Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 4 March 6 >

March 5

[edit]

Template:Egyptian Premier League 2011-12 Teams Map

[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) 19:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. The content can be easily included in the season's article; no need to have it as a template. Ben5218 (talk) 20:25, 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:Wikipedia Requests

[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 13. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:49, 13 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:Bohrium

[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. The most significant argument for keeping this template is that it is part of a larger template family. However, because of the "unused" aspect and somewhat-duplication with {{element}}, there is no prejudice against renomination if the entire template family is being considered; in particular, it would be good to determine if there is a need to have every element represented, or only have templates for those elements actively being used (i.e. "use it or lose it"). It might also be worth having a discussion about converting these templates to use {{element}}, possibly at WT:CHEM. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template. Not clear what it would be used for. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of many element templates from Category:Chemical element symbol templates. My opinion is that 1) they should be subst only 2) We have all of them or none of them. I would probably be neutral if you had nominated all of them. Christian75 (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider deprecation, per Christian75. My experience with WP:ELEMENTS is that these are rarely used, so deprecation is a good option. People editing element pages rarely if ever use such a template to show the symbol. Also, wikilinking the symbol not the name in plain text is rare by itself. Templates like {{Periodic table}} create the link differently. -DePiep (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as T3 to Template:Element, if I understand the purpose of this template correctly. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you talk about the category already mentioned? -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the fact that many other templates share the same faults as this one does not make this one's existence any more valid. Delete all pages in the category (although that's out of scope here). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then propose that scope. -DePiep (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that apparently just one out of a complete 122 template set is unused, is an argument to keep and keep the set complete. Even more so when the nom writes "Not clear what it would be used for", while 121 sister templates are used, ie the nomination was based on lack of info now present. -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The tempalte's documentation is "This is a chemical element symbol template. To use this template, enter in {{element|number of atoms|charge|atomic mass}}. For example, 14N2+ would be {{nitrogen|2|+|14}}. This template should not be substituted because they contain complex wikicode.", which appears to be nonsensical, in the context of Bohrium. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were invited to read the category thing argument, before you posted. So my question is: what is your !vote re the category? -DePiep (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This particular template's documentation doesn't make sense as it appears to have been copied from somewhere else by mistake. What the template does is return the element symbol of bohrium, and so {{bohrium}} is equivalent to {{element|bohrium}}. I don't have an opinion on whether this should continue to be used or deprecated, but it's part of a system covering all chemical elements (see Category:Chemical element symbol templates). It's certainly more useful for some (like {{iron}} or {{gold}}), but any decision about deprecating or deleting should be done at the level of the whole system: leaving a random gap like that is just disruptive. – Uanfala (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (all or none, but we are not discussing that). The categorisation makes the use possible use fairly clear, and anyone who uses other element symbol templates will understandably expect this one. —Kusma (t·c) 17:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: Looks like the wider proposal (delete all) is worth discussing. Could we close this one, and open a new TfD that proposes to delete all? (ping nom Zackmann08) -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This specific template is unused, however as noted above it is part of a series. I agree with DePiep that a new TfD should open for the whole series. --Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Zackmann08 (nom). In the nomination, you made two statements. Both have been expanded upon in the discussion. (your "Not clear what it would be used for" was clarified, simply by poiting to the documentation). With this new information, you were asked to digest the info and reconsider your nomination [1]. Instead, you evaded a reply altogether while relisting for no apparent reason instead. So again I ask: please expand on the nomination using the new information; a different solution is proposed. (For now, I skip the question that might rise from WP:RELIST, e.g., re involved editor and other options). -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So by now, the nominator has not responded to questions and procedural options at all, but did behave as closing admin by relisting. Zackmann is a TE, an not an admin. In this behaviour, I think Zackmann crosses the line of not being "uninvolved editor" when relisting, and also showing a bad attitude wrt the discussion by not engaging. (To spell out the obvious: Zackmann the nom better had replied & acted re the questions & options mentioned, working towards a result). Since there is a pattern in this behaviour, there might come a moment to question this behaviour thoroughly. Meanwhile, they left this discussion needlessly crippled. -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any need to go into that here: after a post or two on their talk page and a couple of involved closures overturned at DRV, the point would have probably been driven home by now. – Uanfala (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but for this TfD the discussion IMO leads to "close as keep and repropose in a different form". Now we are waiting for an admin who agrees with this. (It's a bit of a risk waiting for an admin's opinion; after-closure discussion/DRV is such a tedious route). -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 23 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:BC-FedRep

