Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zackmann08 (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 14 February 2019 (→Template:Taiwan Television drama templates: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7

Template:Roadrunner United

As a list of contributors to a compilation album, subject is not concise enough to be useful as a navigational aid. --woodensuperman 13:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the problem. Linking over 60 musicians in a navbox because of a compilation appearance is not appropriate for a navbox. The placing of this navbox on any one of their articles is WP:UNDUE. This should be left for the article. --woodensuperman 14:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) And the songs don't originate from the project either. --woodensuperman 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - "Roadrunner United was a project organized by American heavy metal record label Roadrunner Records", therefore, this particular album was released by a musical ensemble. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox lacrosse team

Propose merging Template:Infobox lacrosse team with Template:Infobox sports team.
The only 2 parameters that I see being an issue at all would be |steinfeld_cups= & {{{plpa}}}. Everything else should be included in {{Infobox sports team}}. Those 2 params can easily be added. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can the proposer(s) comment on justification / benefit of merging, please? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmoore5556: Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation should provide all the info you need, but basically the template is a duplicate with only 2 unique parameters. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Might consider giving editors a way to specify the display name of a championship (e.g. Steinfeld Cup, Stanley Cup, etc.) rather than adding field(s) unique to one sport or league. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmoore5556: absolutely! One common way this is dealt with is to add some custom fields to the template. So for example you would have {{{championship_label_1}}}, {{{championship_data_1}}}. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be quite useful and something I'm very supportive of. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this template, I'm in favour of merging.  :-) --Doradus (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doradus: thanks! Hope you don't take this nomination as me questioning you as the creator... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: - Not in the least. As I recall, I made the template to reduce redundancy between the pages that existed at the time. This is another step in reducing redundancy. Progress! --Doradus (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SITribe

Template is definitely not used that can be seen at {{Stribe}} and its document files. ApprenticeFan work 11:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that I have combined two nominations into one given the similarities between templates and identical nomination rationales.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KOGL-type2

Inappropriate license tag which appears to permit "free" files with an NC restriction FASTILY 20:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KOGL-type3

Inappropriate license tag which appears to permit "free" files with an ND restriction FASTILY 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Transportation Company templates

Set of PTC and SEPTA templates for displaying the former route of the Philadelphia Transportation Company. Split out to Module:Adjacent stations/Philadelphia Transportation Company. All transclusions replaced and the PTC-specific code has been removed from the SEPTA S-line templates. Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused SEPTA Regional Rail S-line aliases

These are mostly redirects and they're all unused. The correct S-line names are Bethlehem, Fox Chase, Ivy Ridge, Pottstown, and Trenton. With the except of one of the Allentown templates they were all long-disused. Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox character/Wikidata

This template gets all of its information from Wikidata, which so far has not been the way en.wiki wants to receive information. It is only used on 10 pages and can replaced with {{Infobox character}}. Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I take issue with which so far has not been the way en.wiki wants to receive information given that there are multiple infoboxes (almost-)completely enabled with Wikidata. The reason a template like this exists is as a test bed for Wikidata-enabled infoboxes. Is it your suggestion that this should actually be merged into the template proper? --Izno (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment is based on my observation of various discussion over the past years against the Wikidata. I do not think this should be merged. If keeping information on character articles is hard now with the lack of references a lot of editors seem to not care to add, then having that same information come from an outside source that doesn't show up on a watchlist, would be even worse. --Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • A) It does show up on a watchlist (if you choose to enable it); b) existing issues with characters articles shouldn't affect how we decide whether to use Wikidata; and c) Wikidata is not forbidden for use (nor is it preferred for use). As it happens, we've been successful with at least one template reducing the number of changes directly in an article (that's {{video game reviews}}). I don't want to open cans of worms much more, but which so far has not been the way en.wiki wants to receive information is an incorrect statement. --Izno (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stricken out the disputed line so we can focus on infobox itself and not any side-issue.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The template is an outdated wrapper of Infobox character passing parameters that have no coropospoding parameter in the main template and in addition it has some trivia parameters such as |height= and |complexion=. It also no documentation at all. This an issue with wrapper templates that tend to get ababonded and not taken care of. The very few parameters which are not unique and not trivia can be merged into the main template, or use one of the custom fields. --Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Capankajsmilyo: Who made this template, but has not edited it since May 2017, for comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Jane Austen character

Propose merging Template:Infobox Jane Austen character with Template:Infobox character.

