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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pakistan Army sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just ((Infobox military unit)) with details about an army used in only one article Pakistan Army. Not sure why a separate template is needed here, it can simply be placed directly in the article (like in all other Army articles). Gotitbro (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or as User:Bsherr puts it below "Single use templates that can be substituted into their article." Gotitbro (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Single use template, per nom.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC):[reply]
• Substitute. Per me? 😀 --Bsherr (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute. Per him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• subst then delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:25, 24 November 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).

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 2018 November 27. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_beach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_landform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Infobox holiday camp. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox campground (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox holiday camp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox campground with Template:Infobox holiday camp.
The distinction between the two subjects is vague. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, replace Infobox holiday camp with Infobox campground. --evrik ^(talk) 16:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging. Makes complete sense. - Darwinek (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. - Sdkb (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 22 November 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).

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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:RWBY characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:RWBY supporting characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substitute. Single use templates that can be substituted into their article. Bsherr (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both supporting characters. This was a mess to begin with as it involves a lot of original research in figuring who gets star billing or recurring/guest billing. It's for a cartoon show. The voice actors don't show such billing in the first place. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, maybe it is best to substitute first and then edit the article to remove them so they are preserved in the history? --Bsherr (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - No reason why this series should use a style that literally all other TV series articles don't support. The table should be created in the article. --Gonnym (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• subst both then delete both per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:25, 24 November 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).

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⚡ 02:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:TOC1001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((TOC1001)) was superseded by ((TOC001)) ~2.5 years ago and remains unused. See related TfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. There will be some cleanup required, as it is referred to in a number of documentation pages. Urhixidur (talk) 03:27, 20 November 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).

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 T2 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Revdel-rd3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Against WP:REVDELREQUEST. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't typically take part in TfDs, but I have been a bit concerned about this template before and have thought about starting a discussion on the talk page several times. The whole point of revision deletion is to make harmful revisions as hidden as possible. If you have a giant red box on the top of the page screaming what exact revisions to look for to see RevDel-worthy material for everyone to see, then that makes the revisions much more visible than if it's buried within the history and an admin is privately emailed about it. I think this would very much create the Streisand effect and as mentioned, it is against WP:REVDELREQUEST.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey and SkyGazer 512: I've made a change. I've added <div class="sysop-show">, to the effect that the big message is only displayed to administrators. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WhatLinksHere can still be used to check all pages this template is on, which is mainly what I'm worried about. Enterprisey (talk!) 17:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you could easily see all the revisions that have this purely disruptive material by constantly browsing through the transclusions. Imo, it's much better to just email a willing admin.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete T2. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:19, 19 November 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).

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 Withdrawn. Apparently discussions aren't allowed anymore. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox actinium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This in reality is a nomination for all 122 templates in Category:Infobox element per element but before I tag and list all 122, I want to make sure I'm not missing something... These templates all seem to only be used in one place. The article about the element. Is there a reason there is a template for the infobox as opposed to just placing the infobox on the article as is normally done? ((Infobox element)) exists for a reason... Why make 122 single-use templates that are just transclusions of that template? @DePiep: I definitely want to make sure you chime in here. I'm guessing this is a relic of the way things worked at one point? Either that or I'm missing something. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:SNOWBALL. There is no rule or reason to delete single-use template. -DePiep (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DePiep: I'm not sure why you chose to get so confrontational with edits like this. Not sure I possibly could have approached this better. I specifically pinged you to get your take on things. Is there a reason you felt the need to approach it this way instead of offering a simple explanation? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template was considered for deletion on 3 April 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This template was considered for deletion on 28 June 2014. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This template was considered for deletion on 30 October 2016. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This template was considered for deletion on 30 October 2016. The result of the discussion was "2018?".

Zackmann08, this looks more like a drive-by tagging. "Single-use" is no reason for deletion, and so you could not provide a policy link. here, -DePiep (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per T3. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Duplication of what, JJMC89? -DePiep (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing. It is a hardcoded instanace of ((Infobox element)). — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I use encoded instances ('hardcoded') of ((math)) everywhere (they are intended for this even). So what? -DePiep (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 3#Periodic table infobox templates and elsewhere this and others were kept, as noted at Template talk:Infobox actinium. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ok lets get a few things straight here. I never said there was a policy that banned single use templates. What I saw, as part of some work that I am doing, is a series of 122 hard coded instances of templates. This seemed odd to me. So I started a Template for DISCUSSION thread, to, wait for it, DISCUSS A TEMPLATE. Why on earth DePiep felt the need to tell me to fuck off is beyond comprehension. If people want to keep them, that is FINE! I don't agree with it, but again, I was just trying to start a discussion. Not interested in dying on this particular hill. As for the fact that I nominated this in 2016, honestly had forgotten. lengthy breaks for health issues will do that to you. I honestly don't understand why the need to take this so personally, particularly when I filed this with a number of questions. I wanted a discussion, instead what I got was Fuck off, you're an idiot. REALLY helpful folks. Sorry I bothered. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Who called you an 'idiot'? Ban them! I listed (by simple copy/paste, no hard work) the history. 2018 was missing, so it is completed by now. Actually, a current(!) discussion: here, here. I am still waiting for an argument to delete single-use templates. -DePiep (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After reviewing the previous discussions, I believe this is an edge case which should be allowed to bend the rule assuming there's a policy that says all single-page templates should summarily deleted. But fortunately there's not even that rule. I see no valid reason for deletion. I hope the proposer will withdraw just like this they did in this similar unsuccessful attempt to delete ((infobox hydrogen)) two years ago. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:04, 19 November 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).