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 no consensus. AGK [•] 18:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Long deprecated, so is anyone really going to not realize it is deprecated and mistakenly use it? I don't think so. Delete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The prior discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10#Template:Wikify resulted in a consensus to orphan but retain the page as a "disambiguation page". I interpret Mr. Guye's nomination to propose that the page should now be completely deleted, and I agree. The template namespace should not contain pages that are not templates. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Wiki tech provides adequate assistance. --Bsherr (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination and above. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 01:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as deprecated. It's very easy to expect that a maintenance template with this title should exist (the template received over a hundred pageviews every month this year [1]), and for any editor who attempts to use it it's much more helpful to have the current situation (error message upon transclusion + template documentation that lists alternatives) than to have a useless redlink, which – if clicked by a registered editor – would only point but the deletion log entry. Also, the template has been extensively used in the past, and it's generally better to keep it for historical record (along with the extensive talk pages archives of this template). And I'm not sure there's any benefit in deletion: the only argument I can imagine is that the template could potentially add "clutter" – but it has long been unlinked from the rest of the project pages so there really isn't anywhere that this clutter could occur (though the template is still in Category:Article message templates and it could be removed from there). – Uanfala (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. People are still under the assumption that it's an actual template, and ignoring the big red warning it makes when they use it. As I said in the 2012 discussion, there are other templates that say the same thing. We've had plenty of time for those other templates to see widespread use. Hell, ((Expand)) was nuked in 2010 and I still see editors trying to use it, ignorant of the big glaring red error message it now leaves behind. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But deleting wouldn't help in this situation: if editors don't see the big red error message left by the template as it exits, how likely is it that they would see the small red link that would appear if they used a deleted template? And if we want to track and fix usages of a deprecated template, it's generally much easier if that template exists. – Uanfala (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it not help to remove the template from HotCat then? Nolelover (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Instead to deleting it maybe we should replace it with a category so other editors can then properly tag it as people may still use it even if it's deleted. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 12:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template invokes ((Deprecated template)), which adds Category:Pages using deprecated templates to any transclusions. I've just tweaked the template so that the category is added only to mainspace transclusions (too many uses on user pages), until that the category was, bizarrely, only added to non-mainspace transclusions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One need only consult "What links here" to do this. "What links here" will show transclusions even if the template is deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, one can check "what links here" for Template:Wikify, but then one has to then individually check its seven redirects (template shortcuts and the like); one has to know about this template and proactively make these checks. With the current setup, on the other hand, this is taken care of automatically: every use of the template (under whatever name) will end up in the big maintenance category, and this will automatically end up on the watchlists of editors who monitor the category, regardless of whether they know about this template or care enough about it to periodically check for transclusions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uanfala's reasoning, although TPH makes a good point about people still trying to use it. I have no idea how many of those people are manually typing in the template vs using a HotCat-type program to do it though, so I think removing the template from those programs should be step 1. In general I just think its use was too extensive to justify deleting, and if we can minimize any accidental uses I'm not sure what benefit there is to deleting the template. Open to discussion on this point though. Nolelover (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. If we can't stop people using it, we should redirect it to prevent either creating red links, transcluding deprecated templates, or maintaining a disamb page in the wrong namespace. The plausible targets are either ((Underlinked)) or ((Cleanup reorganize)) if you want to link to either of the specific problems this template used to indicate – the problem being of course that you have to chose which. The other option is to link to the less specific ((Cleanup)). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since there's other templates which are more specific as to the type of cleanup an article needs. Perhaps the "Cleanup templates" section could be incorporated into a new DAB though. —Mythdon (Talk) 09:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uanfala's comment. Why would deleting the template help prevent people from using it when they already shouldn't be, and when the result would be less noticeable than it is now? Anyway, even if you've never heard of this template, you might expect it to exist (we use the phrase "wikify" more than occasionally, and you might think a cleanup template by this title existed) and thus might try to add it. Also, per Uanfala's WhatLinksHere comment, deletion would be somewhat unhelpful for maintenance, since we delete redirects to nonexistent pages; a single visit to WhatLinksHere currently shows you all transclusions of all redirects, even if you don't know about the redirects beforehand, while if we deleted them, you'd have to know about all of the redirect names and then reload WhatLinksHere for each one of them. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 25 September 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⚡ 01:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Post-nominals/ISL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia shouldn't be using made up abbreviations that don't exist in Iceland. DrKay (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agreed, it's unfortunate that receivers of the Icelandic honours don't get post nominals, but that does not justify fabricating them. Lazz_R 18:35, 24 September 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 keep. AGK [•] 18:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DC Universe programming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links. Can be created again once there are five links so a fifth original has entered principal photography. Matt14451 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep was we JUST went through this here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Favre1fan93 and the keep arguments in the previous discussion. —Mythdon 03:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Best left for category and list navigation. --woodensuperman 07:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Seeing as this was discussed less than a month ago, this nomination seems a bit out of sorts. --Izno (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as Mythdon said, per Favre1fan93 and the keep arguments in the previous discussion. – BoogerD (talk) 06:31, 28 September 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 merge to Template:Infobox diocese. AGK [•] 18:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox Bishopric with Template:Infobox diocese.
