< December 28 December 30 >

December 29

Template:Heraldic tinctures

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. Consensus against merger. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Heraldic tinctures with Template:Heraldry footer.
Completely redundant. Merge ready. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2018 (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:European nobility

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 January 9. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:03, 9 January 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:Location map Czech Republic Central Bohemia

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused; low quality image; better to use ((mapframe)) for local area maps Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2018 (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:Location map Estonia Harju County

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) 14:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused; highlighting can be achieved using the |AlternativeMap= parameter with the main Estonia location map Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2018 (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).

Category:2018 Asian Games baseball team roster templates

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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per this discussion, no need to keep the rosters in a separate template when they can be included in Baseball at the 2018 Asian Games – Team squads directly Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2018 (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:Cat main

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. However there is no consensus regarding where the ((Catmain))'s functionality should reside: in a separate template or in ((Main)) template. So, both should be kept. Ruslik_Zero 20:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Template talk:Main#Category namespace, there is no reason that categories should use a separate style of hatnote than articles different language than articles in their hatnote template for describing their main page. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC) (Clarified per discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 1#Module:Main ((3x|p))ery (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • Oppose then, due to differing template functions that I think should be retained. The only result I would have supported was one with Steel1943's rationale, which may even present some confusion if combined, per BrownHairedGirl.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ((main)): As noted at Template:Main/doc, its main purpose is for use in summary-style articles, where the subsections link to a more detailed article.
  2. ((Cat main)) is often the only text on the whole page, apart from the list of categories. Its purpose in those cases is more akin to the WP:LEDE of a list article, explaining to the reader what the category is about. We don't format the lede of a list a hatnote, so why do we do so on a category? (A category is just a list by another technology.
Ideally, ((Cat main)) should be used in conjunction with explanatory text (e.g. on Category:Orgies in Ruritania: ((catexp|[[orgy|orgies]] in the fictional country of [[Ruritania]].)) ((cat main|Sex in Ruritania)) ... but in most cases it used alone because the category title is self-explanatory.
It's quite right that ((main)) is styled as <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">, because it is a hatnote. However, I have long believed that ((Cat main)) and its sister ((Category explanation)) should not styled as hatnotes, because they are effectively the lede on the page. Cat main's output is currently styled as <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable relarticle mainarticle"> ... whereas it is not actually a hatnote, and probably should be searchable.
This is not just a theological issue. There is a real, practical disadvantage to styling ((Cat main)) and ((Category explanation)) as hatnotes, because hatnotes are not displayed when using WP:POPUPS ... so currently, a mouseover a link to a category which has either or both of ((Cat main))/((Category explanation)) shows no body text at all. That is simply wrong.
So the effect of this proposal would be to narrow the gap between two templates which should really be much more widely distinguished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do editors use one versus the other in the category mainspace?? Well, let me tell you why I use main rather than cat main: I copied the mistake from someone else. I never noticed the difference until now. The wording is so similar, that unless you really nit-pick at them, as Black Falcon did, you may be seduced into thinking them identical. Most editors aren't going to lift under the hood of every template they use to such extensive detail. They're more concerned about building things than on how they work, or on minor differences that originated from a careless attempt to duplicate the functionality.
The request by the proposer is not to just delete this template, but to also eliminate the category namespace code from ((main)) as well. In his words "the eventual goal is to abolish the sentence-style main hatnote entirely". That, I think, the consensus is, quite clearly, Oppose.
