Template:POTD_protected/YYYY-MM-DD 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).

There is consensus to speedy delete old (>30 days) POTD protected templates. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:POTD#Unused Templates supported having User:AnomieBOT III delete POTD_protected templates dated over 30 days old. But at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 5 xaosflux wanted this TFD to confirm it. Anomie 20:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete (or "Speedy delete" per xaosflux's requirement) - per the discussion at WP:POTD and howcheng's response that these can safely be deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    I'm OK with a "delete" result, with the understanding that future such pages will be Speedy Deleted. — xaosflux Talk 03:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:POTD protected exists only as a protection-related hack, therefore any non-cascade-protected POTD protected templates for the past have no reason to exist. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per common sense. Thanks for taking on this cleanup task, Anomie. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pppery. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this only for unused pages or for all old pages in the list? Peter James (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Peter James: The plan is to delete all of the old pages in the list. After purging a bunch of pages, there's only 13 pages transcluding any of these old templates. Ideally they should all be replaced with {{POTD/yyyy-mm-dd|row}}, although currently the "recently featured" list wouldn't be the historical version if we do that. Anomie 20:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the previous discussion as well as just common sense. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:56, 10 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:Philippines Squad 1998 William Jones CupEdit

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) 07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Does not need a navbox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 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:Phil-logsEdit

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) 07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused Mbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete unused and not useful.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 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:Permian navEdit

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) 07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:50, 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:PeriodicTable-ImageMapEdit

