Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 3 March 5 >

March 4[edit]

Unused sports standings[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. But individual templates or a smaller bundle may be renominated. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and over 16 months old. Where necessary, content has already been previously placed on the article. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#ALMANAC unless a demonstrated use can be shown. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are used on the season page to document the standings for each conference. Red links are allowed (per WP:EXISTING WP:WTAF does not apply) in templates for articles that are notable and notability has been established for all D1 teams.Mjs32193 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjs32193: you said These are used on the season page. At the time of nomination, ALL of these had zero transclusions. Now if you or someone else has added them to multiple pages, please let me know and I will gladly remove the used templates from this nomination but I want to be clear this is a nomination of UNUSED templates. If the template is used that is a whole different discussion. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a hodgepodge of NCAA football, basketball, baseball and other sports as well as such as NBA templates that have nothing in common except a) they are sports and b) they are alledged to be unused. Some of these navboxes are redundant such as Template:2014 Pac-12 men's soccer standings to ones that are being used, yet others may have some potential uses. I will reply with the redundancies as I unequivocally believe those should go. The others I think should be determined on a case by case basis.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:2015 University Athletic Association football standings is a non-malicious WP:HOAX.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{2010 Conference USA baseball standings}} and {{2011 Conference USA baseball standings}} have each been added to a relevant, existing page. Billcasey905 (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{2015 NCAA Division I baseball independents standings}} is already transcluded on the page for that season, and {{2012 NCAA Division I baseball independents standings}} and {{2016 NCAA Division I baseball independents standings}} have been added to their respective season pages. Billcasey905 (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as many are these are not, in fact, unused. Per, UCO2009bluejay above, I may consider supporting deletion of some of these if individual or more carefully grouped nominations are made. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on procedural grounds; inappropriate bundling given that some are not unused. GiantSnowman 10:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a presentation is made regarding redundancy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some that should be kept as they are used, others which should be deleted as they've been replaced by other templates or do not even have an article to be placed on. Sadly this good faith bundle did not work. Best result would be procedural closure with allowing later single re-nomination per article needed. --Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Unused sports tables[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 00:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. The pages in question have the tables already, just not using the templates. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#ALMANAC unless a demonstrated use can be shown. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Scottish council populations[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. An RfC on the topic of storing data in template-space is underway at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC on templates storing data - contributors to this discussion may be interested in participating. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used. Text should just be subst directly into the article. No reason to store this data in a template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's done like that because the population estimates are updated annually. This provides a central point of update rather than changing 32 council area articles, and a few others such as List of Scottish council areas by population.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 23:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Storing data is a misuse of Template namespace unless each individual datum is used on substantially more than one article. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the point of these templates is to support our core mission of being an encyclopedia. There is a demonstrated use per Keith Edkins who makes a good argument as why it makes editing easier for them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of this template's purpose. It allows the populations of all the relevant localities to be updated in one go in one place rather than having to update dozens of articles. @Pppery: As far as I can see, the data in the template is being used in the way you say it should be (i.e. on all the Scottish council articles). Number 57 12:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Number 57: Nope, you misundestood me. The population of Aberdeenshire is only used on Aberdeenshire. It doesn't matter how many times the template is used, it matters how many times each individual piece of data in the template is used, and this template fails that test. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, no problem. Just seems a pretty crap test to me then, as this is clearly a useful template. It could be easily be used usefully elsewhere though (e.g. to add the populations to Subdivisions of Scotland). Number 57 12:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Number 57: Your point is not without merit but that isn't how we do things on here. It opens up a whole can of worms... You could abstract ANY data set out into a template like that. If you are going to have a template for the populations so that they can all be updated in one go, then you should also have a template for current members of Parliament and things just spiral out of control from there. Consider a sports league (such as the NFL). Are you going to create templates that store current manager, current coach, current record, etc. etc.? You get what I mean about it spiraling... This data should be stored directly on the page. If your concern is the need to bulk update the data (which I agree is a pain) I would encourage you to consider a WP:BOT. As a bot operator myself, I would be more than happy to write you a bot that would update these pages all in one go. Honestly wouldn't be very difficult to do. Feel free to ping me directly to discuss. