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) 00:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SFRTA color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:SFRTA lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:SFRTA stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Tri-Rail style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((S-line)) templates for the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, which runs Tri-Rail. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/SFRTA. All transclusions replaced. There are also 6 dependent s-line modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 10 June 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 result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 June 20. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Team_Speedway_Polish_Championship_seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish_speedway_teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Speedway_Ekstraliga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Speedway_Ekstraliga_seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Speedway_in_Poland (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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hollywood Vampires (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One album and a barely related are not sufficient for a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, doesn't seem to have enough for a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 17:11, 13 June 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 result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Urban expressway of Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Imzadi 1979 → 05:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 10 June 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 result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:National highway of Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Imzadi 1979 → 05:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 10 June 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 result of the discussion was delete. kingboyk (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Away goals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template reproduces a simple wikilink that would be better off written in wikicode than having to call a template every time. This is not what templates are for. Every instance of this template should be subst'ed and then the template should be deleted. – PeeJay 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 09:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. A category should be added to the template to track matches where it was applied. It's more consistent to use the template and its redirects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why add a category when you can just check the "What links here" page? – PeeJay 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand per Walter. The templates are better for consistency. Bmf 051 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way? If people want to write something different than what the template displays, they can do so by simply not using the template. It is utterly pointless. – PeeJay 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete This has no reason to be in a template as opposed to standard wikitext. * Pppery * _survives 00:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per nom and Pppery, subst and delete. --Izno (talk) 04:07, 10 June 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 result of the discussion was delete. The point of the template space is to stick code that can be used in multiple locations and/or is too complex/long to store on an article itself into an easy-to-use location. This does, however, imply that those templates should be transcluded somewhere so that the code can be visible; there is a long-standing precedent that templates should be transcluded and not linked to directly from the article space. The nominator (and many of the supporters) feel that since these templates are not currently used, they should either be used somewhere or deleted. No one in the discussion feels that they should be transcluded in Trams in Warsaw as it currently stands. For the record, and in regards to the "previous discussions" argument:

• ((East Coast Main Line diagram)) was eventually turned into an article
• the argument for the deletion discussion of ((Line 1 (Budapest Metro))) and related templates was not that they existed, but were single-transclusion templates (which is not the argument being made here)
• The "no consensus" discussion regarding ((Trillium Line route diagram detailed)) eventually resulted in an (uncontested) merger and subsequent TFD where the merger was furthermore solidified and the original template redirected to the page it was originally linked from (and where the content was merged to).

If a time comes where articles on these lines are written, or it is decided that the diagrams should be transcluded/included in the Trams in Warsaw or similar, there is no prejudice against a REFUND. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Warsaw Tramways Line 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Warsaw Tramways Line 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Warsaw Tramways Line 17 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Warsaw Tramways Line 24 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These are not unused as they are linked from Trams in Warsaw#Route list. Having these as templates will allow them to be transcluded into articles about the individual tram lines should they be written and/or about stops/stations on the route, without needing to have lots of complicated and easily broken code in an article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - templates are not articles and should not be linked to from article mainspace. This does that and a very poorly fashion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete templates that are linked rather than transcluded do not fulfill the stated purpose of the template namespace, to contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• So where else should it go? Including the diagrams inline in the article is clearly undue, a standalone article would have insufficient prose, yet the line diagrams are very clearly encyclopaedic information. If these were images there would be no question they should be included as they currently are, and yet equally an image would be uneditable and so inferior to the template. The encyclopaedia is therefore clearly best served by ignoring the "rule" that templates must be transcluded. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not sure this information is encyclopedic. We don't have articles on the individual tram lines, nor on the tram stops. The former could be written; the latter would probably fail to meet notability guidelines. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these amateurish diagrams really need to go. They were just about OK in 2004 generally, they're not OK now. They're OK I guess for a short North-South line, but they fail for anything more complex. They look cheap, tacky and unprofessional. And they breed. People see one and they make others. They need replacing with proper maps. Tony May (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting opinion, but completely irrelevant to this discussion. You would need to get consensus at somewhere like WT:RDT before deleting them for being "amateurish". Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that these should be kept as they provide useful information, but ideally a better way could be found to include these in the article as the current method is unsatisfactory. Could they be made collapsible perhaps? G-13114 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per MOS:DONTHIDE. --Gonnym (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf & G-13114. Tony May's criticisms may be discounted, as he has a long history of hyper-criticism of others' images. (Nor do I see him offering to create geographically-accurate maps.) Gonnym seems to be arguing both sides of the issue, claiming simultaneously that they can't be kept because they're not transcluded, and that they can't be transcluded (uncollapsed) either.