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) 01:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused periodic table templates that are redundant to {{Periodic table}} among others. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Tag adding broke the templates, fixed it like [1]. -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I am the creator of most of them. I was not notified. -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
WT:ELEMENTS is not notified. -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Zackmann08, your TFD nomination broke almost all of these templates. It is your responsibility as nominator to ensure that the TFD template does not interfere with the template's function. (Probably nominations like this should be speedily closed).
    As to the templates themselves, they are all linked from Template:Periodic table templates and most of them are not redundant to Template:Periodic table. Many of them are useful and interesting diagrams in their own right, or potential other ways to represent parts of (or the entire) periodic table. Keep all, no convincing argument for deletion has been presented. —Kusma (t·c) 21:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kusma. Have a use.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all - I was waiting for members of the actual project to see if these were deprecated or not, as we've recently deleted a lot of old, unused, and deprecated templates, one of which was a periodic table. But seeing that Kusma has given a baseless argument which has gained a "per Kusma" vote, I'm forced to comment early. Template:Periodic table templates is a navigation maintenance template that is supposed to navigate between templates that can be used, and is not linked to from any article - see the documentation which reads This overview is intended for Template space (documentation & overview) only. It should not show in articles. A template that is not used, is not useful to anyone. If the template does not have an article it can be shown on, it usually means that the template is not needed or unwanted or replaced by a different template. --Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Updating vote: Delete all except {{Periodic table (metals and nonmetals)/into image}}. DePiep has not addressed my concerns over the others he listed to keep nor do the other voters who commented as "Keep all" and "Per DePiep", as they have not even noticed he did not list all the templates in his keep vote, which shows that even the lack of actual research on their part. The templates that they argue can be used, have still not be used on those pages, and for good reasons, as those pages of either have a different template or a table doing the same thing. Just saying something can be used, but not showing how or where it can, does not make it usable or a reason to keep. --Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    Nor WT:ELEMENTS not the creator(s) were notified. Another careless sloppy drive-by nomination. The Kusma note about broken templates is over 14 hrs old and no response from the nom (someone else had to clean it up). I can predict that the nom does not return to digest arguments or engage in the discussion, as happened with previous TfDs you mention (like this one). -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Gonnym: A template that is not used, is not useful to anyone. If the template does not have an article it can be shown on, it usually means that the template is not needed or unwanted or replaced by a different template. This unfortunately seems to be a common misconception. I do not understand how you can claim that the templates are not "used" or not "useful" just because they have no transclusions. I have used some of these very templates in the past (as a reader), looking through Template:Periodic table templates and learning things by looking at different ways of presenting the data. Diagrams like these are useful and interesting in their own right, and unlike navboxes, should not be deleted just because no article is currently using them. We do not delete all currently unused images in c:Category:Periodic table and its subcats either. Instead, we categorize them nicely to make them easy to use in the future (and the template navbox does that for the templates). What exactly is the advantage of deleting any of these? —Kusma (t·c) 14:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    Something you disagree with is not a misconception. On the contrary, look at most of the TfD results and you'll see that it is actually much more the norm. But since you asked for me to explain why, I'm happy to. First lets look at this from a technical perspective. A template that is not transcluded (or even as a wrongly used as hidden link in an article) is WP:ORPHAN, meaning that users unfamiliar with its exact name don't know how to find it. But lets say it was even used as a link inside a nav template that is used on articles (which this specific TfD template aren't), then even then it would not be available to most of en.wiki's readers as navboxes are not shown on mobile. Other than the technical issues, we have the core issue itself - why is the template orphaned? That can be one of several causes - a template that was not added to an article, but an article exists that it should be added to; a template that was added but later removed by mistake or vandalism; a template that was added but later removed as it was replaced by something else; a template that was not added to an article, as no article exists for the subject. For the first 2, the template should be added, however, for the other two, there is no reason at all to keep the template. If any user still wants that template, nothing is stopping them from