- 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 2020 October 30. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 30 October 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).
Module:Naval Vessel Register URL/rules
- 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. Along the lines of Trappist and Gonnym. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Sclass with Template:Sclass- and
Template:Sclass2 with Template:Sclass2-
Templates for linking to X-class Y such as Ohio-class submarine. The difference between them is that one hyphenates the link and the others doesn't. ((Sclass)) is deprecated since 2018 and a simple redirect to ((Sclass-)) should be enough for the links to be preserved. This can be verified using a simple quarry and if any are missed several good redirects will be created in the process. Exact same thing applies for non-italicized sclass2 templates. --Trialpears (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It was intended that
((sclass-)) and ((sclass2-)) live short lives; that once all of the ship-class article titles had been properly hyphenated, ((sclass)) and ((sclass2)) should be updated to link to hyphenated article titles and ((sclass-)) and ((sclass2-)) redirected to ((sclass)) and ((sclass2)). Further, it was intended that the ((sclass-)) and ((sclass2-)) redirect transclusions should be replaced with ((sclass)) and ((sclass2)) through normal maintenance until the redirects were no longer needed at which point the redirects would be deleted.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sclass and Sclass2 only have 1 mainspace usages, which seems to mean that all ship-class article titles have been hyphenated. Per Trappist the monk's response that the intent was for the Sclass- and Sclass2- to be temporarily, I support a two step solution: Change Sclass and Sclass2 code to match the hyphenated versions then replace all usages of the hyphenated versions with the non-hyphenated template name. --Gonnym (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And now thousands of articles are rendered unreadable by this proposal - these templates are designed to be used inline so you are breaking the articles - please fix this.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:23, 22 October 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 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. Arbitration template that has been referred to the clerk team for consideration. Thank you for raising the issue. (non-admin closure) CThomas3 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated and with the exact same purpose as ((Casenav)). A simple redirect should preserve everything and add more features. --Trialpears (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I was alerted to this as the person who deprecated the template in the first place. First, arbitration-related templates are administered by the committee (because changes to them create more arb and clerk work). Take this up with them. Second, this template has been transcluded up to 1,000 times. What if even one parameter is missing or behaves differently in ((Casenav)) (the two templates are years apart now)? I don't think the time spent pre-diagnosing this issue, or cleaning up the mess afterwards, is a good use of anybody's time, particularly as the site will look no different before and afterwards. AGK ■ 14:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AGK Alright, forgot that clerks do all the work here which means that everyone here knows what they're doing. That removes the biggest reason for mergers such as this that it makes the templates simpler and more accessible for users unfamiliar with them. I've looked through all the parameters in RFARcasenav and ensured that they are availible in casenav and tested replacements in preview for 3 different uses making quite certain everything is fine. --Trialpears (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace and delete per Trialpears research into the template parameters. I don't find comments like
I don't think the time spent pre-diagnosing this issue, or cleaning up the mess afterwards, is a good use of anybody's time
, considering no one forces anyone to do it and this TfD cleanup is done voluntarily. Don't worry about how other people want to spend their time. As to the actual issue, as Trialpears pointed out, both templates are the same, with one being deprecated in favor of the other. In 2020, instead of slapping that awful deprecation template, a template would have been brought to TfD and if consensus was found, it would have been cleaned up afterwards. There is no reason this can't be done now. --Gonnym (talk) 14:50, 22 October 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 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 after replacing usages with ((Country study)), or an alternate template as appropriate. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that text from a Library of Congress Country Study is used in an article, which is deprecated in favor of ((Country study)). While replacement will take significant manual work, the template should be placed in the holding cell so it won't be forgotten and there is a clear consensus in favor for the replacement. --Trialpears (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace and delete per nom. If one should be replaced by the other, this is the place to place them. A a general note, deprecated templates should be abandoned as they don't actually get the result intended and should instead just brought to TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think deprecating is by far the more helpful option: it leaves a pointer to the new template to be used, it preserves the history, it doesn't mess up transclusions in old revisions of pages, and it doesn't require massive amounts of labour to substitute uses. – Uanfala (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and it leaves duplicate templates which go out of sync; makes it harder for new editors to figure out which template to use; makes it harder for template and module creators to work around various templates, styles and redirects; adds unnecessary noise to the search results; and still requires additional editorial time spent at TfD since the deprecation usually either does not have a discussion or the discussion is lost in the archives. Yes, I'm sure it's the more helpful option. --Gonnym (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, cluttering the search results is a drawback. Otherwise: deprecating certainly does not require TfD red tape, and new users will hardly have a hard time figuring out whether to use a template that says on its page in big red letters "Do not use". As for keeping in sync, or integrating with other templates or modules, why would anyone want to make such improvements to deprecated templates? – Uanfala (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because when the templates are "deprecated" but still in use, sometimes in over 1k+ of mainspace articles, those templates still need to keep up-to-date with