  Please see this discussion from just six months ago as to precisely why stand-alone Route Diagram Templates exist. Another relevant discussion is here (where Gonnym also argued against the consensus). This one explains why RDTs should be kept separate from articles. Need I go on? Useddenim (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I will. Here is the same thing from three years ago. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. Useddenim (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. My argument was very clear. Templates should be transcluded, not linked to. If you want to transclude it, then transclude it. If you need to hide it, then that violates another MOS guideline. Seeing as how you need to go against the MoS twice to keep these, should make you question why. --Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that templates must always be transcluded is clear. Unfortunately for you consensus has repeatedly found (Useddenim lists only some of the relevant discussions) that there are at least some cases when linking to templates that are not transcluded is perfectly acceptable. We do what is best for the encyclopaedia even if that means that not everything is rigidly black and white. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a "no consensus" in a discussion or two, is not the same as having consensus on your side. Regarding the 3 examples given above: The first resulted in the template turning into an article (East Coast Main Line diagram); the second discussion resulted in no consensus, not one that said consensus is that this is an accepted practice (which is a pretty much flawed option as creating a template requires no consensus, so the default will always be that), but the end result of that discussion is that Trillium Line now transcludes that template; the last discussion resulted in the template being transcluded to Bakerloo line extension. So I fail to see how giving 3 discussion as examples, which contradict your points are backing up your claims. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It backs up that the assertion "templates must always be transcluded" is false - that one is now a template in article space and one has subsequently been merged does not contradict this. Ultimately though please explain how deleting these templates will improve the encyclopaedia for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the diagrams are important, you should create Warsaw Tramways line diagrams per the discussion linked above. However, if these are minor bus routes, then WP:NOTTRAVEL. But, using template space to house content that isn't transcluded anywhere is not the answer. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly these are not bus routes (the clue is in the name). Secondly, that article, if created, would simply transclude these templates (for the reasons repeatedly explained, separating the very tricky and easy to break template code (which is exactly what a route diagram template is, again the clue is in the name) from natural language content is a Good Thing) and so, completely unnecessarily, make it harder for readers to access. Pease explain how this benefits the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 15 June 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 result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Vermont Radio Markets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Templates of this type used to be nested in the "below" sections of the radio market templates that are listed in it, in order to ensure that those templates were crosslinking each other — but that method was deprecated a long time ago, and the crosslinking is now just done directly instead of by calling a separate subtemplate — and the templates involved here are already doing their crosslinking the contemporary way rather than relying on this. Most of the other templates like this were deleted a long time ago, accordingly, and this is just a straggler that got missed in the process. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the current method of linking is actually the correct one. You have in this example 7 articles, all manually creating a list of templates, which requires a lot of overhead, while, using a simple template and placing it on the /doc page (not the template), is actually the more correct way to handle things like this. --Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not be linking outside of main article space into template space from navboxes in this manner. Readers would expect to stay in article space when selecting a link from a navbox. --woodensuperman 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and use this instead of the current method of linking templates. Place this in the /doc page of each of the navboxes. --Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The links to adjacent radio markets are for the end user, not the internal editor of template documentation. The documentation page is the wrong place for them, because they're meant to be reader-facing content — placing the links in /doc instead would completely defeat the entire purpose of having any crosslinks at all, because it removes them from their actual purpose: the end user, the person who doesn't understand how radio markets are actually organized and is trying to find stations that aren't in the template they're looking at because they rimshot from outside the actual market, is who they're for. Bearcat (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template space is only for reader-facing content when transcluded - we shouldn't be directing the casual reader outside of mainspace like this. They should be directed to articles for information, not template space, which is part of Wikipedia's "nuts and bolts". So the only appropriate place for these links to template space is in the documentation, as they should only be used to assist editors, not readers --woodensuperman 13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely mission-critical to Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations that radio station market templates must crosslink to adjacent markets. The issue is that because radio stations are regularly audible in more than just one market, but radio stations are templated only for their originating market and not for every adjacent but separate market their signal happens to overlap, readers regularly browse the market template expecting to find adjacent-market stations that aren't actually in their own market and thus don't belong in its template. WPRS needs a way to direct those readers to the adjacent market templates in which they'll actually find the station they're looking for: we have to have a way for readers in Detroit to get directed to 89X without directly adding 89X to a market template it doesn't belong in; we have to have a way to direct readers in Buffalo to the Hamilton-Niagara template in which they'll find The River 105.1, without directly adding that station to the Buffalo market template since it's not a Buffalo station.

