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) 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a list of contributors to a compilation album, subject is not concise enough to be useful as a navigational aid. --woodensuperman 13:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Template links more than 5 dozen musicians and five songs from Roadrunner United: The Concert. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the problem. Linking over 60 musicians in a navbox because of a compilation appearance is not appropriate for a navbox. The placing of this navbox on any one of their articles is WP:UNDUE. This should be left for the article. --woodensuperman 14:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is the only reason to link Hatebreed to Trivium, it's not needed. A number of the linked articles here that I checked don't even mention the project. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 1 February 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) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is surely sufficient for this. Nigej (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The album page should cover all of it. --Stephen"Zap" (talk) 16:29, 11 February 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).
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).
Thanks. Might consider giving editors a way to specify the display name of a championship (e.g. Steinfeld Cup, Stanley Cup, etc.) rather than adding field(s) unique to one sport or league. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmoore5556: absolutely! One common way this is dealt with is to add some custom fields to the template. So for example you would have (({championship_label_1))}, (({championship_data_1))}. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be quite useful and something I'm very supportive of. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this template, I'm in favour of merging. :-) --Doradus (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: - Not in the least. As I recall, I made the template to reduce redundancy between the pages that existed at the time. This is another step in reducing redundancy. Progress! --Doradus (talk) 13:30, 10 February 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) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per nom and per the support of the creator. --Gonnym (talk) 21:57, 7 February 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:SITribe
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) 01:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template is definitely not used that can be seen at ((Stribe)) and its document files. ApprenticeFanwork 11:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that I have combined two nominations into one given the similarities between templates and identical nomination rationales.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SITribe - couldn't find any uses of it. These should probably be deleted with it ((SITribe/color)), ((SITribe/name)) and ((Survivor India colorbox)). ((SPTribe)) is used on only one article and could probably be replaced and deleted as well. --Gonnym (talk) 21:26, 1 February 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) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ((Stribe)) section "List of tribes with colors" shows that that template can be used instead. Ancillary files should go too, as noted above. ((Survivor Philippines colorbox)) too? All seems overly complex for the rather simple purpose. Nigej (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you felt wrong with ((Stribe)) as a mistaken for deletion on the existing template, the only templates will be deleted as both ((SITribe)) and ((SPTribe)), where ((Stribe)) uses in all Survivor franchise series. I did replace with those in Philippines and India franchises, but not Survivor Philippines: Celebrity Doubles Showdown that should replace ((SPTribe)) (along with ((SPTribe/color)), ((SPTribe/name)) and ((Survivor Philippines colorbox))) into ((Stribe)) before the non-existed two templates above will be deleted. ApprenticeFanwork 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to imply Stribe should be deleted. Missing punctuation. Sorry. Nigej (talk) 11:04, 12 February 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:KOGL-type2
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).
Keep and repurpose. If a license would count as free except for a single restriction, it still helps to have a template for it, since "the owner has published it under a license that permits this specific use" is solid evidence that the file passes NFCC #2 and #4. I'm not sure how to repurpose it; we could just redirect it to ((Non-free with NC)), or we could transclude that template onto this one, but best to run it by template experts to ensure that this isn't transcluding any categories that would lead bots to interpret it as a free-license template. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:51, 30 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) 21:44, 7 February 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:KOGL-type3
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).
Keep and repurpose. If a license would count as free except for a single restriction, it still helps to have a template for it, since "the owner has published it under a license that permits this specific use" is solid evidence that the file passes NFCC #2 and #4. I'm not sure how to repurpose it; we could just redirect it to ((Non-free with ND)), or we could transclude that template onto this one, but best to run it by template experts to ensure that this isn't transcluding any categories that would lead bots to interpret it as a free-license template. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:51, 30 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) 21:44, 7 February 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).
Philadelphia Transportation Company 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:02, 27 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) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 13:56, 8 February 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 SEPTA Regional Rail S-line aliases
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) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are mostly redirects and they're all unused. The correct S-line names are Bethlehem, Fox Chase, Ivy Ridge, Pottstown, and Trenton. With the except of one of the Allentown templates they were all long-disused. Mackensen(talk) 15:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:02, 27 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) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 13:56, 8 February 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 character/Wikidata
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).
This template gets all of its information from Wikidata, which so far has not been the way en.wiki wants to receive information. It is only used on 10 pages and can replaced with ((Infobox character)). Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I take issue with which so far has not been the way en.wiki wants to receive information given that there are multiple infoboxes (almost-)completely enabled with Wikidata. The reason a template like this exists is as a test bed for Wikidata-enabled infoboxes. Is it your suggestion that this should actually be merged into the template proper? --Izno (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is based on my observation of various discussion over the past years against the Wikidata. I do not think this should be merged. If keeping information on character articles is hard now with the lack of references a lot of editors seem to not care to add, then having that same information come from an outside source that doesn't show up on a watchlist, would be even worse. --Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A) It does show up on a watchlist (if you choose to enable it); b) existing issues with characters articles shouldn't affect how we decide whether to use Wikidata; and c) Wikidata is not forbidden for use (nor is it preferred for use). As it happens, we've been successful with at least one template reducing the number of changes directly in an article (that's ((video game reviews))). I don't want to open cans of worms much more, but which so far has not been the way en.wiki wants to receive information is an incorrect statement. --Izno (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken out the disputed line so we can focus on infobox itself and not any side-issue.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The template is an outdated wrapper of Infobox character passing parameters that have no coropospoding parameter in the main template and in addition it has some trivia parameters such as |height= and |complexion=. It also no documentation at all. This an issue with wrapper templates that tend to get ababonded and not taken care of. The very few parameters which are not unique and not trivia can be merged into the main template, or use one of the custom fields. --Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 27 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) 21:43, 7 February 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
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 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 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 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:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Lua
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 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:Social Christianity
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).