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, not updated since 2013 so definitely not "current" Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is always the potential problem with "current" templates. Long forgotten it seems. Nigej (talk) 20:45, 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:Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template. Multiple other navboxes already exist including {{DCMetroArea}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 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:Filmyr headers

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused.
Was a helper template for {{Filmyr}}. I have now integrated all the functionality of {{Filmyr headers}} into {{Filmyr}}, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 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:Block-appeal

[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. While this is a substituted template (and hence "unused" should not really be used as a rationale), it only has seen four uses since it was created. The text is almost the same as {{Uw-voablock}} but the name implies use as a different form of {{Unblock}}, hence deletion instead of the suggested redirection. ​ Primefac (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is superseded by various other templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:22, 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:Blocks of Ranchi district

[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. In use, valid reasons for keeping outweigh any other reasons given for deletion. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is over 12 years old. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Uanfala: now unused again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhkohh:: pings don't work from inside relists. And I'm not sure I see what you're trying to point out. – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No article Blocks of Ranchi district. Ranchi district#Administration mentions "Ranchi district consists of 18 Blocks." but then lists only 7, each of which says it is "one of the twenty administrative community development block of Ranchi district, Jharkhand state, India." The template lists 14 blocks. All a mess. Until we have some real referenced content the template should be deleted. Content first, then template is necessary. Nigej (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've brought the template up to date and added it to a couple of articles. – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if this action might have appeared as wilful attempt at bypassing the discussion. In face, before doing that I had started typing out a long reply, but halfway through I realised that engaging in the long hermeneutic exercise of showing why a commonly used type of navbox doesn't actually go against the guidelines takes time, which is better spent on more productive tasks, like updating the template and the articles in navigates between. – Uanfala (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use - has now been cleaned and is ready to add to articles. To closure, if kept, please add to the holding cell so it can actually be added to articles, else it will be left like now. --Gonnym (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Davidson Media Group

[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) 19:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. Navbox with only 1 blue link. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:09, 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:2009 Lithuanian presidential election

[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) 19:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has been subst'd and now unused. Number 57 15:51, 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:1993 Lithuanian presidential election

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now unused template which was just created following a minor disagreement about coding to move the results off the main article page (1993 Lithuanian presidential election). Even if it was restored to the article, it would be a single use template that should be subst'd. The same template was deleted less than a month ago following this TfD discussion. Also nominating the following, all but one of which were also recently deleted:

Pinging participants of the previous discussion: @Nigej, Tom (LT), Steel1943, and Nneonneo:. Number 57 15:30, 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:The Four Loves

[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) CoolSkittle (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles linked in the navbox are not actually intrinsically linked to Lewis. This is a bit of a mash-up of two topics and not suitable for a navbox. --woodensuperman 13:18, 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:BOTREQ

[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 wrong venue; use the template's talk page Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a request to delete the template. This is a request to make the template subst-only Apologies if this is the wrong venue.

Canned-response templates are generally substituted, with the exception of templates for venues that don't have a permanent archive (RfPP, AIV). WP:BOTREQ is archived, so its template should be substituted for consistency reasons. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make subst-only per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've advertised this at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Bot requests. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:42, 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:Storm name

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless fork from original created at Module:Biglist from discussion in October 2017. The function is useful for the WP:CRYSTAL policy (see the red link in point 2 which is explained here) and a wikitext alternative was reverted (see history). Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm honestly not sure how to !vote here, because of the technical mess this situation has become. First, some corrections to the nomination statement: I didn't fork this, I moved it and then my removal of the function was reverted. Second, this is an unnecessary Lua module that can be implemented in Wikitext. Third, the stated purpose of Module:Biglist is

