Template:Bristol Lines
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This template is unused and a more detailed railway map is available at Template:Bristol railway map which is in use. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's less detailed than the in use map, but too complicated to be a simple overview. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 27 November 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's unused. Just like
((subst:cfr)) and ((subst:cfr2)), it's intended to be WP:SUBSTed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't say in the template documentation that this template is intended to be substed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, two category renaming templates are enough. This one is unnecessary and not being used by Twinkle as well. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is probably used a decent amount and is a convenient shortcut when making bundled CfD nominations. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:10, 23 November 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:Chu-accountnotused
- 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⚡ 09:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only 1 transclusion. dibbydib 💬/✏ 22:54, 25 November 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:Cleanup-by-month-message
- 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⚡ 09:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yay, that must mean we cleaned up all the pages that used it! No objection to deletion. -- Beland (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does indeed look to be unused after bots took over the creation of these pages in 2010. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:05, 23 November 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:Conduct Result
Template:Conduct Notice
Template:New Zealand Test cricket record by opponent
Template:Newcotw
- 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⚡ 09:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This template is unused and it is based on a project which is currently inactive. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:55, 22 November 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:Newsgcotf
- 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⚡ 09:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This template is unused and has been created for a project that is currently inactive. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:51, 22 November 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:KGC
- 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 December 2. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:49, 2 December 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:Fun-Da-Mental
- 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) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Useless. None of the releases have articles. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, insufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 25 November 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:Arcade
- 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 December 2. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:49, 2 December 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:Strife
- 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 December 2. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:49, 2 December 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 merge to Template:Infobox rail. While concerns about implementation were expressed there is a consensus to merge these templates. Subsequent discussion should happen on the talk page. If a different title than "Infobox rail" is desired a separate WP:RM should be started. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Infobox rail with Template:Infobox rail company.
Both templates are used for railway companies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support they are both largely the same and so better to combine them for simplification purposes. ElshadK (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This was previously proposed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 3#Template:Infobox rail company, where I !voted Support, but the outcome was no consensus. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There appear to be some UK-specific parameters in Infobox rail company which should be reviewed for inclusion in infobox rail. Not everything has to be included in the infobox. One complexity is that infobox rail is more generalized and has far more transclusions (2200 vs 150), but the name isn't ideal. I think my preferred outcome for a merge would be to replace infobox rail company with infobox rail, but eventually move the merged template to infobox rail company. I would note that since 2013 some of the service-specific parameters in infobox rail company, which confused the issue, appear to have been removed. If there are concerns about manually migrating templates I volunteer for the task. Mackensen (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP Infobox rail company is NOT appropriate for U.S. railroads. For one thing, they are not measured in kilometers. Other irrelevant categories are fleet size, number of tracks, stations called at, stations operated, operating speed, and highest elevation. All of these may be appropriate for the UK and other regions, but not for the U.S. There is no overwhelming need to have only one infobox, and the two are working just fine as they are. So WHY fix something that is not broken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Textorus (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- support, makes sense to merge the two given the overlap in parameters. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree There are too many differences, it will end up like the UK and US schools one, where you end up with 1 infobox with almost 200 different things. Keep as it is! Mark999 (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - exactly the same subject. Very confusing for new editors which need to guess which to use. If a parameter isn't needed for a specific article, just don't use. It can't be easier than that. Also, I love the how the opposing comments above give the sense that there is some kind of known split when neither of the templates say they are used for a specific region and, more importantly, while Textorus says
Infobox rail company is NOT appropriate for U.S. railroads
the only example in ((Infobox rail)) is for Great North of Scotland Railway, which is not in the United States as far as I know. Also, while he points that the US railroads aren't measured in KM, he clearly does not know about MOS:CONVERSIONS which says to use both units, making his point irrelevant. --Gonnym (talk) 22:52, 29 November 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:23.4162° N, 25.6628° E
- 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 Speedy deleted. as a test page under WP:CSD#G2. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're wondering what's at 23.4162° N, 25.6628° E this unused template has the answer! It's THE SAHARA. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:10, 22 November 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).