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 replace usage with the appropriate template(s). If the user wishes to convert this into a proper template, they can move it to the Template space. Primefac (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:MrKIA11/Archive Box
While this is in the user space, it's actually used in article talks among other places. Replace with the much more common ((Archives)). Gonnym (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after replacing. If there's a serious functionality-based rationale to keep it, then move it into "Template:" namespace with a clearer name that identifies the distinction. Templates used site-wide in reader-facing pages like article talk pages should not be in userspace. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural query: Less than 5-10 usages are on talk pages. Those can be replaced without a TfD by any interested party by hand, nobody would bat an eyelid. TfD at the top says: The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. + However, there are a few exceptions: (none of which are met here). Pretty sure this cannot be deleted at this venue, nor should it be - we can just replace the couple of usages on article talk pages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, but even if not, the template was used in the talk mainspace which means it falls under everything related to it, including TfD. What you are saying is opening a loophole, where users will write templates in their userspace, apply it to mainspace and then block the removal at TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 24 September 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:User talk disclaimer
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).
Almost the same as the standard ((User page)) template. Should follow the many recent User page template consolidations. Nothing to merge and if desired, the color can be set with the |background= parameter. Gonnym (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've long had too many minor variations of these. Either replace extant uses of this one with the most common one, or subst this one in-place. If this one really just differs by color choice, then just replace it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now separately nominated some of those for merger, or deletion, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 19 September 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 3 directly related articles to the band here which sufficiently link to and from one another without the need of this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. After cleaning the template from unrelated links, there are still 4-5 actual links here. It might be better to remove all the non-links from the article as they outnumber the actual links, making this harder to find actual links. --Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Trialpears (talk) 21:40, 14 September 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 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:Welcome to my talk page
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. If anyone wants the code to "subst"/replace the removal, drop me a note and I'll copy it over. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Little-used talk page header (even then, most were on talk pages of long-absent users, now replaced with ((not around))), with bizarre non-standard implementation of ((Babel)) included. Plenty of alternative talk-page welcome templates are available, as listed on ((User talk pages)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can delete it if you prefer so. I created the template, probably more than a decade ago, based on a template we use on sl:, and to be honest agree that it looks dated and that implementation is not making use of the newest possibilities of mediawiki. But it is somewhat funny how I was invited to leave a comment on this deletion entry after User:Pigsonthewingremoved it from my talk page and added a note, that I've been absent from Wikipedia for a while. Where I disagree, is how you make an argument that the template is little-used after you made approximately 50 edits to remove the template from other users' talk pages. Replacing header that greets peers by saying "Welcome to my talk page" with a notice that is basically saying "go away" between the lines really shows how Wikipedia evolved to an unwelcoming place (despite informative value that ((not around)) certainly has). --Smihael (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I replaced the template on your talk page with ((not around)) (as noted above) you had not edited this wiki since January 2019 - 20 months ago. The documentation for that template says it "may be used on the talk page of a Wikipedia user who has been a longer-term contributor but has not been active on Wikipedia in the past few months/years" and suggests that doing so after "an absence of at least several months (e.g. six months) is reasonable". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It indeed might be used :) I would probably even keep it on my talk page if it wasn't for you deleting my (or any one else's) welcome message... There's a difference between adding ((not around)) to the top of the page and adding it and removing something else. --Smihael (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have way too many of these user-talk banners already. They should just be deleted if mostly disused (one could subst them in place, where they do not do something that's a bad idea like this one does with the babelboxes). Otherwise, the common ones could probably be merged into a single template with some output variations controlled by parameters. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable. I also subst-ed it on my talk page. --Smihael (talk) 18:04, 15 September 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:Language with name2
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).
Seems to have been used at one point by ((Lang-en-US2)) and ((Lang-en-GB2)) which have since been deleted (in 2017). If this was still useful it would have been in current use. Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks right. --Bsherr (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's correct that this is no longer needed. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:26, 15 September 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).
Brisbane Light Rail templates
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).
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 14 September 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).