Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 7 March 9 >

March 8

[edit]

Template:Average temperature table

[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) 09:37, 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:Autosignature

[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) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a template to insert a signature. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:04, 8 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 and redundant 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:02, 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:A-League all clubs 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:03, 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:Welcomeip2

[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) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:04, 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:Extended football squad 2 player

[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) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:04, 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:Extended football squad minutes

[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) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:04, 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:EstcatUkrgovernorateDecade

[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) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused category navigation template. Redundant. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 8 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:Ethnic groups in Scotland

[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) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is just a stylized wikilink Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 8 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:EB Games Expo 2015

[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 15. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:18, 15 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:EC Hungaria

[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) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused sidebar. No information on context. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 8 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:Dukes of Richmond

[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) 23:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[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) 23:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navigation template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 8 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:Dimmed namespace

[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) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[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) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no real purpose... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:14, 8 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:Daylight saving in time zone/techdoc

[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) 01:40, 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:DateheaderDdMY

[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) 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Voided per post-close information that the template is used — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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) 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused and reduntant to year in cat Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:01, 8 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:Cow-Toe Barnstar

[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) 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - unused. Nigej (talk) 20:11, 8 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 CC 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 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:Infobox Jane Austen character

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

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

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

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

[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) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not everything needs a navbox. DannyS712 (talk) 07:06, 8 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:Uw-navbox

[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) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is it just selected toad species, rather than everything in the genus? If there are too many to provide a complete list, we need to have inclusion criteria (why these ones are more link-worthy than others), but no criteria are given or apparent. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[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:Headless TOC

[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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:30, 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).

Module:Glossing abbreviations

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

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

  • Keep I'm the user who created the template that I believe supersedes this, and I'm the one who replaced all its uses and then cheekily marked it as superseded. Now, if I'd thought it would be a good idea to delete this module I would have nominated it myself. And if I'd known that it would get nominated as "unused", I would have left one or two uses, to spare us having to debate it now. Why don't I think it's a good idea to delete it? The template that I created to replace it is a wrapper for one big complex module that also does other things; it's definitely more versatile and I like to think it's better, but it's also more complicated – it takes time for anyone to figure it out, it's more difficult to edit, it's easier to break. I don't like the idea that my complicated tool should be the only one available out there. It's possible someone would get unhappy about it and will want it to behave in a different way: then they're much better off building on this dedicated, simple and easy module than on mine. It's good to have more than one tool out there to do the same job, especially if there's such a stark difference in complexity. I know that to the regular participant here this argument doesn't sound like much – sure, there's presumably no actual use for this module now, but there's also no harm in keeping it, is there? I believe there are more long-term benefits in having access to an open and diverse set of templates, than in keeping everything absolutely tidy. – Uanfala (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Module cannot userfy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Moving Module:Sandbox/DannyS712/learning to User:DannyS712/module/actual results in "Scribunto" content is not allowed on page User:DannyS712/module/actual in slot "main". If you are going to be critiquing how familiar others are with the process, you might want to double check that you are rights. But, modules can be moved to a subpage of Module:Sandbox, effectively allowing users to have their own sandbox modules, but not technically being userfied. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/Erutuon) or delete. Whatever original intention Uanfala had matters not anymore. The new module has replaced all usages and we shouldn't have 2 modules doing the same thing and having two different code bases. --Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have thought it's precisely the intentions of the editors who create, use and maintain a given template that matter :) – Uanfala (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I was referring to was your intention to replace all instances of it, but still leave it and not delete it. That intention matters not, as the bottom line is that we have 2 templates doing the same, one of them with zero uses. --Gonnym (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't trying to pick a quarrel with you, I was just trying to present a viewpoint on the whole situation. Your opinion is very reasonable, but it does ramify into the (unintended) conclusion that when deciding what tools should be available in a certain area it's irrelevant what the people who edit in this area want and instead the decision should be based on the opinions of people who do not edit in the area. But such a conclusion is in a way already presupposed in the setup of a place like TfD anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[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:Punjab Gharana Lineage 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[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) 23:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:18, 8 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:Franchises by Irem

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

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:17, 8 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:FoxMemorial 2008

[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) 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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⚡ 08:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused classification template for inactive project Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:11, 8 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:WikiProject Rivers/rater-data.js

[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) DannyS712 (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isn't javascript, it's JSON incorrectly labelled as Javascript. Neutral on deletion for now, but the content model should be changed if kept. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to me to me part of User:Kephir/gadgets/rater.js, however the owner of that gadget has been inactive since 2017. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the use of it. The gadget works fine today. We should indeed change the contentmodel; the gadget doesn't look like it cares about the contentmodel and JSON would be more correct here. --Izno (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but change content model) per Izno: component of a still-in-use and working gadget. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[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_8&oldid=923336430"