Seems a catch-all for names. - Inowen (nlfte) 07:44, 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) 21:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just 17 transclusions, despite the much larger number of entries in the template (60 or 70) and some of those 17 are not entries in the template. Just 2 of the "major figures" use the infobox. Social Christianity redirects to Christian socialism. See also Category:Christian socialism. All rather gives the impression of being a fairly random list. Currently I'm inclined to think that it could be deleted. Nigej (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move back to user space per Nigej's comment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I moved the template to Christian Socialism to match the article, and renamed it and updated the categories. Nigej is right that many important figures in the article are not in the template and vice-versa, so can we remove some of the extraneous entries and keep the template? --Chumash11 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 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).
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 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 ((Ahnentafel)) displays information using a method popular in America. It is not so popular in Europe. ((Ahnentafel-tree)) is a better format to use for large trees (say more than 5 generations) particullarly on small screens (like phones) and on printers. It also allows far more detail to be displayed for each entry as the indention is far less leaving the rest of the line free for notes etc. ((Ahnentafel-tree)) is built using ((Tree list)) and all it does it make it easier to build an Ahentafel tree using ((Tree list)) as it simplifies the process.-- PBS (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger unless someone is willing to write the code so that ((Ahnentafel)) is modified so that with a switch it can display a tree like ((Ahnentafel-tree)) (othewise it is not a merge). -- PBS (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Actually the thing to look at is Help:Family tree. I recently added link to that help file to Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy#Templates (Revision as of 19:45, 14 January 2019). The whole section in the project is misleading and instead ought to suggest that that people go to the help file to see what is avaiable. There is no reason to reproduce parts of the help file in a project as it dates and two places have to be maintained if they are not going to contradict each other. -- PBS (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the sidetrack. Would you mind trying to improve that situation per WP:BOLD? It seems like it could use some bold attention. PPEMES (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been BOLD and rewritten the section. -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. No strong need for a merge, reflects diversity of use here with no convincing reason to standardise, and allows articles to better reflect regional variation.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 1 February 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) 21:35, 7 February 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 Highlander character
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).
Merge with exceptions - oppose |appears= and |episodes= as those can become giant lists and should be handled in the article itself. Not sure about |born=, |died=, and |immortal= as those parameters were always absent from the character infobox for a reason. --Gonnym (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Bogolub (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Gonnym.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:23, 9 February 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 military unit 720th MP BN
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) 02:07, 15 February 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).
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).
This is mostly procedural. According to the documentation, this template is deprecated in favor of ((Infobox medical condition (new))). I want to actually make this happen and remove all transclusions of the old deprecated template. I will then merge the templates and remove the "(new)" part of the template name. Just want to have a formal TfD for documentation purposes. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - if it is deprecated and replaced by another template it should be fully replaced. --Gonnym (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I just check what'll happen to the data within populated parameters, such as classification codes, which are not part of the new template because they have been moved to the ((medical classification)) ((medical resources)) template? (I'm assuming they'll still be there in the wikicode, and just won't show in the infobox, but want to make sure.) Little pob (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever needs to be merged, will be merged. If you have any specific issue that you think needs to be replaced/moved/merged this is the time and place to say so. --Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some parameter data, such as classification codes, need moving to ((medical resources)) from the depreciated infobox. Having a bot do this was ruled out for reasons around complexity during the development of the new infobox and the med resources template. As such some members of WP:MED have been performing the moves by hand. Consensus was the parameters were too technical to be in the infobox, but were encyclopaedic. I'd argue that if merging the infoboxes would remove that data entirely, it would be a policy violation. Little pob (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: that you just stated that you support a merge... The entire point of this discussion is to make the merge happen. The fact that you are doing it slowly indicates that you ARE merging the two. Supporting this delete doesn't mean the template just gets deleted without any work... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just did about 500 instances of this template yesterday. The old template is being split into two and replaced. Not it is not being merged and I oppose merging. Just under 1,000 instances of this template are left in main space. If people want to speed up the process of this template no longer being used than help doing the split of the template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Doc James. Some instances should be changed to Template:Medical resources, as the deprecation note already indicates. So no botwise change, it takes editor's judgement. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your nom OP says, stress added: "This is mostly procedural ... I want to ... remove all transclusions of the old deprecated template. I will then merge the templates and remove the "(new)" ... Just want to have a formal TfD for documentation purposes." In other words: you propose to make these edits without any editor's content judgement. That is "botwise" to me. More general: did you get from this thread, especialy from User:Doc James's posts, that this is not a 1-to-1 automatable change? -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, but going to throw my hat into the ring to help migrate by hand - starting this weekend. Little pob (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gonnym we have a tool half built that does this replacement. It is not good enough to do it without oversight so currently it is a userscript. First item listed here User:Doc_James/common.js. We could look at improving it and getting it run as a bot if people really wish. The larger issue is that some details should be filled into the new infobox as it is added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 11 February 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).