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is how we do things though; these types of templates have been around for a long time and I am aware of several other examples, including for sports teams. There is zero problem with it being stored in the template space, and the alternative of using a bot is a massively regressive step that I will not be considering. Number 57 22:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:NSFW[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment someone recently usurped the purpose of this template. I'm going to restore the redirect so inbound links make sense. But now there is no history. I'm confused. Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legacypac: It was deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 14#Template:NSFW, so I have tagged it for CSD as WP:G4 (and as WP:T2) - sorry for the confusion --DannyS712 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does seem to be a G4, and even it weren't the nom is correct; this is just a "trigger police" variant of the spoiler-wrappers and other similar templates the community deleted via RfC something like a decade ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template was created after this discussion and Jimbo Wales said that it was a good idea to use such a template in the article. Also read this discussion, please. Кадош (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion (the second one) linked to includes a very good point made by Kusma - The image should either appear in the article or not appear in the article (I don't have a super strong opinion about that: it is relevant, but sensationalist). If it appears, then it should be shown without censorship boxes (compare the more controversial images on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or fisting or lynching). If it is not shown, then a link to the image on Commons in the See Also section would work for me (like in Debbie Does Dallas). I see no reason to deviate from our long held anti-censorship stance for this, and certainly not for the silly idea of making Wikipedia "safe for work". By design, it can never be "safe". - the existence of the template implies that it may be acceptable to use it; its not, per WP:CENSORED. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Unused DTS Subtemplates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Done. I used a different deletion method so tell me if any of those that are left should also be deleted or if I have deleted some that should not have been. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With Template:Dts converted to use Module:Dts, these templates are no longer used or needed. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Riverland Indendent FL[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One article. Not everything needs a navbox cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Instances should be replaced with {{Infobox settlement}}. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a wrapper that transcludes {{Infobox settlement}}. 89.14.255.155 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this inbox has worked well; why change a thing which works?? Huldra (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I cannot see that {{Infobox settlement}} has a field for date and cause of depopulation? Those are among the most vital fields in "Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine" Huldra (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standardise appearance and internal structure is the answer to "has worked well". It will work as well as before and even better. 495 000 articles use Infobox settlement, the 421 transclusions here are not even 0.1% of that quantity. 78.55.45.243 (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and convert pages to use {{Infobox settlement}}. WP:INFOCOL spells out all the reasons for this. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and convert pages to use {{Infobox settlement}}, per Zackmann08. We do not need country specific templates. Every former settlement has a depopulation date and reason.Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete. Regardless of the confusing name of Infobox settlement, we're better off if as we unite these templates, benefits being easier to update and maintain. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete - better to standardize and have all relevant templates using the same code, than to have hundreds of wrappers and other templates doing the same exact thing. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Format TemplateData dependencies[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 11. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Module:WLink[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 11. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox South African town[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after replace in articles with {{Infobox settlement}}. The only dedicated town infobox for mainland Africa, all other towns use Infobox settlement directly. Created 2012, one editor. If that editor leaves, probably no one will maintain it. 77.11.90.163 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and redirect - we should be leaving it as a redirect in order to preserve previous diffs where the infobox is used. WP:INFOCOL clearly lists the process as merging and redirecting and this makes sense, as we don't want page histories to suddenly have unreadable infoboxes. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete. Regardless of the confusing name of Infobox settlement, we're better off if as we unite these templates, benefits being easier to update and maintain. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete; then create a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete - better to standardize and have all relevant templates using the same code, than to have hundreds of wrappers and other templates doing the same exact thing. My opinion on the redirect is that it's pointless and a potentially huge clutter-issue, if we create a redirect for every type of settlement for every country, so for the record, oppose the redirect.--Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonnym, if any of the content from the one template is merged into the target template, the page history must be preserved to save as attribution. That's why I !voted to redirect. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for more information. This is a pretty unconditional feature of Wikipedia's licensing. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The template isn't being merged - see my vote which says "replace and delete" - this template is a fork, there is nothing the fork has that is going to be merged into the template, hence, this isn't a merge. --Gonnym (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonnym - ah, that's fair then! If no parameters are being brought over, then good to delete. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Hungarian settlement[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after replace in articles with {{Infobox settlement}}. Created 2009, creator indef blocked. 