Main article bishopric redirects to diocese. The styles are already served by Template:Infobox Bishop styles. A second alternative would be to redirect to Template:Infobox Christian leader. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, unless maybe a non-merger redirect would be better. Bishopric is a good deal slimmer than diocese, and as long as diocese works without Catholic-specific data (e.g. there won't be a Latin name for a Russian Orthodox diocese, and it wouldn't make sense to mention the number of Catholics in its boundaries), I don't see a reason why we couldn't just replace bishopric with diocese by changing ((infobox Bishopric to ((infobox diocese. And if there is some reason we can't, surely we could have a bot make such a change and convert the names of any section titles. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. —Mythdon 23:18, 24 September 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 no consensus. AGK [•] 18:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Christianity by century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:History of Christianity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Christianity by century with Template:History of Christianity.
Almost completely overlapping. The only thing that isn't is "BC", which pipelinks to Historical background of the New Testament. This could be merged. I do recognise that Template:Christianity by century was probably intended o faciliate navigation. However, if anything, it is then navigational intelligability of Template:History of Christianity which ought to improve. There is also indeed a discussion there on how to achieve this. To add to this, uou could well argue that having two templates with pretty much the identical content - one template giving the complete overview and the other one bringing about a period-specific focus - only serves to confuse. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging - Other template is broader and more detailed. Orientls (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Keep "by century". The other is more about "isms" than events by period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that listing the isms there is a bit problematic. For simplicity, chronological links would likely suffice. Perhaps the isms could be merged with Template:Christianity footer for convienience? Yet, I would prefer a regular footer template to be maintained for the overview navigation still. "Previous/next" templates are typically limited to when there is an actual wordly office or organisational continuation that is designated, which arguably isn't the case here. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged: can you expand your rational further? We are only trying to keep things at one place. Orientls (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging: Template:Christianity by century was orginaly also used for those pages on it, e.g. Christianity in the 2nd century, and is still used to good effect in such places. We can just remove these pages (Centuries:1st 2nd 3rd... 19th 20th 21st) from the Template:History of Christianity so as to eliminate any overlap-- if people think this is better-- but to me this also seems less that necessary. tahc ^chat 19:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Tahc. When you have a tightly defined group of articles, it's occasionally good to have a separate navigation template just for them, as a huge template will be a lot more complicated. If we deleted this template and edited its articles by replacing it with ((History of Christianity)), we'd be in that situation, as the other template has so many links that one might not quickly find the other centuries without a bunch of careful looking. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Orientls, although noting Nyttend's concern, the "Centuries" section in Template:History of Christianity should be reworked to be more legible so readers can find it without having to carefully look. —Mythdon 23:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to Keep upon further consideration and per my conversation with Nyttend below. —Mythdon 01:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For an example of what I'm talking about, consider a geographic navboxes. Most US states' navboxes have sections for their counties (e.g. see the bottom line of ((Delaware))), but ((Texas)) doesn't have counties because the state's 254 counties would make the template just too big, and there's a separate ((Texas counties)) template. Now, if we incorporated the counties into the state navbox, the counties would be easy to find, but some smaller topics might not be (e.g. without a bunch of searching, you might not know whether Southeast Texas would be in the regions or the metro areas under the name of Houston), so by having a separate template for a single topic, we make navigation simpler. As ((History of Christianity)) is large, and one could reasonably find centuries in various places (huh, no "Christianity in the 8th century" link in the Medieval section; I guess it doesn't appear on this template), using this template in place of the nominated template is at least as likely to cause difficulty as would be the merger of Texas and Texas counties, and it would still be more likely if we gave the centuries their own "normal" section. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a bit of a stretch considering there's only 21 centuries in Christianity. Sure there's problems with how the "Centuries" section in Template:History of Christianity is presented, since the text is just so small and in a backwater part of the template (making readability at a first glance virtually impossible), but that can be fixed if the "Centuries" section actually were presented in the same way the rest of the links are already presented, seeing as right now everything else is presented in larger text with a white background, as opposed to "Centuries" which has an orange background with small text. The problem is more to do with readability in my opinion. —Mythdon 23:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As I say, the situation isn't quite the same because the counties wouldn't easily be lost, but in both cases the merger would make the smaller stuff harder to find. Quoting WP:NAVBOX: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Even if we improve the visibility of the centuries somewhat, we'd be stuck with an overly busy template that's hard to read and use. In contrast, the separate centuries-only template meets the ideal of a small, well-defined group of articles. