Template:The Late Late Show, 2008–2009 and related templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 -FASTILY 02:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each template was transcluded to two articles (their respective season article and a List of Episodes article), but per MOS:TV standards, the templates were merged ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) into their respective season article, and then those tables transcluded ([9]) from the season articles to the List of Episodes article. This makes the templates redundant and not conform with MOS:TV standards. -- /Alex/21 23:19, 24 November 2020 (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:Ongoing protests
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2020 December 2. (non-admin closure) EN-JungwonTalk 17:10, 2 December 2020 (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(s) or module(s) 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 replace and deprecate. There's no real consensus on whether to simply delete or deprecate after these have been replaced with the appropriate ((gs/alert)), and there are reasonable arguments for keeping them as historic templates. One of the main arguments for keeping them undeleted was to allow users to "get used to" the gs/alert system, so there is no prejudice against renomination in six months or so if it appears that the admin corps has made the swap. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These templates were superseded/cleaned up a few months ago. Some are totally unused/redundant now (eg Template:Blockchain notification or Template:Uw-castewarning, as duplicates of ((Gs/alert))), others were turned into temporary wrappers around ((Gs/talk notice))/((Gs/editnotice)) (eg Template:MJ sanctions), etc. They have no clear structure. Proposing to delete all these (in cases of appropriate replacement, first replacing usages with direct template - eg ((MJ sanctions)) -> ((Gs/talk notice|mj))). Some are here for "historical purposes" like ((AbortionGSEN)), but since this would've been superseded by ((Gs/editnotice)) anyway, so I don't see any historical purpose in keeping them. Some like Template:Gs/Ecig notification are basically single-usage (log page) duplicates of Template:Gs/superseded, so should be replaced or substed. Covid is a mix of -> ((Gs/editnotice)) and this. Naming of these templates is all inconsistent, as well, and I don't think it's useful to keep an obscurely/arbitrarily worded set of wrapper templates. Standardised templates can be found in Category:Standardised Wikipedia community-authorised general sanctions templates. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: Recently I noticed that a user had received a notice of the WP:GS/IRANPOL sanctions in May 2020 but the notice had not set the tag 'discretionary sanctions alert' in their edit history. After asking a couple of people I concluded that the notice was given using one of the obsolete templates which doesn't trigger Edit Filter 602 to give the new-style notice. That filter tags the edit in the history, and it is the one used by Arbcom to handle their DS alerts. Tagging the history is the way of knowing whether a user has been properly notified within the past year, and it replaces the use of a manually-maintained log of notices. Agree with User:ProcrastinatingReader that GS notices from now should be given using the updated templates in Category:Standardised Wikipedia community-authorised general sanctions templates. Finding the right template to use may be helped by viewing Template:Gs/topics/table which is the current sanction table. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – A useless, obsolete mess, skilfully replaced by a standardised system created by the nominator. There's no need to keep these around any longer. RGloucester — ☎ 15:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this discussion should get more visibility, maybe a notice at WP:AN or WT:ARBCOM, not because I expect anyone to object to this deletion proposal but just so admins are aware these templates will no longer be used. Many keep a cheatsheet of warning templates in their user space. Or you could just post a notice at AN when this discussion is closed to inform admins of the decision. Liz Read! Talk! 00:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions isn't tagged, is that an oversight or is this one still in use? Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oversight, I have tagged it. I left notices at AN when I initially replaced them with the standardised set a few months ago, but if further notifications may be helpful I don't mind. I just got the gist nobody really cared much ;p ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace with a transcluded version of the applicable standard template (effectively a redirect). Delete any for which that isn't applicable (e.g. if the community sanctions are no longer in place). I can't really see a strong reason to remove them entirely, change the template on talk pages and editnotices, and also retrain everyone to use a different template. Absolutely change them to the standard versions but keep the current template names if it's is still in use (e.g. for the SCW&ISIL talk notice). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, they can be converted to subst-only wrappers and have a bot subst them, but keeping them has a few issues, namely increased maintenance burden, especially if any parameters are to be changed they all have to be edited, limitation of number of restrictions that can be used, and my pet peeve that this is all a dog's dinner. I don't personally see the point verses just converting these all once and be done with them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to deprecate them all unless there's a good reason that the contents of the templates is inappropriate for continued public access. To that end we should replace each of them with a ((error)) while keeping the history intact. ProcrastinatingReader makes a good argument as to why we shouldn't make them subst-only wrappers (which is my second choice), but I would much prefer to retain the public history while helping people switch over to ((gs/alert)) over outright deleting the templates here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is a much better idea! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'm working on a close on this, just waiting to hear back from a couple of people about a couple of things. That's not to say I won't entertain other opinions (i.e. there are still a couple of ways this close could go), but mostly that this is being worked on. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2020 (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:FIBA Oceania Under-16 Championship for Women
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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⚡ 04:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox, contains only red links --TheImaCow (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2020 (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(s) or module(s) 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 2020 December 3. (non-admin closure) EN-JungwonTalk 14:26, 3 December 2020 (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:Evolution4
Template:AFI/Collaborations of the day (no border)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could just be a parameter of ((AFI/Collaborations of the day)). ((u|Sdkb)) talk 06:35, 24 November 2020 (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:Fake red link
- 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 Userfied to User:JsfasdF252/Fake red link. (non-admin closure) Use ((re|PorkchopGMX)) to ping (Push to talk) 17:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we need a template that makes red links look like external links. If the intent is to make a normal fake link we have Red link example. Moxy 🍁 04:17, 24 November 2020 (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).