77.11.90.163 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and redirect - we should be leaving it as a redirect in order to preserve previous diffs where the infobox is used. WP:INFOCOL clearly lists the process as merging and redirecting and this makes sense, as we don't want page histories to suddenly have unreadable infoboxes. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete. Regardless of the confusing name of Infobox settlement, we're better off if as we unite these templates, benefits being easier to update and maintain. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete; then create a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete - better to standardize and have all relevant templates using the same code, than to have hundreds of wrappers and other templates doing the same exact thing. My opinion on the redirect is that it's pointless and a potentially huge clutter-issue, if we create a redirect for every type of settlement for every country, so for the record, oppose the redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it’s useful: it has a number of presets and automatisms for specifically Hungary, like automatically filling country, time zone, pushpin map etc., or for example guessing region based on county. It also has a lot more readable parameters—compare |county=Pest with |subdivision_type2=[[Counties of Hungary|County]]|subdivision_name2=[[Pest County|Pest]]. The named parameters help editors find out which subdivisions are useful, and at the same time they help standardize the subdivisions present, their order and the English terminology and links used. (And I’m taking care of it, so it’s irrelevant whether the original creator is still available or blocked.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with wrapper templates changing the words of the parameters, is that these wrappers are sometimes actually using them incorrectly. See for example the subdivision example you gave. {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} is using |diocese= for |subdivision_name5=, but the Catholic dioceses in Hungary are not a subdivision of the country, i.e. a diocese is not a subdivision of a district. Also, |rank= is a meaningless word to use for a subdivision. These are just some examples of why wrappers are bad code. --Gonnym (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may not be perfect, but it’s because nobody’s found a better parameter at {{Infobox settlement}}. If you know, feel free to fix it (or propose it if you’d like me to fix it). If not, than the substitution of the template won‘t help either. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tacsipacsi, can all be done via Wikidata. Editors would not even need to write |county=Pest, because that information is already in Wikidata. 495 765 transclusions of Infobox settlement in article space, ~410 000 are used directly, without wrapper. Creating 1000s of wrappers for each type of territorial entity would be an extra maintenance burden. Re "And I’m taking care of it, so it’s irrelevant whether the original creator is still available or blocked." - and when you are gone? 78.54.186.169 (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tacsipacsi, has that issue been raised in {{Infobox settlement}}'s talk page? If so, can you link me to that discussion? --Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @78.54.186.169: How do you imagine it? I’d be very happy if Wikidata worked (actually Hungarian settlements’ Wikidata items usually have much more information than the enwiki articles), but I have no idea how the types can be displayed correctly based on Wikidata—county of Hungary (Q188604)’s label contains “of Hungary”, which should not be displayed in the infobox (as it’s redundant and its length makes the infobox less readable), but reliably cutting it needs a quite complicated and error-prone algorithm. There are some 200 countries in the world according to the list of sovereign states, having one or a few infoboxes for each is not thousands of wrappers—but I don’t propose creating all of them, either. “And when you are gone?”—than lack of maintenance (if that causes problems) might be a reason for phasing out the infobox; but merely the lack of the original creator is not an issue in itself.
              • Tacsipacsi, Köszönöm szépen. 1) instead of label use short name [1]. 2) "having one or a few infoboxes for each is not thousands of wrappers" - but I was not limiting to the "200 countries" in the list, nor to "one or a few". I meant all classes. 3046 in this SPARQL. Best 77.183.146.41 (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Gonnym: I haven’t raised, and neither do I know about any other discussion. I’m rather busy now, but I’ll try to find a solution when I get to it; I don’t think it’s a serious problem that should be fixed ASAP. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

TV channel programs template[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Moreover, this is hardly being updated and some TV series have finished airing months ago. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I do not see the reason to delete even if it is seldom updated and update it when any contributors think it is outdated. Fiipchip (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NENAN. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these types of channel/network navigation templates are very bad in my opinion. The series linked only share one single common point - that they were all broadcast on a specific channel - this usually means nothing. TV series can be produced by different companies that sell their programs to the channel, meaning these TV shows can be widely different. Additional, readers would probably be much more interested in "see also" links for similar shows, rather than shows on the same channel. Looking at WP:NAVBOX these fails #3 and #5 and possibly #4. --Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Trying to keep an up-to-date list of programmes currently on various TV channels is unsuitable for wikipedia. Nigej (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – How about the likes of Template:Netflix original current series, Template:Netflix original ended series, Template:Netflix original upcoming series, etc. which had their own templates of original programs (even the ended series have their template)? Should those templates be deleted, too? Chihciboy (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only speak for myself - I find all of those templates horrible and would support deleting them if they are nominated. --Gonnym (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:TVGUIDE Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Russian governorate[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after replace in articles with {{Infobox settlement}}. Created 2007, creator vanished. Only 39 articles use it, of these only 10 are governorates: Kazan Governorate, Baku Governorate, Elisabethpol Governorate, Erivan Governorate, Black Sea Governorate, Mogilev Governorate, Tiflis Governorate, Tambov Governorate, Kutais Governorate, Georgia-Imeretia Governorate. 