Our radio templates are based on the actual official radio market, but the general public often isn't familiar with the distinction, but instead thinks of their radio market as being inclusive of any station they can actually pick up on their radio regardless of whether it's really part of their radio market or the next one over — which is precisely why the radio market templates have to be able to crosslink each other in a reader-facing way. Without them the entire purpose of even having radio market templates at all will be completely disembowelled by the constant addition of adjacent-market stations to the wrong templates. That's precisely why WPRS even started doing it in the first place: radio stations were ending up with five or ten or fifteen separate market navboxes at the bottom, in defiance of TCREEP, because people kept trying to add adjacent-market stations to any market template where the station's signal could even be heard at all — Buffalo stations weren't just getting intermingled and TCREEPed with Hamilton ON stations; they were getting intermingled and TCREEPed into the Toronto radio market. But that's not what we want: we want stations to be navboxed only for their originating market, not for every adjacent market where their signal happens to still be audible, but readers still need a way to find those adjacent rimshotters they're looking for.

And at any rate, the purpose of TFD is strictly to determine the keepability or deletability of this template alone. TFD does not get to override a longstanding consensus about the formatting of templates that aren't up for deletion — the matter of whether non-deleted market templates crosslink each other or not will be decided by WikiProject Radio Stations, in a discussion conducted by WikiProject Radio Stations under the auspices of WikiProject Radio Stations, and not by anybody else but WPRS itself. A change like this has profound implications for the entire structure of WPRS's entire template stock, and thus requires WPRS to be notified — you're not allowed to sneak massive changes like this under a WikiProject's radar by conducting it in a discussion that the WikiProject was never properly notified about in order to even participate at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for the radio station project to decide this would be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. To fundamentally go against guidelines such as WP:SELFREF and WP:SURPRISE is not appropriate. As WP:NAVBOXes are for navigating between articles, it would be acceptable to link to list articles with this information from these navboxes, but not to other templates. We should never be sending readers away from mainspace in this manner. I would suggest that, if they don't already exist, list articles should be created to mirror the navboxes, and these lists for adjacent markets can be linked from the navbox instead. --woodensuperman 08:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and remove links to template space from navboxes. We should not be directing readers "behind the curtain" from article mainspace. --woodensuperman 13:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but keep the links to adjacent templates per Bearcat. As Bearcat explained, linking to adjacent markets is critical, and the current method of linking directly to a smaller list of adjacent markets is more useful and relevant than an exhaustive list of all markets within a state or province.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:48, 11 June 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 result of the discussion was keep Frietjes (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WXW World Lightweight Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a pretty standard template and I could not find a valid reason to to use it, so I have populated the pages with it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Galatz' work renders the nomination reason moot. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 10 June 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 result of the discussion was keep. As it's in use now Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In doubt Template no longer unused as the author spread its use. The Banner talk 07:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; the nomination reason no longer applies. Frietjes, could you provide a new deletion rationale, or could you withdraw? Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 10 June 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 result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:XRL Passenger (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and no reason why it couldn't be included in an article directly. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; the nomination reason no longer applies. Frietjes, could you provide a new deletion rationale, or could you withdraw? Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If it's wanted, then just subst and use directly on page, as it isn't used anywhere else. --Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst into article. Useddenim (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the template appears to be unused again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:53, 13 June 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 result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 June 27. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CondellZabecki2001 (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).