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Compare this with my edit and let me know if you still see an issue. —Mythdon 00:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No question that it's somewhat better, but still, it's one little group on a huge template. My wide laptop screen displays 768px from top to bottom, and the template is 522px high (versus 511 before your edit, not a significant change), but the centuries are just 42px out of that. Finding anything on here takes some effort, and while we have to put up with that for many of the articles that can't easily be segregated (Justin Martyr, the Papal Schism, and John Smyth could be put into any of several sub-templates, so it's best to leave them here), the centuries are naturally put into the nominated template, so someone who views that template alone (and doesn't have to bother with much of anything that's not centuries) will have a much easier time than someone who views ((History of Christianity)) alone and must wade through sixteen sections and sub-sections, several of which would also be reasonable places to put century links. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if Template:Christianity by century must be kept, then I'd suggest removing the "By century" section entirely from Template:History of Christianity. That'll probably address both sides of the argument to allow Template:Christianity by century to be kept while addressing the overlap between both templates (overlap which the nominator was concerned with). At least with there still won't be any duplication as far as listing centuries while allowing both templates to exist. Thoughts? —Mythdon 00:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that necessary, but it couldn't hurt. We could revert your edit and replace the original century links with a single (by century) link just below the "History of Christianity" banner, or we could have a by century link after "Timeline" at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Either one doesn't sound too bad. As long as the overlap/duplication gets addressed, that's the main priority. —Mythdon 01:03, 25 September 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. AGK [•] 18:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gozo Football League Second Division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not required as it caters for a low-level league competition. —Chrisportelli (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, out-of-date, if needed, list of current teams could be added to Template:Football in Malta. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 29 September 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 (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject Djibouti (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject Gambia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject Catholic canon law (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject Benin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject Cornell University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated since July 2013 and no transclusions. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. These templates allow the use of ((WikiProject Countryname)) to add the project banner to a page relating to any country. This assists editors who don't know that a regional template is used in a particular case, and allows the use of tools suc as AWB to mass tag pages. Bots may subsequently convert these tags to the the releveant regional project (e.g. ((WikiProject Africa))). Deleting these tempaltes would have zero benefit, and would impede WikiProject tagging.

These are amongst 164 templates in Category:WikiProject banner wrapper templates. They are deprecated because there is a preferred way of tagging for the projects, but the fact that they are deprecated in favour of a better usage does not alter the fact that there are circumstances in which these templates are useful to editors and to the relevant WikiProjects. The lack of transclusions simply indicates that the bots are working effectively in converting them to the canonical templates.
It would be helpful if @Zackmann08 had spent a little more time considering how deprecated templates can be useful, rather than rushing to deletion. WP:BEFORE and all that ... and see deprecation for a conceptual overview of the different reasons why something may be deprecated. Not all deprecated pages should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• See also a discussion of a similar set of templates at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2018_September_21#Template:WikiProject_Malawi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•  I withdraw my nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:51, 22 September 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1884 Port Adelaide premiership players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and no real links Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Bushby linked.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WilliamJE. —Mythdon 03:09, 24 September 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 keep. AGK [•] 18:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, replaceable by ((PD-USGov-Military-Army)) FASTILY 00:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As an FYI, Commons:Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH is in pretty wide use. I guess the restrictions against commercial use are non-copyright restrictions and so we consider it "free" still (similar to trademarks)? --B (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Harmless and provides more specific attribution. Not opposed to a rename, though. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If someone applies it to an image that is then moved to Commons, tagging the upload over there with the best permissions template will be easier than if the person applied ((PD-USGov-Military-Army)) here. ((PD-USGov-Military-Army)), or ((PD-USGov)), will work, but a more precise template is better over there. If a template here helps with things there without hurting anything here, we ought not delete it. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep distinct template which provides a more detailed description of the restrictions that fall under U.S. Army Institute Of Heraldry. As Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army covers images with no restrictions, while Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH covers ones with restrictions, these are entirely different templates, as each outline their own set of permissions and as such helps to prevent copyright violation. —Mythdon 23:33, 24 September 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 September 29. AGK [•] 18:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:People's_Vote (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).