August 29
Template:Episcopal lineage
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Episcopal lineage ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This was deprecated in favor of Template:Ordination almost as soon as it was created, and there were questions from the start as to what it even meant. It's certainly irrelevant to Anglicans, where there is never a single consecrating bishop. It has only seen usage in a couple of high-profile articles of various prelates. Mangoe ( talk) 22:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is the content being merged? It does qualify at least on a "show/hide" basis.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 11:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- As the creator of the template and having heard several argue against it, I agree that it would be prudent to do away with the template. However, it has been partially merged already into Template:Ordination, and I think the template should be deleted in accordance with merger policies rather than plain deletion. Ergo Sum 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Southern Cross Broadcasting
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
unused, defunct Frietjes ( talk) 21:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- unused I agree with user Frietjes. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Rwanda squad - 2009 FIBA Africa Championship for Women
- 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 for multiple reasons:
- Rwanda squad - 2009 FIBA Africa Championship for Women, Rwanda squad - 2011 FIBA Africa Championship for Women: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Rwanda national basketball team templates: Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion.
AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Rwanda squad - 2009 FIBA Africa Championship for Women ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Rwanda squad - 2011 FIBA Africa Championship for Women ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Category:Rwanda national basketball team templates ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
non-notable squad, all red links, and (if anyone wants to see it) the squad is already saved in the 2009 and the 2011 articles. Frietjes ( talk) 21:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- unused , I find it not important. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Russian Ground Forces
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
unused and generally redundant to navigation found in Template:Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Frietjes ( talk) 21:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- unused , I find it not important. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Running bot
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Running bot ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 21:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- unused , I find it not important. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox basketball official
- 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 to Template:Infobox basketball biography , or rather limited merge as indicated in the discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox basketball official ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox basketball biography ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox basketball official into
Template:Infobox basketball biography.
The 'official' template only has 17 transclusions. Most of its parameters are in the 'biography' template and of those that are not, most are generic and apply equally to players (e.g. |parents=).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 20:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose unless 'official' basically converts to the current format of basketball biography. Fields like "spouse," "children," "religion," etc. are not in basketball biography by design. That is all superfluous information to a basketball career. Essentially if this move is proposing any significant changes to "basketball biography" - which is used for thousands of players and coaches - I am against it for 17 articles.
Rikster2 (
talk) 21:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- The format would indeed be that of the basketball biography infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Merging would prevent nonsense like the two infoboxes on
Bernie Fryer.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 22:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment OK, then the recommendation in my opinion should just be to delete "basketball official" and add fields for "referee_start" and "referee_end" to basketball biography and use it for officials. No further changes should be made to an infobox that is already loaded like basketball biography. We are probably talking about an incredibly small number of people who have both been a professional player and an official. Basketball biography is used by over 13,000 articles. We shouldn't try to stretch it for a handful of cases. Rikster2 ( talk) 23:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge Agree with Rikster2 to add only "referee_start" and "referee_end" from the official's template. The rest are trivial and cause infobox bloat.— Bagumba ( talk) 01:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited Merge agree with Rikster and Bagumba. Bluesangrel ( talk) 01:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose merging, as it's used very specifically, and in thousands of articles. Comments by Rikster2 are also good. - Mardus / talk 07:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge per Bagumba's rationale. DaHuzyBru ( talk) 08:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge Agree with Rikster2. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge via Bagumba's idea, although I request we also add something for front office or general manager roles also. After all some former players like Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, and Steve Kerr have managed to do some coaching and hold a front office role in the NBA, not to mention someone like James Jones is now considered an assistant general manger (or rather, Vice President of Basketball Operations), so it's not like being a general manager or holding a front office role with a team excludes former players from entering the reigns there altogether. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan ( talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited Merge Agree with Rikster and Bagumba.-- AirWolf talk 23:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge, per Rikster2 and Bagumba. Also agree with AGreatPhoenixSunsFan's idea of adding a section for administration work to this template. I know
Template:Infobox NFL biography already has this; see
Jim Finks for an example where his career as a player, a coach, and an administrator are all covered in the infobox.
Ejgreen77 (
talk) 11:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There is a
discussion underway on the front office question. I suggest we keep this discussion to the merge of basketball biography and basketball official so that it can be resolved quickly.
Rikster2 (
talk) 11:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the discussion shout-out there, Rikster2. I honestly really appreciate it. Same goes for you, Ejgreen77. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan ( talk) 01:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There is a
discussion underway on the front office question. I suggest we keep this discussion to the merge of basketball biography and basketball official so that it can be resolved quickly.
