Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 soft delete after substing. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last significant edit was in 2004. Used four times, and currently not in use. It isn't currently used in the peer review process. I propose substitute and delete. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2020 (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).
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and the parent project Wikipedia:Portal peer review is also inactive Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2020 (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).
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these templates. No prejudice against the restoration of "subst" text (i.e. formatting instead of templates) if requested. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used once in the creators page who hasn't edited in over 7 years. No real gain in subst so propose deletion. Vtext was created by a different user but also just used once. Gonnym (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2020 (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).
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. No prejudice against the restoration of "subst" text (i.e. formatting instead of templates) if requested. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used once in the creators page who hasn't edited in over 7 years. No real gain in subst so propose deletion. (and as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with VH1) Gonnym (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2020 (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).
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. Welp. It was deleted per WP:G2 by The Anome. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent failed test. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 18 September 2020 (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).
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. Per WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure)MJLTalk 21:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently failed 6-month-old test (note that Template:Page-multi/testcases, the only page that uses it, is Lua erroring) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 18 September 2020 (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).
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the module's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 18 September 2020 (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).
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. I see a rough consensus to delete at this time. The templates listed in the comment as also having been created are not covered by this consensus. Izno (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft. Not needed? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:31, 18 September 2020 (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).
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. Izno (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Userpage no border with Template:Userpage (no table).

Substantially similar templates; with a minimal number of transclusions each.

We should also consider whether they are needed at all, or should be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 18 September 2020 (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).
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:User page. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Userpage otheruse into Template:User page.
Substantially the same, apart from the inclusion of If you were looking for {{{1}}}, you want this article: [[{{{2}}}]]., which can be included in the parent template, as an option. The "otheruse" version has fewer than 80 user-space transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 18 September 2020 (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).
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 2020 September 27. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2020 (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).

Cricket squad 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. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Un-used cricket squad templates with no incoming links. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:36, 18 September 2020 (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).
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the module's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:51, 18 September 2020 (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).
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. Izno (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in old talk page archives, possibly superseded by Module:Weather box. Suggest subst and delete * Pppery * it has begun... 15:11, 18 September 2020 (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).
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) 00:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 18 September 2020 (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).
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) 02:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be used, other than in a couple of archives or the page of a blocked sock. Redundant to other "leave message" templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 18 September 2020 (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).
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 2020 September 30. Izno (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2020 (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).

October Railway 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above listed templates are now deprecated after transition to Module:Adjacent stations/RZD. - AJP426 (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2020 (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).