September 9
Template:ARP
- 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 September 18. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 18 September 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:AFv5 hidden
- 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⚡ 06:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Historical warning reffering to a now non-exsistent feature. --Trialpears (talk) 20:46, 9 September 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:AFIWPNote
- 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⚡ 06:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template for historical process. --Trialpears (talk) 20:40, 9 September 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:Old XfD multi. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Old AfD with Template:Old XfD multi.
Kept separate from the now main template ((Old XfD multi)) due to some ancient history. Wrapper should be made substitutable and then migrated to the main template. --Trialpears (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are also ((Old FfD)), ((Old MfD)) and ((Old TfD)) templates, and these might as well be considered for merging as well. It makes little sense (at least at first glance) to merge the AfD template and leave the others as separate templates. Surely, there should be a way to combine the templates for all XfD discussions, shouldn't there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Marchjuly While it makes sense at first, I think it would be better to update those templates to accept multiple nominations instead of merging them into Old XfD. This is because using Old XfD for non-AfD venues requires the full page name, which requires significantly more typing. ((Old AfD)) is different since it's already a wrapper and would work without modifying the arguments simply adding more functionality and changing the unnamed parameters and changing parameter names. --Trialpears (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed that perhaps these templates can be centralized around a single base and wrappers made, but I agree with Trialpears that there is time savings and simplicity in having the wrappers. --Bsherr (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Bsherr Just to clearify, my opinion is that ((Old FfD)), ((Old MfD)), and ((Old TfD)) should kept separate while ((old AfD)) should be merged. The time savings don't apply since AfD already is the default in ((Old XfD multi)) and is outweighed by the inconvenience of changing to ((old XfD multi)) if there are subsequent nominations. ((Old AfD)) also don't support the date parameter. --Trialpears (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see there have been some changes in the templates. ((Old AfD)) used to be a convenience because the documentation made clear that parameter names were not needed for its use. I now see that feature has gone out of style in the other templates. Given that, I think merge is okay. --Bsherr (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. We should merge them and have a single Old XfD template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yas Queen. The merge makes sense. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 13:28, 20 September 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:AFB game stats
- 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⚡ 06:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hardcoded table showing team statistics with all values fixed at 0. Not used in any article with only transclusion on creators user page. Completly non-functional. --Trialpears (talk) 20:17, 9 September 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 Redirect. I made this template back in February when I was just getting used to doing stuff on Wikipedia. I really didn't know what I was doing, and this was a glorified sandbox template for me for a day. I'll be nominating the subpages for deletion under WP:CSD#G7.
@Trialpears: Since this is pretty much a speedy close, you're still free to nominate the redirect for RFD if you so choose. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template for indicating "wrong" talk quotes. I do see no use case for this template where ((!xt)) for bad examples wouldn't be more appropriate. Only one page using it which should be replaced with ((!xt)). It also seems to be broken. --Trialpears (talk) 19:49, 9 September 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:. . .
- 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) 03:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Used to add the ellipses character (which is discouraged by the MOS) to one article. --Trialpears (talk) 17:01, 9 September 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:WikiProject Kollam
- 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 Template:WikiProject Kollam. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:WikiProject Kollam into Template:WikiProject India.
WikiProject Kollam is essentially just a small (and inactive) subproject of WikiProject India. There are only 53 transclusions of this banner so it would make more sense, and help reduce talk page clutter and redundancy, to handle it as a parameter in ((WikiProject India)). The necessary changes have been sandboxed at ((WikiProject India/sandbox)), with testcases at Template:WikiProject India/testcases. PC78 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not worth a merge. This is a subproject of WikiProject Kerala, itself a subproject of WikiProject India. 53 transclusions is too small, even for a task force. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mr. Guye. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mr. Guye, too small a scope for an independent WikiProject notice template. ToThAc (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge As nominated. If this user is going to go through the trouble of writing the code in the main template's sandbox and testing it out for this proposal, then why not? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MJL: Because Kollam is small city in India. There are countless larger cities which do not have parameters within WIkiproject India template. SD0001 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SD0001: But do said cities have dedicated WikiProjects such as this? PC78 (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @PC78: Yes, see Wp:WikiProject Delhi, Wp:WikiProject Mumbai, Wp:WikiProject Chennai, Wp:WikiProject Bangalore, Wp:WikiProject Hyderabad, Wp:WikiProject Patna, etc. SD0001 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SD0001:...all of which have parameters in the WikiProject India banner, hence my proposal to merge this one. PC78 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but I am not sure if it's necessary as WP Kerala (parent project of this one) has a parameter in the WP India banner and I think it suffices. SD0001 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mr. Guye -- CptViraj (📧) 13:19, 14 September 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:Locked userpage
- 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) 03:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
does nothing Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 9 September 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 September 22. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 22 September 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).