Template:Oromo Wikipedians
- 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) 19:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, not really a proper template. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:11, 27 February 2021 (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 Not merged per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:In use with Template:Under construction.
We could convert it to a parameter of the ((Under construction)) template. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I think these two templates should be separate as they are widely used for two different things. "In-use" means that you are strictly editing the article, and want nobody else editing it. Under construction to me is seen as a rest period tag to inform editors that the article may not look right at the moment. I appreciate your suggestion but I do not think it will he a net positive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose they serve different purposes: In use is for when you're making quick changes over the course of a few hours, and Under construction is for usually new articles that are being heavily edited over the period of days. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The two templates serve different purposes. ((In use)) warns other users not to edit the page for a while, ((Under construction)) shows that the article " is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" and invites other editors to contribute. Making one a parameter of the other would just confuse newer editors. --John B123 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Under construction signifies that over a longer period of time, editor(s) are restructuring an article. In use is meant to prevent edit conflicts by showing that someone is actively editing the article. As per above, it would be confusing to mix the two because then one doesn't know when someone is actively editing the article. CodingCyclone [citation needed] 19:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Different use cases. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Two different templates for two different actions; neither are broken, so do not need fixing. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Keep separate, as these are used for totally separate purposes. While there may be a few times that one is converted to the other, I've rarely done that myself, and I've seen it done by others even less. That said, I can see where having an option for "In use" within the "Under construction" template might be useful in certain circumstances, especially if it can be made to time out after a couple of hours. But that won't be decided here. BilCat (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2021 (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:Australian-railway-routemap
Myanmar township 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 10:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Most of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. See also similar nominations on nearby dates, and two relistings below closed as keep. Certes (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:25, 27 February 2021 (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:Star Wars spinoffs
- 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) 19:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template is a confusing addition that is mostly redundant thanks to ((Star Wars)). It has an arbitrary collection of Star Wars media while the main template already lists them all anyway. The major difference is the list of character articles from these "spinoffs", but since a lot of the projects don't actually have much to do with one another this is just a random collection of characters from different films and TV series. The need for a template for an interconnected group of spinoffs will also already be covered by ((The Mandalorian)) since that will cover all of the spinoffs that directly relate to that series. So I don't see any need to keep this one. adamstom97 (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2021 (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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template. Izno (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete This is actually used once, in a user sandbox that hasn't been edited since 2006. Still no reason to retain it as a template, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per above. Nigej (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is Template:Infobox grapheme a plausible redirect target after all current transclusions of the template are substituted? JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2021 (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:Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017
- 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) 19:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Single use template. Izno (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete This is actually used twice, once in 2017 Norwegian parliamentary election and once in a userspace fork of that article. Regardless, it's purely static information that was last substantively edited over a year and a half ago, so it ahs no reason to be in a template regardless of its (lack of) use. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per above. Basically single use. Nigej (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2021 (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:Romanian legislative election, Chamber of Deputies 2012
- 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) 19:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Single use template. Izno (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per nom. Also purely static information, with no substantive edits in over a year. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per above. Single use. Nigej (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2021 (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:Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013
- 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) 19:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Single use template. Izno (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per nom. Also purely static information, with no substantive edits in over a year. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per above. Single use. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2021 (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:Aruban general election, 2017
- 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) 19:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Single use template. Izno (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2021 (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:Icelandic parliamentary election
- 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) 19:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Izno (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2021 (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:Romanian legislative election, Chamber of Deputies 2016
- 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) 19:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused Izno (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2021 (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:Mauritian general election, 2014
- 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) 19:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Izno (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2021 (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:Norwegian parliamentary election, 2009
- 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) 19:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Single use template. Izno (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per nom. Also purely static information, with no substantive edits in over a year. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per above. Nigej (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2021 (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:Romanian legislative election, Senate 2016
- 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) 19:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Izno (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2021 (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:Romanian legislative election, Senate 2012
- 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) 19:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Single-use template with no hope of use expansion. Izno (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per nom. Also purely static information, with no substantive edits in over a year. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete per above. Nigej (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2021 (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:Iraq War Coalition troop deployment
- 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) 19:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly necessary as a separate template any longer. Izno (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete This is purely static information, it has received no substantial edits since May 2019, so storing it in a template no longer serves any purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Used 4 times, is this to be substituted in all transcluding articles? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my intent, yes. The template doesn't need updating anymore, so any value of having it in the templatespace is nil. --Izno (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is likewise my intent. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete As a template it is unreferenced and there doesn't seem to be a Iraq War Coalition troop deployment article or similar, so really it should only be in the article(s) where the references are. Nigej (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2021 (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 keep. Izno (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. Why the whole category can not be deleted is a mystery to me, so I follow the advice of Plasticpork and nominate them separately. The Banner talk 17:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unlike most templates in its category, this one helps the reader to navigate to some actual extant articles. Certes (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2021 (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 keep. Izno (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. Why the whole category can not be deleted is a mystery to me, so I follow the advice of Plasticpork and nominate them separately. The Banner talk 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unlike most templates in its category, this one helps the reader to navigate to some actual extant articles. Certes (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2021 (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).