new HTML specifications, MoS updates and other consensus changes. As an example from our /holding cell section see Template:Aircraft specifications which was deprecated with another similar template for a newer version which was almost the same, but with updates. It was left to rot as deprecated because no one wanted to deal with fixing them, which Trialpears was slowly doing. Also, to answer your question why would anyone use a template that is marked as deprecated? Most just copy/paste from one article to the next and others don't care. Template:Wikify is still being used in mainspace every now and then. --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I disagree with the principle of keeping templates around as deprecated indefinitely. If a template should not be used, and is not used, then there's no point in having a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We should be replacing this with footnotes that tie the specific text copied to the reference. See, for example, Forestry in Chad. I agree that ((Loc)) is a terrible, but ((country study)) is only marginally better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Calliopejen1, proper usage of templates in Category:Attribution templates is to use them for copyright attribution, but to also include inline referencing. This is however often missed and should probably be clearer from documentation and possibly preview only text as well. --Trialpears (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this approach, but that is a topic for broader discussion. Putting copyright attribution in places other than footnotes is not legally required and simply results in cluttery attribution templates that are never removed, even when the underlying content is. No need to respond here; I'll address this somewhere better than this deletion discussion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I looked at how ((country study)) was actually being used, and it's almost always just used in a footnote like a normal citation, even though it was kind of oddly formatted for that. I changed its formatting so that it's in line with other citation templates, with ((PD-notice)) at the end. I still think it's a kludgy way to cite (the parameters the template accepts aren't great, and ((cite encyclopedia)) is better than ((cite book)), which ((country study)) is based on, for this) but I withdraw my overall objection to ((country study)). It's definitely a step in the right direction... Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 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:Dispute-resolution/medcom
- 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⚡ 08:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and deprecated sidebar redundant to ((Dispute-resolution)). --Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is an existing dispute resolution template, this is unused, and I don't see the benefit in retaining this template for historical purposes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:14, 28 October 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:Assessed
- 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) 17:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated talk page banner informing users that the article was assessed for quality a specific week. The problem with this is that no one cares about this, especially since they were all added circa 2006. --Trialpears (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete definitely delete this. Millions of articles are now assessed; there's no need to note on a template that this happened in a week in 2006, and it certainly adds clutter wherever it is. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Tom. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 01:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Query @Trialpears: should this not be added to ((Article history)), since the reviews did have their own subpages? Or, is it not worthwhile? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 30 October 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 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 October 30. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 30 October 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:AMEX 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 delete. Deleted by Fastily (bot isn't processing the close for some reason). (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused version of Template:NYSE American. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unused and superseded. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is not superseeded. Like all the other templates in Category:Ticker symbol templates - link only the purpose is to provide a link directly to the exchanges website with nothing else. Template:NYSE American is for use in inline text and info boxes. The other templates in that category are often used usually in tables where just the link is better suited. This template might find use in the future too. --Svgalbertian (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What future exactly? It was created 8 years ago and its unused. That should tell you something. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's just unused at present? Maybe this template was used 2 weeks ago, as well, and isn't currently, and may be in a few more weeks? Some/most of the ones in the cat only have a couple of usages themselves. This nomination of one template seems to make the argument that nothing in Category:Ticker symbol templates - link only should be kept (as they'd all be duplicates of their full-version), yet not all are nominated, so we can't really have a real discussion on whether they're all worthless or not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:14, 28 October 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:2014 MAAC men's soccer standings
- 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 (bot isn't processing the close for some reason). (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused in the article(s) it can be used, so either the community does not want it or it should be added. It should also be noted that since the bundled nomination a year and a half ago, it's still unused. Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 22 October 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 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The template isn't really needed as the club is notable enough. HawkAussie (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this club really isn't notable enough; the navbox links to another team. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just confusing. As noted above, many of the links are to a different team altogether. Nigej (talk) 21:02, 26 October 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:SubTable
- 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template with no documentation or clear purpose. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 06:53, 22 October 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).