Rikster2 (
talk) 11:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge Adding the two parameters mentioned by Rikster2 seems like the best option. – Fredddie ™ 11:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox robbery incident
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Had only two transclusions, each now replaced with {{ Infobox event}}, which offers extra parameters ( example), so unused and redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox alternative medicine
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Only 30 transclusions, which should variously be replaced by {{ Infobox medical condition}}, {{ Infobox medical intervention}}, or {{ Infobox medical speciality}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely not — They are distinct phenomena and the amount of work needed to make sure there is no vandalism and that certain parameters don't unduly show in one or the other template is enormous. Why is it a negative that there are only 30 transclusions? It serves those articles very well. Carl Fredrik talk 20:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose merging because it is a different template. It is for "alternative".
QuackGuru (
talk) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- No merger is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Very different things so no merging is not a good idea.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 22:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- No merger is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per my rational in the following section for Template:Infobox alternative intervention. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 22:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose not a good idea. I agree with user Doc James. AlfaRocket ( talk) 15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The two infoboxes are largely separate as it is, I'm failing to understand how you would incorporate them into the same thing without making one tremendously long. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 15:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Doc James. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 07:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox alternative intervention
- 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 Snow not merged ( non-admin closure) Ppp ery 14:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox alternative intervention ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox medical intervention ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox alternative intervention into
Template:Infobox medical intervention.
We don't need a separate infobox (with only 20 transclusions) for "alternative" interventions.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose — There is a very good reason to keep these separate. By definition much of what exists in Infobox intervention cannot apply to alternative medicine, and the other way round. Alternative medicine per definition does not have many of the codes listed in the intervention infobox, while medical interventions do not divide into schools or other alternative medicine groupings.
Carl Fredrik
talk 19:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's as maybe, but the issue is the overlap in parameters - the 'alternative' template only has five which are not repeated in the other template; and one of those (
|legality=) appears to be unusable on an international project such as this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's as maybe, but the issue is the overlap in parameters - the 'alternative' template only has five which are not repeated in the other template; and one of those (
- The template serves the articles very well, and adding those 5 parameters to the intervention template is to invite confusion. And to add the others to this one is to invite vandalism and to allow for misuse to promote ineffective therapies.
legality=is used, see for example Colloidal silver. Carl Fredrik talk 20:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- The template serves the articles very well, and adding those 5 parameters to the intervention template is to invite confusion. And to add the others to this one is to invite vandalism and to allow for misuse to promote ineffective therapies.
- Oppose This is useful, I found it good for wikipedia users.
AlfaRocket (
talk) 19:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- WP:ILIKEIT applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose because they are different templates for different purposes. One is for "alternative". The other is for "medical". Because one is not used as much as the other is not a reason to merge. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - speedy keep/close - interventions based upon blatant quackery vs mainstream evidence-based medicine shouldn't have the same classification template. Even if there is some overlap in the parameters, merging them would create the potential for misuse as stated by CFCF. Moreover, having a separate template for alternative medicine (quack) interventions also provides the utility of a tracking category. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think a merge would serve any useful purpose and I agree with Seppi333 and CFCF. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as before. This can be used for a lot more articles. Every template starts somewhere. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox StarCraft character
- 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 2017 September 7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Google books
- 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 Withdrawn by nom ( non-admin closure) Ppp ery 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Google books ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There is hardly any need for this template, editors should be encouraged to use reftag.appspot.com which works a treat. -- Nevé – selbert 17:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator's argument makes little sense for a template that is used in 6,000 pages. Maybe the nominator could explain better. What would you do with all of the transclusions? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I propose we deprecate this template and encourage users to use the external link above.--
Nevé
–
selbert 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- You realise that said external link leads to a third-party application with no guarantee of being maintained, not to mention it is hosted on Google Cloud Platform, right? How does this actually help anybody — Phil | Talk 17:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I propose we deprecate this template and encourage users to use the external link above.--
Nevé
–
selbert 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Can be very useful for so many users. AlfaRocket ( talk) 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Moral support for delete — We overuse google books in a way that unduly favours a for-profit company. However, the amount of work needed to get rid of this template is just too much. Carl Fredrik talk 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep It is very useful. Gazal world ( talk) 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I use this template all the time User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 21:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep On articles like Phenakistiscope the reference books are unlikely to be in your local library. Which means Google books and similar online repositories are needed. The choices that I know of are 1) put a long URL into a cite template (and hoping that Google never changes their URL format like most other online companies seem to do) or 2) use the Google books template. The Google books template has a simpler syntax than the URL. And if Google change their URL format then we make the corresponding changes in the template and thus rescue thousands of references. I don't see how reftag.appspot.com is an improvement over this. Stepho talk 23:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep this very useful template which as various people point out above future-proofs links to
Google Books in case of a change in format. Directing us to a third-party application hosted by the very same organisation against which the nomination is directed might be somewhat ironic in the circumstances. Might I also point out that the addition of the (admittedly standard) notice is producing some ridiculously ugly and broken results when this template is in use inside {{
cite book}}, using
|plainurl=as per the rubric, which if intended borders upon being WP:POINTy to my mind… HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 17:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC) - Keep: Deleting it would be chaotic unless there is a bot that can replace all the usages. Although simply using the url of the google book works just as well.e.g.