The request seems to be being passed through by confusing folks as to what they are voting on. People who only look at the documentation of the two templates are lead to believe something very different than if you actually try the templates in the category namespace. If you're not clear on the point, try it. Then read the request very carefully. The proposer says he wants "a clean deletion of this template and the duplicate functionality in ((main)) for categories." (emphasis mine) That I very strongly oppose. LibraryGeek (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: The nominator has since posted an edit to "Clarify nomination statement". He now states that "there is no reason that categories should use a separate style of hatnote than articles different language than articles in their hatnote template for describing their main page." Frankly, I see this as an edit without a difference. His intention remains the same. He believes that categories and articles should be forced to be treated exactly the same way, when they are not the same thing. If this proposal were to be passed, I would be forced to re-create this template to achieve the results I want. The proposer seems to be trying to enforce consistency for the pure sake of consistency, without any consideration of why there should be consistency or not. Enforcing consistency must have a reason. I still fail to see one, and still oppose this request. LibraryGeek (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 147,490 pages which transclude ((Cat main)).
(In case anyone is concerned about pre-empting the outcome of this discussion, that was not my intention. Obviously, if the consensus is to delete or merge ((Cat main)), that will still proceed). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BrownHairedGirl. I see you've even edited my template which contained the "mistake" I was referencing. I actually refrained from making that edit to avoid the rather alarmist language that this template "is being considered for deletion" out of concern that my users may think I was doing something "wrong" by using cat main over main, which does not trigger the warning. At any rate, the argument that editors were willfully choosing main over cat main in categories because of a "preference" in Black Falcon's four differences (or my five) has been mooted. I think at this point, I could support the argument that the attempt to duplicate this template's functionality within ((main)) can be removed. The attempt to do that was done inconsistently, and has only caused needless confusion. Furthermore, the proposer has clearly stated his intention to remove the code there as well as here. I don't see a reason to keep an imperfect attempt to duplicate functionality and cause additional confusion as to the purpose of each template. BTW the total usage of this template with redirects now stands at 168,696. The total usage of ((main)) with redirects is 302,010. If the links to this template were redirected to main, the total would be 470,706. The precentage of sense in this proposal makes remains at 0. LibraryGeek (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! My first reaction was that someone should have changed every {Main} in Category space to {Cat main}, first of all, without asking anyone or apologizing, before starting any discussion. Thanks for catching this up. I looked just now and found 5 new cases, so I corrected them. 2 were new creates; the others were edits that added {Main} to an existing Category page, or replaced a {Cat main} with {Main} while changing the destination article (possibly triggered by the scary TfD notice currently displayed by {Cat main}). ((Your wmflabs search link ran really slow - this WP search link works instantly.)) -A876 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is we have merged the two, but did so imperfectly. ((main)) on a category page will display something very close to what ((cat main)) does, but with Black Falcon's four differences (or my five). Are you saying we should unmerge the two? This seems to be where this discussion is going. Main has a purpose and function, and cat main has a different purpose and function, and they should remain separate and distinct. If so, then we should remove the attempt to impersonate cat main in main. This would make the distinction between the two obvious again, and would discourage people from using the wrong template. I believe that's what BrownHairedGirl's efforts were all about. LibraryGeek (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And something that I would support, as it makes no sense, given that categories are going to use different language in their hatnotes than articles, to shoehorn them into the same template. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, glad to hear that. Sounds like you're coming round, and we're close to consensus, here. So to be clear, you're willing to keep ((cat main)), and to remove the category namespace code from ((main)), restoring the two to their original function and purpose? LibraryGeek (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who's martin, and what are you agreeing with?? The proposal that was put forth, or my proposed settlement? Or did you intend to respond to another discussion entirely?? LibraryGeek (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can't seem to agree on what the FACTS are that we're arguing about. That's because the design of the templates have been twisted from their original design, documentation has NOT been updated, and bad edits have been made that confuse everyone. BrownHairedGirl tried to clean up the mess, to make the argument that we should decide based on the mess moot. Now we're back to arguing there will always be a mess so we should cave to it.
Let me tell you this: Bad design will produce bad results.
That's the problem here. We've had bad design, and we've gotten bad results. So now the question is this: Do we FIX the design and get GOOD results, or do we keep the bad design and just pave over the mess, and make things worse in the end? BrownHairedGirl demonstrated that a good solution is possible. But we're still using the argument that it's impossible, so let's just give up on doing things right. I can't tell you how upset and disappointed I am right now.