Per WP:INFOCOL. 30 uses. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree for moment. There are lots of unique fields in Jane Austen character that aren't in character infobox. How will all those fields get merged?--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and not merge - Most of the unique parameters here are trivia and uselss for an infobox such as |Height=, |Income=, |Education=, |LondonResidence=, |FavoritePasttimes=, |Age=. These should be removed and not added. Similar, |Birth= and |Death= were not included in the current infobox and it seems this was done on purpose and should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Most of the fields in the character infobox are irrelevant to Jane Austen characters and will only make life more difficult for prospective Austen editors. I agree that some of the Jane Austen fields are unnecessary. e.g. age, birth, death are unhelpful; height irrelevant; romantic interest and favourite pastimes are probably fancruft. Income is relevant, I think, as this is a major feature in Austen's writings and is indicative of social status, which is also very important. Family tree type info could benefit from addition of other significant relatives. Petrosbizar (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Petrosbizar: is there a reason that this information cannot simply be displayed using |data1=, |data2=, etc? That is the entire point of having those parameters on {{Infobox character}}. Every series/show has a few custom parameters so those were added so that EVERY character type doesn't need its own infobox. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zackmann08: 1. Thanks for your comment. That sounds perfectly reasonable. 2. What you say seems to reinforce the idea of merging with, say, similar groups of novels but not with the overly large one at present suggested. 3. In practice, I'm finding the Austen Character box to be inconsistent in management (that may be my lack of experience with infoboxes). For example, in the Fanny Price infobox there is a line available for Guardian. It is filled in with the name of Sir Thomas Bertram, but this does not appear in the box. Advice?Petrosbizar (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. All of the extra parameters, including |Income=, seem quite crufty to me. But any detail deemed appropriate can certainly be accommodated with the |dataX= parameters.— TAnthonyTalk 16:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Songkick

External WP:SPAMLINK: also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blogger

Delete after converting (edit: or redirect) to {{Official}} or another appropriate generic external website link template.

There is no point of making a dedicated template just for linking to this (one of many) blog hosting services. In most cases, which service hosts somebody's website is not a relevant aspect of the article about them. (I noticed this e.g. here, in an article about a writer). We would not normally otherwise mention who hosts a website, unless it is germane to the topic. All we are doing by having such a template is providing free advertising for the hosting provider. Sandstein 11:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge to {{official}}. I see no prior discussion on the blogger template to justify distinguishing it from the more general template. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment. If this template is being used for promotional purposes, eg. linking to blogger when itsn't a notable part of the articles, then uses should be removed. However I can see that it could make the editing experience easier and I think the large number of uses are evidence of that. So although I can see there is an ideological reason for deleting, which I am partial to, I think there is a pragmatic reason for keeping. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for a foobar.blogspot.com the web site feed d:Property:P1019 is a known pattern foobar.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss and {{blogger|foobar}} would be all it takes to create the statement. With {{official website|foobar.blogspot.com}} it's minimally more convoluted, something in the direction of "is there a dot blogspot dot substring in the URL", not necessarily followed by com. Not really difficult, any bot owner intending to get thousands of web site feeds into WikiData will manage it, eventually. OTOH, is that a case of WP:AINTBROKE, what exactly are you trying to fix? –84.46.52.45 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and modify so that the visible text only says "FOO on blog". I noticed this TfD when I tried to use this template {{blogspot|soodvikram}} which gave the result "Vikram Sood on Blogger". I think User:Sandstein's suggestion that we must not be advertising blogspot makes sense. So why not just rename "blogger" as a generic "blog" and solve this issue. I dont agree with merging with {{Official}}. IMHO I feel this template is useful for cases when the subject does not have an official website but still has a personal blog. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, but it's not the same thing as "any blog". Technical details for Blogspot vs. Wordpress vs. "DIY" differ and can be relevant, e.g., what's the feed URL, is it Atom or RSS, who can comment, and can the blog appear as ordinary webpage foobar.org. Same idea as for a Wiki, I'd want to know if that is MediaWiki or something else. –84.46.53.251 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Lua

Given that Wikipedia talk:Lua used primarily to discuss general programming issues with Lua rather than the page Wikipedia:Lua itself, the editnotice serves no useful purpose. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Social Christianity

Seems a catch-all for names. - Inowen (nlfte) 07:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ahnentafel-chart

Propose merging Template:Ahnentafel-chart with Template:Ahnentafel.
Standardisation. Shouldn't Template:Ahnentafel suffice? PPEMES (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ahnentafel-chart}} is a generalisation of {{3gen}} which was proposed for merger last April (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_24#Template:3gen) The prosal was turned down. As I suggested in that discussion I rewrote the template to allow for more than three generations. I based the code on {{chart}} so the same tree can be built using {{chart}} but that is more difficult (see Help:Family trees#Chart template).