userfying it to their own userspace. In the nomination above, per DePiep, some can be deleted (were probably replaced by other templates, which is also T3). For others, I'm waiting for his response as some at least seem to be either replaced by tables, or need to replace tables; and others seem to have been replaced by a merged template. Once he replies, I'll be able to adjust my !vote. --Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    Gonnym, "no transclusions" is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The interaction of templates and mobile view should be improved by fixing mobile view, not by deleting templates (although I personally wouldn't be sad if all navboxes were deleted, but that is a different question). You have not addressed my main point about diagrams that are just like images, only in template space. They can be used without being transcluded, and linking to them from an article is not wrong, only uncommon. Their wikilinks and formatting can make them more useful than images. —Kusma (t·c) 16:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    Well, if something is written in an essay, then I guess it knows better. I really don't care what a group of editors wrote in an essay, as it holds no weight in any discussion. And again, it is also incorrect, as seen in dozens of TfD results just this month alone. Regarding your "lets fix mobile first" - that is a non-argument. We can't do it here, and I'm doubtful anything will be done in the near future. Also, templates are not images. If you want this to be an SVG, then covert it to an SVG and then it will be under a different page - Wikipedia:Files for discussion, which at the top of the page has the two first options listed as "Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version." and "Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.", which coincidentally, is what I'm arguing that these templates are, regardless of your attempts to change the meaning of the world "used". --Gonnym (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    Gonnym, converting the diagrams to SVG would make them worse for our purposes, so I am arguing we should not do that. But yeah, as orphaned SVGs we could keep them forever per c:COM:EDUSE. You are correct that referring to mobile view is neither an argument for nor an argument against deleting untranscluded templates. As to "use", Debbie Does Dallas uses File:Debbie Does Dallas.ogv, although it doesn't include it. The same can happen to pages in the template namespace. —Kusma (t·c) 19:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    Genuine question, do you read the links you post? Do you realize that c:COM:EDUSE is a commons policy for files located on commons and not for files located on en.wiki? You do understand that these are two different things right? Also, while you for some reason are intent to keep on raising the image issues (which, as you know, is not even closely related to the current discussion you are de-railing), just notice that the file you linked to is actually is in use in two other wikis.
    Of course I read the links I post, and I am aware that I linked to the Commons, in an apparently unsuccessful attempt to illustrate my point :) But if you don't understand me, that is fine, I can give up. I don't understand the benefit of deleting templates that are potentially useful but not currently transcluded, and nobody has tried to make me understand that so far. —Kusma (t·c) 16:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
───────────────────────── re Gonnym DePiep has not addressed my concerns. As I have noted, this TfD was broken by the nom before it even opened. I pointed out flaws and asked for a correction, but the nom evaded engagement (while they found time to deflect & divert while saying anytime DePiep gets involved, I tend to just walk away (while actually making one, two more posts). This "walking away" is the problematic behaviour with nom Zackmann, leaving behind a crippled discussion. (See this TfD: nominate with bad argument, being corrected on this, do not engage, still steering the TfD as involved editor.
So in this case, I asked for a correction in their nom, and for some reason Zackmann uses my contribution as an excuse to put a sloppy TfD here before I edited and then walk away from responsibility. Again Zackmann left it to others to clean up the mess, including having to correct a false nominating statement. (We know how tricky it is to expect a closing admin to find and discard such an error: cannot trust that to happen). So I would have to argue with an willingly absent nom and so convince a closer? No thanks, I don't want to be kicked to jump through hoops. So I propose procedural closing as no consensus since the nom did not follow through on their nomination, instead misforming the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep argued selection below. Nom statement "redundant to {{Periodic table}} among others" is incorrect and obviously unchecked (I note that Zackmann is a TemplateEditor. Tiring that they did not took time to check their statement, nor can we expect that it will be corrected. Here the same nom stated "Not clear what it would be used for" while the template is documented (today the statement is not corrected). This nomination again is expecting from other editors to clean things up, fix edits and correct the nom, or enlighten the nom, while the nom will not self-correct or express any acknowledgement at all. All in all, this absense of engagement pollutes the discussion).
To be kept:
DePiep (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at Block (periodic table)#s-block, it already has a S-, P-, D- and F- block sections and the table used {{Periodic table (blocks)}} already has the blocks color coded. It seems to me that this template already fulfills what these 4 templates do and there does not seem to be enough text for stand-alone article for these sections. Regarding {{Periodic table (period 5)}}, {{Periodic table (period 6)}} and {{Periodic table (period 7)}}, looking at the articles Period 5 element#Elements and their properties/Period 6 element#Atomic characteristics/Period 7 element#Elements - these use a tables that shows the same thing as the template. Is the template going to replace these tables? Are the tables better? Regarding {{Periodic table (electron configuration lanthanides)}}, why isn't it used on Electron shell? Could you also explain where {{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}} is used, as I couldn't understand. As always, thanks for the clarification DePiep.--Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
What a surprise that DePiep would resort to personal attacks rather than discussing the merits of the template which are UNUSED. I have been offline for the last 24 hours without internet access, that is why I didn't respond. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
No, no personal attack. I am addressing your behaviour/absence in the discussion(s).
I have been offline for the last 24 hours: does not explain why you left your TfD nom here with ~18 templates broken, WikiProjects & creator(s) unnotified, and even now you still have not corrected nor struck your incorrect nom statement. (for this TfD only; other TfD's already mentioned skipped for now). So, Zackman, my question is: are you gonne respond on content, and so strike your incorrect nom statement for starters? -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Zackmann08, DePiep has mentioned the merits of several of the templates, and several people here explained (again) that "no transclusions" is not always a good reason to delete a template. Your nomination was of poor quality (not only did you break most of the templates although I recently warned you about the exact same issue, but it is also factually incorrect: the templates are not all redundant). If you can't do a better job, you should not be making any TFD nominations at all instead of the hundreds you have been flooding TFD with. Discussing the quality of your TFD work is not a personal attack. —Kusma (t·c) 21:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Kusma this probably warrants further discussion outside of the TFD. Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page. First, you are correct about me breaking the templates with the nomination. That is my bad and I own that. I of course can blame Wp:TWINKLE for some of these, but I understand that is a cop out. You point is well made that I need to start being more careful that my TFD nominations don't break a template. As for the personal attacks, DePiep has a LONG history of them. See their lengthy block history as well as the fact that they are currently on probation. Statements such as Another careless sloppy drive-by nomination, I can predict that the nom does not return to digest arguments or engage in the discussion and This nomination again is expecting from other editors to clean things up, fix edits and correct the nom, or enlighten the nom, while the nom will not self-correct or express any acknowledgement at all. All in all, this absense of engagement pollutes the discussion In my opinion ARE personal. Did I break the template? Yes I did. I broke a template that ISN'T USED by mistake and in a way that took about half a second to fix. I don't think that warranted the multiple personal attacks that were directed at me as a result. If you as an admin feel differently, I respect that. As for this particular TFD, anytime DePiep gets involved, I tend to just walk away as they are incapable of having a calm conversation. If the templates are used then there is no reason for them to be deleted. Simply making that point would have been more than enough. Oh well. Walking away from this TFD. Feel free to ping me directly on my talk page if you have further feedback. Happy to take any advice you have. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
KEEP ALL. Each of these templates have a use, no matter how miniscule it may appear to be to users who aren't actually in WP:ELEM. Similarly to what DePiep has said prior, each of the templates highlight a specific pattern found in the periodic table that cannot be substituted for a general periodic table that applies to every subject. You want a periodic table with the atomic weight and no more? Don't look further than {{Periodic table (standard atomic weight)}}. Also, {{Periodic table (navbox isotopes)}} has no replacement and is a speedily keep in my opinion. While these templates may not be broad enough to be applicable in innumerable places, they exist to capture trends and focus on specifics in the periodic table, even if it's just a period. They are also very helpful in talkpage discussion. (Also the nomination was extremely messy and the nominator didn't care to provide any logic behind his nomination besides that they are "redundant".) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per DePiep. Even if they are not currently in use, it cannot be said that they are absolutely useless. Quoting WP:TFD#REASONS, we can delete if the template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used, but it seems likely that these templates can in fact be used. Kusma and DePiep raise valid points suggesting that they are not redundant, and suggest possible usage, for example, in period 5 element or s-block; therefore, there is insufficient justification for deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 20:02, 10 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:Bellini operasEdit