78.54.212.31 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and delete per nom. Regardless of title of the "settlement" template, which is not logically intuitive, it's better to have all these types of template replaced by a single more easily edited central one. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete - per nom and Tom. Also, seeing as how this is mostly used for non-governorates, this is another justification for why a centralized template is much better for maintaining usage. Edit: My opinion on the redirect is that it's pointless and a potentially huge clutter-issue, if we create a redirect for every type of settlement for every country, so for the record, oppose the redirect --Gonnym (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and redirect - we should be leaving it as a redirect in order to preserve previous diffs where the infobox is used. WP:INFOCOL clearly lists the process as merging and redirecting and this makes sense, as we don't want page histories to suddenly have unreadable infoboxes. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete; then create a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template tagged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as far as I know, IB settlement does not support the use of versts as a unit of area measurement.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it should continue not to support it. The point of the infobox is to give a summary of the information; if a piece of information is not understandable by almost all of our readers, as it is not only a Russian-only unit of length, but also an obsolete one, then it shouldn't be included. If needed, a template should take care of the conversion and it should show miles/kilometers. --Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Finnish former municipality[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete. Use transcluded Infobox settlement directly. 77.11.159.48 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and delete per nom. Regardless of title of the "settlement" template, which is not logically intuitive, it's better to have all these types of template replaced by a single more easily edited central one. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete - seeing how {{Infobox Finnish municipality}} was TfD and resulted in replacement with {{Infobox settlement}} (see discussion), this should follow as well for the same reasoning. Edit: My opinion on the redirect is that it's pointless and a potentially huge clutter-issue, if we create a redirect for every type of settlement for every country, and then also for every former one, so for the record, oppose the redirect --Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and redirect - we should be leaving it as a redirect in order to preserve previous diffs where the infobox is used. WP:INFOCOL clearly lists the process as merging and redirecting and this makes sense, as we don't want page histories to suddenly have unreadable infoboxes. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace per nom. --Darwinek (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete; then create a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template tagged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Unused Championnat National templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 00:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Content already directly on pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Unused Championnat de France templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 00:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Content already directly on 2016–17 Championnat de France Amateur 2. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:When in sandbox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Sandbox other. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:When in sandbox with Template:Sandbox other.
Duplicate templates with same function. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, provided that {{Sandbox other}} is the target template (for number of uses, and name pattern in functionally similar templates). -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Unused PDB gallery templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. But not without some difficulty! |Zackmann, I see there are hundreds of these. If you have any more to delete, please nominate them in batches of 48 or less. You had 51 here and twinkle says "max. 50". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of unused gallery templates. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused timeline templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was mixed. I suspect the lack of commentary here is due to the high number of templates. Any template with a "keep" vote or are being used is being closed as no consensus, while any not specifically mentioned as being a keep candidate is will be deleted. NPASR for those kept. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused time templates. no need to keep them around. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete these are unused, not linked, mostly of horrible readability, and not cited. Some are also just images. Timelines should be in mainspace and properly cited. I have notified WP:MILHIST in case there are some editors who want to retain some of these templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If sourcing is important, per WP:V, then it's perfectly easy to add such sources to the template. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any rationale for deletion here. So what if they're unused? Use them! A rationale of 'not usable' or 'shouldn't be used' would be reason to delete, but not this.
Also, if an implementation is of poor quality but the notion of having a templated timeline is still valid, then we should work to improve what we have, not just discard it.
Likewise readability. That seems to come from some sizing or fuzzy font choices deep within the implementation of <timeline> – that's not something which is fixed by deleting these. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Recognition of Country[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Not sure what it would be used but this and all sub-templates are unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it really is confusing what the purpose of this unused template (created in 2011) and its subtemplates is. I can't see any value in maintaining it. Delete. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I do not see what it is for. Fiipchip (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems the template was used to create a table row for when other countries recognized a country. It seems this style has been deprecated and this template is broken. --Gonnym (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_4&oldid=1072192659"