I propose that we take a step back, again, and cool off. I, for one, need that. I certainly can write a well-reasoned position paper for having ((cat main)) remain separate and have the pseudo cat main code removed from ((main)). If someone wants to write a position paper on why ((cat main)) must be killed at all possible costs, be my guest. I will need a few days because I have a life and other things that need to get done. The position papers should be written on the facts and not just personal opinion. Making your case on "I don't see a reason why ..." isn't good enough. We need a well-reasoned argument each way. Who ever can make the best case for their position wins. But we need to do this on the facts and not just attempting to shove one's opinions down everyone else's throats.
I propose we close this discussion as NO consensus and take the discussion to a more appropriate forum. Certainly someone here may have an idea where that should be. This argument is NOT about ((cat main)) and ((main)). This argument IS about Categories and Articles and about templates in general. This decision will set a precedent that will govern all other templates. This will spill over to all other cat templates ... I think we know that, and that's why this discussion is so tense and heated.
Step away from the ledge. Get your arguments together. Base them on the facts and not just opinions. Present your arguments. Then let's make a decision based on what makes sense on things as a whole. This particular discussion has achieved no consensus. Let's step away from the ledge, calm down, and try this again. LibraryGeek (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, The Only True Way to mention these *sacred* Templates is {Main} and {Cat main}, as per their *holy* documentation. Also: one way or another, this will go down your throat, blasphemer. (just kidding)
I found the initial proposal vague, and the "clarification" confusing. This place is called "Templates for discussion", although nomination by default implies that something is up for deletion. ("This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.") In this case, we're discussing what to do - neither template is up for simple deletion. I got my version of the problem from the discussions. I gave several possible solutions (biased toward my favorite). I think the discussion from here on out is which possible solution.
Meanwhile, BrownHairedGirl uncontroversially corrected all 7,600 Category pages that used {Main}. A day later I smacked down 5 more that arose spontaneously.
Meanwhile, it would be great if someone also uncontroversially made {Main} function identically to {Cat main} when in Category space...
By the way: At present, 34 Article pages use {Cat main}. That might deserve looking into. (Are they proper? Do they look right? Should we correct them to {Main}? Should we correct them to {Main category}?)
Problem: Some editors will always [try to] use {Main} in Category space, oblivious to {Cat main} - because the destination is a "main" article; notwithstanding the different purpose and the subtle or increasingly different styling differences between {Main} and {Cat main}. Many of us knew the two templates, but many others never noticed.
  • Please select one solution:
  1. Let {Main} function exactly as it does now when it runs in Article space (or any namespace other than Category). Finish the job (already started) of making {Main} function exactly the same as {Cat main} when it runs in Category space. (Yes, that "shoehorns" two conditional stylings into one template, because they belong together, because of the similar intended destination.) After {Main} performs both functions correctly, change Template:Cat_main into a #REDIRECT to Template:Main. Next, edit the documentation to only suggest {Main} for both uses. (Some editors will continue to use {Cat main}, but it won't matter.) (Obviously, anyone wishing to change the action or styling of {Main}, in Articles or in Categories, will have to edit the unified template.) Lastly, (completely optional), a robot could replace every {Cat main} with {Main}; after doing that a few times, we could consider actually deleting the orphaned {Cat main}.
  2. Whenever an editor uses {Main} in Category space (or {Cat main} in Article space), a bot changes it to the right one, as a fix-up edit afterward, like many existing formatting bots. (Maybe someday correct such errors during the edit, but there are a thousand other errors that could or should be patched during Edit time - not a topic for today.) That makes adjusting {Main} and {Cat main} (in any way) completely optional.
  3. In Category space, make {Main} call {Cat main}, to assure identical function. In Article space, make {Cat main} call {Main}, to assure identical function. Each template only has code for what it does, except for the redirection wrapper. -A876 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what, Keep separate functions in Article space and Category space. (Even diverge them more.)
First choice: Merge both functions into one template, {Main}, using a namespace conditional. (This was already half-accomplished.)
Second choice: Split into {Main} and {Cat main}. Undo the existing partial merger, and instead use the namespace conditional(s) to display warning(s) when used in the wrong namespace. Check for errors using "What links here" and/or set a robot watch.
Here's my conceptual chart. 2 target namespaces × 2 namespaces = 4 functions, but 2 are currently identical, so 3 templates cover them:
..............{Main}: The main article for this section of this article is: Mainarticle.
........{Cat main}: The main article for this category is Mainarticle.
{Main category}: The main category for this section of this article is: Maincategory.
{Main category}: The main category for this category is: Maincategory.
(Yes, {Main category} is used in multiple namespaces. Article: 689 times; Category: 105; Talk: 5; User: 19; User talk: 2; Wikipedia: 20; Wikipedia talk: 3; Template: 9; Template talk: 2; Portal: 2. (Total: 856.))
(Yes, {Cat main} bolds the link. {Main category} had the bolding removed on 2018-07-23 "not used in equivalent templates, e.g. {Main}". (Which ones? I guess they didn't notice {Cat main}.) {Main} had the bolding removed on 2005-10-01.) -A876 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 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:Batswana English