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) 07:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused and redundant to Template:Vincenzo Bellini Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete unused and redundant to existing template.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 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:BelgianMunicipality popEdit

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) 07:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused number formatting Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete unused and not useful.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 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:BelgianMunicipality ecoEdit

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) 07:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused table rows template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete unused and not useful.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 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:Authorship claimsEdit

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 04:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused subst only template that is reduntant to UW tempaltes. There are 5 cases of this template being substituted per this search. Is stated to be a work in progress since it was created 11 years ago. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Links to previous discussions: 2008 ("keep") and 2017 ("procedural close"). – Uanfala (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the evidence of non-use through a search. We shouldn't delete subst-only templates for lack of use merely because of "Unused", like the last time around, but since you've proven that it's basically never used, there's no point in keeping it. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 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:Author-date 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 delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused table that appears to be a demo Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:31, 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:AfC preloadEdit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. King of ♠ 05:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Mostly non-functioning and unused preload template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:28, 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:PBB ControlsEdit

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) 07:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Useless now that ProteinBoxBot is blocked {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:02, 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:DfnEdit

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 17. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 21:26, 17 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:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes by wealth normalizationEdit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. King of ♠ 09:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Violates project consensus that inflation will not be used. Discussions have taken place here and here. Inflation values should not be given for storms considering they can't be calculated for areas outside of the US. Not to mention differences in calculations (pop. density, building codes, etc.) that would make such calculations impossible. Both discussions also raise valid points as to why inflation adjustment should not be used. NoahTalk 01:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The point of this template is wealth normalization, not inflation adjustment. You can very well calculate those for non-US regions, in fact Wikipedia has dozens of lists with countries' GDP (i.e., its current flow of wealth) denominated in US Dollar, even though that isn't the currency those numbers originated in. Those numbers come from agencies like the IMF, the CIA, the Worldbank, and others, who have an army of economists figuring those numbers out. I don't know where this alleged consensus of not using inflation- and/or wealth-adjustment was established, but it's one moronic decision if there ever was one. The only thing this template needs is an update to Weinke et al. (2018). --bender235 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template contains useful encyclopedic information, which is an attempt to rank hurriacens by most costly to the society at the time. It's used in several articles so serves its purpose as a template. It shouldn't be deleted just because of a content dispute, ie. an argument about which way of comparing costs is best. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tom (LT):Might I inform you that wealth normalization has been removed from EVERY TC article except some (not even all) of the ones on that list. The project quit using wealth normalization a few years ago because it is misleading. NoahTalk 11:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If there is a project consensus not to use it, I'm not sure why the 5 transclusions can't be deleted/replaced manually. Nigej (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Nigej. Would support deletion if these weren't actually used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Where was this consensus established, and what was the main concern with using wealth normalized damage figures? Sure these numbers aren't perfect, but comparing hurricanes by nominal GDP damage is utter nonsense. If we want to delete those "most costly hurricanes" rankings, we should start with the ones that use nominal damage. --bender235 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Im going to ask about the specific consensus later since I am out of town, but your post (second to last) here shows exactly why wealth normalization is not even close to accurate. All it is is a PREDICTION about what that storm would cause TODAY, not what it ACTUALLY did. To have a list of these in an article is simply misleading. This either needs a serious explanation to clear up that this isn't inflation adjustment or simply removed to alleviate confusion. NoahTalk 02:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: LOL, of course these numbers are estimates, but so are unadjusted damage figures. How do you imagine these are established? You think someone from the NOAA roams around Texas and Louisiana after a hurricane and collects receipts from repairs?
I'm still waiting to see where this supposed consensus to not include adjusted damage figures was established. Until then, these templates stay put. --bender235 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
PS: I've updated this template to 2018 using Weinke et al. (2018). Also, I've tried to trace back this supposed "consensus" not to use wealth normalization or any kind of adjustment of nominal damage figures. What I found was the unilateral removal of the wealth normalization table from List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes. I will re-add the (updated) information immediately. --bender235 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As far as I can tell, there is no specific consensus. If you aren't even going to read what I actually said, there is no point in me arguing. You saw the word prediction and jumped to a conclusion despite the fact that I said wealth normalization is a "prediction about what that storm would cause today, not what it actually did". Nowhere in that did I mention opposing it because it was an estimate. I said it is inaccurate because it stems too far from what the storm actually did in its day. Since nobody seems to care anymore, this discussion is over and the template may stay for now. NoahTalk 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you understand, at least in principle, that comparing nominal damage figures from a storm in 1918 with a storm in 2018 is pointless? For the same reason oil price comparisons can only be reasonably done after adjusting for inflation. But then again, a barrel of oil in 1918 is not different from a barrel of oil in 2018, whereas a typical single-family home in 1918 was much cheaper, and contained much less valuable goods, than a typical single-family home in 2018. That's the logic behind wealth normalization, and while it's not a perfect method, it is far better than comparing nominal figures. --bender235 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I do. In this case, regular inflation adjustment would be much better as it simply takes what the storm did and adjusts it today's money value rather than predicting the amount said storm would cause today. As I said earlier, please explain what wealth normalization is in the article as it might baffle or confuse readers who have not experienced it before. A simple note on the column header would work. NoahTalk 03:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I think both questions (1 "how costly was this 1915 storm in today's money?" and 2 "how costly would it be given today's population and wealth density?") are interesting. The answer to the second question is particular useful when comparing whether storms have become more costly over the past century. --bender235 (talk) 00:02, 22 February 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) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 2 March 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) 19:01, 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).

Tables of physical constantsEdit

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) 07:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Proposed deletion of four templates:

These templates were created in 2010 for use in the article Physical constant, presumably with rationale of DRY. The constants are divided in a way that reflects an arbitrary grouping of constants currently used on the NIST website and reflective of the current SI brochure, which is likely to be superseded (with a completely different grouping) this month due to the imminent 2019 redefinition of SI base units. The tables are not general, are not appropriate for templatizing, and not likely to see any use. They served only to separate out article-specific sections into templates, have seen no use outside the article, and are currently unused. —Quondum 18:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete They aren't used anywhere, and I can't see a reason why this kind of information should be stored in template form anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 16 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 OS componentEdit