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).
Propose mergingTemplate:Infobox handball club with Template:Infobox handball club 2.
Don't see any reason for there to be 2 templates here. Suggest merging all parameters to one template that works for both. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there is no reason for two templates competing for the same article. Hopefully someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Handball can join in and say what parameters are important, as ((Infobox handball club 2)) is only used on 7 articles. --Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Surely ((Infobox handball club 2)) can go, only used 7 times, some Australian teams, some American. Nigej (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments. There's only room for one! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I forgot why I created a second Infobox. But I think we can merge the two.--Malo95 (talk) 14:41, 12 February 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:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia talk
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).
Delete an Editnotice that is blank (as opposed to nonexistent) risks being a resource drain every time a page in the corresponding namespace is edited (which is a LOT). UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I suggest the editnotice template itself does not get a TfD tag because then the TfD tag will disruptively appear every time a page in the namespace is edited. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can convince me that an empty editnotice template is a resource drain, then I'm fine with deleting it. Otherwise it is better for non-admins to be able to see the history. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:23, 9 February 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:Taiwan Television drama 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).
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:05, 14 February 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:Taiwan Television High-quality Saturday Drama
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).
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:05, 14 February 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:Kin'yō Naito Dorama
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).
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:05, 14 February 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:TBS Getsuhachi
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).
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:06, 14 February 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:Mokuyō Dorama 9
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).
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:06, 14 February 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:TBS Mokukyū
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).
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:06, 14 February 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:SET Metro Chinese TV drama on Fridays at 22:00
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).
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:07, 14 February 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:SET Metro Chinese TV drama on Weekdays at 20:00
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).
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:07, 14 February 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:Nippon TV Do'yō Dorama
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).
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:07, 14 February 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:Seoul Broadcasting System drama 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).
unclear what the use if of this template The Bannertalk 12:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this template actually is useful as it provides navigation between a set of navboxes, however it is also redundant as each of the 4 nav template linked to it, also have the same links in their own template. --Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Has no links now, other then the current template (the last template is being deleted). This discussion can be closed. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 10:08, 14 February 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).
Now-unused user warning 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).
No longer needed. All of these either refer to unused processes or have been superseded by subsequent templates.
[UsernameNeeded] 11:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Superseded by what? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who has decided these are "superseded"? WCMemail 12:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close. This is far too many templates bundled in a single nomination for proper consideration. I need only witness that I actively use more than one of these to undermine the grounds of the nomination; these are not all "superseded" nor "unused" and since many are substituted, the claim is not easily checked – nor is it feasible to try to check given the agglomeration. (By the way, the nominator has failed to use noinclude tags despite the mass nature of the nomination; I'll go fix that).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close. Per Fuhghettaboutit. WCMemail 13:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like ((chinup)). What needs to be done with that (and maybe the others) is not to delete them but to somehow advertise and recommend it Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:43, 7 February 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:How Long Can Chicken Sit Out Unrefrigerated?
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 Speedily deleted. No reason to keep this around for 7 days, I think. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 21:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic essay, a misuse of template space. Not used anywhere after I removed it from an article about a defunct cooking school. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could have probably be speedy under G6 "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". --Gonnym (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a template. Nigej (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a G6 - pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 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:Newbie-biting
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) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No longer needed. All of these either refer to unused processes or have been superseded by subsequent templates.
[UsernameNeeded] 11:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Humorous and light hearted way to remind editors not to bite newbies, I'm not sure why but there seems to be a tendency to remove anything light hearted or funny from the wiki. WCMemail 12:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated twice previously, kept on both occasions. WCMemail 12:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Result was "no consensus", different thing. --Gonnym (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm really struggling to see any point in it. Nigej (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no nomination here? It goes straight to the "Keep" !vote. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've found it. Wee Curry Monster, you don't seem to have followed the directions at WP:TFDHOW (such as: adding your nomination at the top; adding a reason why you think the template should be deleted or merged; using an edit summary such as "Adding [[Template:template name]]"). I also don't see why you have nominated a template for deletion using a "keep" !vote. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't nominated it, it was part of a mass nomination done out of process above. WCMemail 11:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you should have made your !vote in that section, and not started a new one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. With appropriate personal characteristics and some willpower and thought, such humourous comments can also be delivered off the cuff. There is no need to preserve this one as a template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep per Wee Curry Monster. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 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).