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 January 6. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:06, 6 January 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:Bataan Radio

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions; only provides navigation to two articles and some templates but those templates were taken from Template:Philippine Radio Markets and not built in itself into the template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2018 (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:BasquePelota2011PAG

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2018 (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:Basketball team player/role/GF

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 redirect to Template:Basketball team player/role/G/F. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; redundant to Template:Basketball team player/role/G/F. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2018 (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:Barbados Labour Party/meta/abbrev

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. WP:REFUND applies. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2018 (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:Barangay General Information

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2018 (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:Barabari Party Pakistan/meta/color

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. WP:REFUND applies. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2018 (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:Bangor City F.C. seasons

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox there are no bluelinks for this navbox. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2018 (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:Balochistan National Party/meta/shortname

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 January 6. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 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:Bahujan Left Party/meta/shortname

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2018 (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:Bahnlinie-SN

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) 13:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I appear to have created this, so it must have had some use once, but it obviously doesn't now.--Grahame (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2018 (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:Bahamas legislative election, 2002

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; results are at 2002 Bahamian general election#Results. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2018 (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:Baedeker Blitz

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. It has been fixed and now it is in use. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template and navbox doesn't work. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2018 (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:Bad map scale

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2018 (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:BRT style

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2018 (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:BPL Households in CD Blocks of Bankura district

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. per author request Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the five templates noted here are no more used and may be deleted. - Chandan Guha (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2018 (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:BKKLS

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2018 (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:BISE/comments

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2018 (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:BHBWQ2018YOG

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2018 (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:BHBQ2018YOG

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; already substed at Beach handball at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics previously. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2018 (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:BE-IR stations

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2018 (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:BE-IR color

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2018 (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:BE-IR lines

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2018 (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:Azerbaijani parliamentary election, 2010

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; results are already at 2010 Azerbaijani parliamentary election#Results. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2018 (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:Autoreviewer preload

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; mostly redundant to Template:Request for permission. At WP:PERM/AP, Template:Request for permission is used when you add a request there so this template is unnecessary. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2018 (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:Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao regional vice gubernatorial election, 1993

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; results are already at 1993 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao general election#For Regional Vice-Governor so this template is unnecessary. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2018 (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:Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao regional gubernatorial election, 1993

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; results are already at 1993 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao general election. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2018 (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:Authorship

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 G7, as author. czar 12:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2018 (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:Idioms

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old, incomplete, essentially unused template of questionable usefulness. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:23, 29 December 2018 (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:Commonscatmore

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2018 (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).
More