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 software and then delete Template:Infobox OS component. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox OS component with Template:Infobox software.
OS components are computer software, and should be covered as such on Wikipedia. There are distinctive aspects of this particular infobox, but most of them only really apply to Windows (and in fact, this infobox is mainly biased towards Windows due to its heritage). ViperSnake151  Talk  14:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Orphan and delete. Quoting the documentation: The advantage of this infobox over {{Infobox software}} is that it is lighter, as it does not expose some of the parameters that are not to be populated. What does this matter? Unless infobox software behaves in an unusual manner, it should be sufficient if an article's code displays only the desired parameters, rather than displaying code for parameters that aren't used. Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: What does this matter? For you, of course, it does not. You are not engaged in developing the computing area of Wikipedia in any way. So, for you, the toil and the problems of those editors does not matter at all. When a well-meaning misguided editor from Philipines appears and adds an erroneous version 14.0.12 to all infoboxes of all articles about Windows or macOS components, you are nowhere to be found, let alone worrying your little head about reverting them or politely dealing with said editor. I am afraid your ability to understand whether it matters or not (or the lack, thereof) stems from your limited experience with the subject matter (or lack thereof). 5.219.71.182 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, I will politely deal with you, despite your lack of well-meaningness. It's simply a smaller and less capable version of the other template, i.e. it's the other template minus some of its parameters. If you want to {{Infobox software}} onto an article and don't want to show all the parameters, you can delete them from the code on that article: it won't affect that specific transclusion at all, since this template won't break if some of its parameters are neither displayed nor invoked. Consider the Infobox software documentation's example: the |alexa= and |platform= parameters aren't used, but the template's still working, because as it says, All parameters are optional. If we desire to ensure that confused and well-meaning individuals be unable to add junk content, we simply don't add any parameters except the ones we plan to use. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from using personal attacks, even if the other party does not do so. Saying "you are not well-meaning" is a comment on the person. Besides, an editor can be concerned about his/her colleague's competence without being ill-meaning. Last but not least, this proposal seems to open possibilities of bad edits without having any real benefits. 139.99.159.18 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: "It's simply a smaller and less capable version of the other template". It is not. Most of its parameters are unique. See below for details. The only overlapping parameters in the two templates are the name, icon and screenshot. 5.219.71.182 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete. Same as User:Nyttend and User:ViperSnake151 said. The text of the infobox's doc is entirely nonsense. The given example of Paint is not an operating system component; it's a standalone application that happens to be bundled along with an OS. And having a broad body of options and arguments simply means it's up to the editor to use the appropriate ones, based on a suggested subset of options within the Template:Infobox software docs, just like it was up to them to choose the appropriate infobox in the first place. I never even knew Template:Infobox OS component existed until the ugly merge notice littered my editing work. — Smuckola(talk) 20:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete as above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete as above: In eswiki we merged many similar infoboxes, now it's easier to work with them. --Tinker Bell 01:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete. Many instances of {{Infobox OS component}} would benefit from being replaced with {{Infobox software}}, which presents more information. The operating system parameter of {{Infobox software}} should be a suitable replacement for the os parameter of {{Infobox OS component}}. — Newslinger talk 07:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing — Newslinger talk 07:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Go ahead. I just did the extra work of adding a repo parameter in light of the Windows Calculator news; the fact that I had to do this is evidence that fragmentation is getting in the way of our maintaining the articles that use these infoboxes. I won't complain if you delete the template. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 07:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Qzekrom: Thanks for the clarification. I see that you are in favor of the merger, so I don't see why you bothered doing the opposite. Still, thanks. 5.219.71.182 (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware of the TfD nomination. :P Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Infoxbox software is far too generic. Don't be afraid to have well-tuned, purpose-built templates for subjects on Wikipedia that have hundreds of articles. Microsoft Windows is a massive subject... it's okay for it to have a couple of its own templates. I don't mind the idea of changing it to a "Infobox software component", but this shouldn't be done unless someone working on some articles for another massive software subject sees a need for it. Warren -talk- 13:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think it is redundant at all. They have very little in common. These parameters are unique to this template: :|service_name =, |service_description =, |included_with =, |also_available_for =, |replaces =, |replaced_by =, |support_status =, |related_components = Adding them to {{infobox software}} will make it unwieldy. Besides, there are editors who'd like to just fill in every parameter and that's the recipe for disaster. Instead of letting loose the dogs of war, let the sleeping monster lie. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The only people who have cared to give an objective reason above are ViperSnake151 and Mardus. Let's take a look at them. According to ViperSnake151:

OS components are computer software, and should be covered as such on Wikipedia

I am afraid you are talking like a politician fighting against discrimination than an encyclopedian. Computer software are wildly different. That's why we have different infoboxes for them: {{infobox video game}}, {{Infobox web browser}} and {{Infobox programming language}} are just three examples.

this infobox is mainly biased towards Windows due to its heritage

Is that so? I see nothing strictly Windows-centric in "related components", "support status", "replaced by", "replaces", "also available for" and so on.
And what if this infobox is truly Windows-centric? After all, 85% of desktop computers on this planet run Windows. We must have a Windows-centric infobox to avoid giving "equal validity" and creating a false balance here.
5.219.71.182 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The merger is a complex affair that serves no purpose. OS components like Facetime, Mail and Music still need the same set of parameters and do not need Infobox Software's parameters. 139.99.208.33 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the reasons for merger of two editors here (namely Smuckola and Nyttend) was some outdated sentences in the template documentation page, I went ahead and edited those sentences. 5.219.71.182 (talk) 04:55, 17 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:WaybackEdit