    This module helps avoid problems with templates that might exceed expand size or time and which might put a page in an error tracking category:


    per its own doc page. This function has nothing to do with that stated purpose.
    To conclude this little monologue, Wikitextify and delete, but if consensus is that this code should be implemented in Lua, then Strong keep as it's illogical to put a function not related to template limits in Module:Biglist. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it not just make sense that "Storm name" is a better name for a piece of Lua code that produces the name of a future tropical storm than "Biglist". This TfD is entirely illogical. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the position where the functions in the storm name module are split from the generic module. --Izno (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From looking at the docs, to me, it doesn't seem like the storm function belongs in Biglist. Regardless, Module:Storm name is bad name choice for this module, as the module doesn't really retrieve a list of storm names, it just does some small example for WP:CRYSTAL. Probably a better name would reflect that. --Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the intention is to fork the code and develop it in a different direction. As has been pointed out, there's no shortage of server space, so duplication of code is fine as long as it's going to be developed. On the other hand, keeping duplicate code synchronised if it evolves or bugs are fixed is a nightmare for a maintainer, so it does not make sense to have two versions in use doing exactly the same job under the same circumstances. If one version has a bug fixed, then you will get complaints from users of the second version who "thought this problem had been fixed", and so on. The version (whatever it may be titled) in Module:Biglist is there because Johnuniq wrote it and put it there (and is committed to maintaining it). This is not a question of WP:OWNership of code; but of WP:STEWARDSHIP of that code – it is even more important for code to have a skilled, dedicated maintainer. Johnuniq has a well deserved reputation as a responsive code author and maintainer, and we ought to be doing whatever we can to help make his task easier, not wasting his time by fragmenting collections that he has created or assembled so that he can look after them. One of the advantages of having modules that can freely contain many functions is not just to collect code related by functionality, but also code related by its maintainers – and the second advantage is at least as important as the first. --RexxS (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Rexx above per Stewardship. We have an editor knowledgeable and experienced about creating code and maintaining it and in particular this code. This is a duplication that same editor will have to synchronize and maintain. This is not useful nor considerate of editors with extensive knowledge. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit we should not take that to mean we have the right to make the editing harder for such experts, to use up precious time. Better to help than hinder in such cases. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or userfy if the creator would find that useful); and take the whole discussion to a suitable talk page to agree and map out the best way to move forward, before any more modules are forked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 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:Watched

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template that is just an icon and 1 word. Not sure its purpose but unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:16, 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:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup progress

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused custom {{Progress box}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:13, 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).
[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. (For reference, it is used for User:DumbBOT/CatCreate.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Category template. Appears to have been used for categories at some point but is currently unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:13, 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:Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter

[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 21. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter nogallery

[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 12. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 15:29, 12 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:YMBI

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user template. WP:TWINKLE has many alternatives. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's unused, it's supposed to be substituted. I created this on the grounds that experienced editors found templates beginning 'Welcome to Wikipedia' patronising; having discovered that many templates instead begin "Hello, I'm [whoever]", I now have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept.--Launchballer 11:07, 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).

Template:Yang Jia Jiang family tree

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused family tree navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:11, 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:Years and months ago

[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) CoolSkittle (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused date calculation template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:10, 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:Yemeni Civil War detailed map

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused detailed map. If needed should be placed directly into article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a very necessary and important interactive map!EditMasterXXX (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – Highly essential and important map module, like the other map modules depicting conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East (the template is derived from the linked module). This module is necessary for timely updates and also updates to the Yemeni Civil War map image. This module is linked to the Yemeni Civil War article, so I don't see how this module is "unused" (recent editor inactivity doesn't count). The module does have more problems than most of the other map modules, primarily in editor conduct, but that doesn't mean that this template should be deleted. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Similar maps for, I think, Syria have been discussed and I think an WP:IAR keep applies. The map is highly detailed but it is vital encyclopedic information. We don't need to clean every template/module to reach some ideal. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 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:Zambian English

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused English variant template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:08, 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:Zhonghe Line (Taipei Metro) RDT

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route map template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 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).

Template:Ælfgifu theories

[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 21. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_5&oldid=1091448848"