Ahnentafel of Herzog Ludwig (bottom to top)
Ahnentafel of Trapp (right to left)
  • Oppose The display that template Ahnentafel creats is not a standard used by all secondary sources, it is an American format for Ahnentafel trees. Other formats which are more typically Continental European (such as an tree with branches (example in Help:Family trees#Chart template) and in the first image to the right (the second shows an Ahnentafe tree built the opposite way from the wikipedia Ahnentafel template). If someone is willing to recoded the {{Ahnentafel}} template to display top to bottom, bottom to top and right to left, then a merge would be possible, but not while it can only display left to right (American style). -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not paper based, keeping this template allows the option to use it, and it does not interfer with anything else. -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The question of a possible standardised presentation, and if so which, still remain, though, doesn't it? PPEMES (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not because while there has to be consisteny withing an article, there is no reason for consisteny across articles: hence "Orange (colour)" and "Green (color)" with different spelling of colour and colour within the articles. -- PBS (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see how other commentators evaluate that comparison. I still think reader's convenience merits a consideration leaning towards some kind of standard (if not for exceptionate reasons). PPEMES (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have suggested a merger. If they are to be merged then you (or someone who wants to write some code) will have to add code to do the merge. If that is not done then what you are doing in eliminating other editors choices to use different styles. Why should all articles use an American style Ahnentafel tree? If other editors agree with you then they can choose to use {{Ahnentafel}} but that is no reason to remove {{Ahnentafel-chart}} and remove that choice before {{Ahnentafel}} has been altered to allow European style displays.-- PBS (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. No strong need for a merge, reflects diversity of use here with no convincing reason to standardise, and allows articles to better reflect regional variation.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ahnentafel-tree

Propose merging Template:Ahnentafel-tree with Template:Ahnentafel.
Standardisation. Shouldn't Template:Ahnentafel suffice? PPEMES (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed in April 2018 see:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018_April 24#Template:Ahnentafel-tree and the consensus was keep. While consensus can change the reasons for keeping it have not. See April 2018 for a more degailed discussion.

The {{Ahnentafel}} displays information using a method popular in America. It is not so popular in Europe. {{Ahnentafel-tree}} is a better format to use for large trees (say more than 5 generations) particullarly on small screens (like phones) and on printers. It also allows far more detail to be displayed for each entry as the indention is far less leaving the rest of the line free for notes etc. {{Ahnentafel-tree}} is built using {{Tree list}} and all it does it make it easier to build an Ahentafel tree using {{Tree list}} as it simplifies the process.-- PBS (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the sidetrack. Would you mind trying to improve that situation per WP:BOLD? It seems like it could use some bold attention. PPEMES (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been BOLD and rewritten the section. -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Highlander character

Propose merging Template:Infobox Highlander character with Template:Infobox character.
Can easily be merged Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox military unit 720th MP BN

unused and redundant. Just use Template:Infobox military unit Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox medical condition

This is mostly procedural. According to the documentation, this template is deprecated in favor of {{Infobox medical condition (new)}}. I want to actually make this happen and remove all transclusions of the old deprecated template. I will then merge the templates and remove the "(new)" part of the template name. Just want to have a formal TfD for documentation purposes. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some parameter data, such as classification codes, need moving to {{medical resources}} from the depreciated infobox. Having a bot do this was ruled out for reasons around complexity during the development of the new infobox and the med resources template. As such some members of WP:MED have been performing the moves by hand. Consensus was the parameters were too technical to be in the infobox, but were encyclopaedic. I'd argue that if merging the infoboxes would remove that data entirely, it would be a policy violation. Little pob (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox handball club

Propose merging Template:Infobox handball club with Template:Infobox handball club 2.
Don't see any reason for there to be 2 templates here. Suggest merging all parameters to one template that works for both. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia talk

Delete an Editnotice that is blank (as opposed to nonexistent) risks being a resource drain every time a page in the corresponding namespace is edited (which is a LOT). UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taiwan Television drama 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unclear what the use if of this template The Banner talk 12:48, 7 February 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:Taiwan Television High-quality Saturday Drama

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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:47, 7 February 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:Kin'yō Naito Dorama

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TBS Getsuhachi

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mokuyō Dorama 9

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TBS Mokukyū

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SET Metro Chinese TV drama on Fridays at 22:00

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SET Metro Chinese TV drama on Weekdays at 20:00

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nippon TV Do'yō Dorama

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seoul Broadcasting System drama templates

unclear what the use if of this template The Banner talk 12:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now-unused user warning 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).

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Nomination is far to large and doesn't provide enough information for a clear discussion. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Long list

No longer needed. All of these either refer to unused processes or have been superseded by subsequent templates. [Username Needed] 11:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by what? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who has decided these are "superseded"? WCMemail 12:51, 7 February 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:How Long Can Chicken Sit Out Unrefrigerated?

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 Speedily deleted. No reason to keep this around for 7 days, I think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic essay, a misuse of template space. Not used anywhere after I removed it from an article about a defunct cooking school. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:55, 7 February 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:Newbie-biting

No longer needed. All of these either refer to unused processes or have been superseded by subsequent templates. [Username Needed] 11:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_7&oldid=883326457"