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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Replaced by Module:Webarchive - unused and cannot be used as {{Wayback}} was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as creator, no longer used on enwiki though still on many others. -- GreenC 15:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrong venue Module redirects go to RfD, not TfD. Regardless, I've tagged the template as G7. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:40, 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:CommonsmaydeleteEdit

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 17. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 21:27, 17 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:Cleanup-SVGEdit

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 17. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 21:27, 17 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:Domesday86Edit

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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Template has been removed from use as the site it linked to has been moved to an archive, where the function this template used no-longer works. Uses have been removed or subst. I am the original author (on my alternate account) of this template. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete (speedy?) as only major author who as requested its deletion. Not used anymore. --Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and author --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:13, 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:BIG SynergyEdit

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) CoolSkittle (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

unused navbox which is too complex to be useful. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: Used. Mr. Smart LION 08:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - strange, I was sure I commented on this. Anyways, I've cleaned the template and reordered it. I'm still in the position that list of TV shows on a channel don't need a nav template as that fact alone is almost meaningless. --Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep links related articles. Provides useful navigational value --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep; now the format isn't complex at all, and it seems a reasonable topic for a navbox. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Template tagged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:55, 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:Railway stations in NagalandEdit

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 17. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 21:29, 17 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:CD Palestino squadEdit

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:Palestino squad. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unused these templates have risk of falling rapidly out of date.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 03:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per above, template name is useful for this purpose. Borgarde (talk) 08:33, 12 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:Peru TVEdit

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 17. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 21:33, 17 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:User ABAP-2Edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. and wrong venue per the instructions here at TFD: "userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused custom userbox. PLEASE READ before voting There are currently, 1349 unused custom userbox templates that were created more than 1 year ago. Before I consider doing a big bulk nomination, I wanted to send up a test balloon with this specific template. Obviously this conversation is only on whether to delete this one specific template, but I would appreciate if anyone who comments on this discussion could also comment on the additional unused Userbox templates. My thought is that if a custom userbox template was created more than a year ago and has no uses, there really isn't a reason to keep it. Any user can create a custom {{Userbox}} on their page anytime they want. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 03:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all > 3 years old (or some arbitary time setpoint). We aren't a social media site (WP:NOT). These don't support our core encyclopedic mission. If these haven't been used in several years since they were created, they should be removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge entire series - I Support Tom's position in general, though I would say, that if a template is part of a series of 1-5, and one of the series is used, then maybe all 5 should be kept. looking at the code, these 5 different templates should really just become 1 template with a |1= parameter added so you can set the level 1-5. I'd actually more support a merger for ABAP-1 to ABAP-5. --Gonnym (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Template:User ABAP/sandbox is an example of how this works (as a side note, this also makes sure that the text used is the same. The level 2 template uses "coder" instead of "programmer"). --Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep. It makes sense to do a test nomination for an ordinary-sized batch of templates, but when there are 1,348 items in addition to the one that you've nominated, it's a big enough problem (if it's a problem at all) that it really ought to be addressed at the Village Pump. With such a large batch, we need broader input than can be obtained here; if a big discussion concludes in favor of deleting or userfying them, they can be deleted without a further XFD. By the way, userboxes don't belong here at all; they go to MFD. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 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:Sediment transportEdit

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) 22:40, 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:SJFA West Division OneEdit

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) 22:40, 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:QMJHL trophiesEdit

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) 22:40, 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:Steelers1946DraftPicksEdit

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) 22:40, 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:Portuguese Radio Stations in MassachusettsEdit

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 04:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused navbox with no parent page Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. It should be tied into Massachusetts radio format templates.Stereorock (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Stereorock: can you clarify what template you are talking about? Additionally it sounds like what you are suggesting is to merge the template, which would not be a keep... Can you clarify? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: Sure, it should be connected to the templates for x-format radio stations in Massachusetts templates. They have Spanish, so Portuguese should be included as well.Stereorock (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is still unused. Will someone actually use it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 02:23, 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:Polish Radio Stations before WW2Edit

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) 09:36, 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).