- Williams, D. M.; Knapp, Sandra, eds. (2010). Beyond Cladistics: The Branching of a Paradigm. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-26772-9.
- Williams, D. M.; Knapp, Sandra, eds. (2010). Beyond Cladistics: The Branching of a Paradigm. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-26772-9.
Incidentally the app has some problems - for instance it does not distinguish between editors and authors - see below
- Williams, D. M.; Knapp, Sandra (2010). Beyond Cladistics: The Branching of a Paradigm. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-26772-5.
-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Request withdrawn. I was hasty in nominating this template and for that I apologise.--
Nevé
–
selbert 20:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)- 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:Annualsportingevents
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused navbox Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- delele it , unused. I find it inappropriate. AlfaRocket ( talk) 13:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- delete, has been replaced by {{ MonthCategoryNav}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Sydney Botany Bay suburbs
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
City of Botany Bay and its suburbs are now part of Bayside Council. a new template for its suburbs has already been created. LibStar ( talk) 06:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: What is the new template? Was it a cut-and-paste creation from {{ Sydney Botany Bay suburbs}}? If so, there should then be a merge rather than a deletion. Useddenim ( talk) 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{ Sydney Bayside suburbs}} LibStar ( talk) 13:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 01:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:2017–18 in Danish football
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
No parent article, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as not all the links are red, but trim all redlinks so that we have a usable navbox. I am generally concerned about the condition of these types of year in country football navboxes, however. -- wooden superman 14:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep useful!. AlfaRocket ( talk) 15:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:N-VR
- 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 substitution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:N-VR ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
| Previous TfDs for this template: |
Subst and delete This wrapper template provides no advantage over transcluding the text directly from the Non-visa travel restrictions article directly (where it's previous content was moved) Ppp ery 16:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I LST-ified this template and left it as a template in case it was decided that the page Non-visa travel restrictions should be moved to another title, which would necessitate updating the hatnote on all 200 country-specific articles. If people are happy enough with the current situation then I'm fine with subst-ing and deleting this one. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Passp-restr
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Passp-restr ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-use template; should be merged with the article (and then deleted, since it contains no copyrightable content; only calls to other templates). Ppp ery 16:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I just replaced the transclusion with a transclusion of {{ N-VR}} for consistency with the other articles. This one can now be deleted. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. not much useful. AlfaRocket ( talk) 19:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. It looks like it is an article. Merge or delete. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Passp-valid
- 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 merging with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Passp-valid ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Except for the use on the now-unsused and soon to be deleted template {{
passp-restr}}, this is a single-use template that should be merged with
the article.
Ppp
ery 18:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. It does not look like a template. It looks like an article. Merge or delete. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Subst into the LSTified article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
August 29
Template:Episcopal lineage
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Episcopal lineage ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This was deprecated in favor of Template:Ordination almost as soon as it was created, and there were questions from the start as to what it even meant. It's certainly irrelevant to Anglicans, where there is never a single consecrating bishop. It has only seen usage in a couple of high-profile articles of various prelates. Mangoe ( talk) 22:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is the content being merged? It does qualify at least on a "show/hide" basis.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 11:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- As the creator of the template and having heard several argue against it, I agree that it would be prudent to do away with the template. However, it has been partially merged already into Template:Ordination, and I think the template should be deleted in accordance with merger policies rather than plain deletion. Ergo Sum 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Southern Cross Broadcasting
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
unused, defunct Frietjes ( talk) 21:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- unused I agree with user Frietjes. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Rwanda squad - 2009 FIBA Africa Championship for Women
- 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 for multiple reasons:
- Rwanda squad - 2009 FIBA Africa Championship for Women, Rwanda squad - 2011 FIBA Africa Championship for Women: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Rwanda national basketball team templates: Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion.
AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Rwanda squad - 2009 FIBA Africa Championship for Women ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Rwanda squad - 2011 FIBA Africa Championship for Women ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Category:Rwanda national basketball team templates ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
non-notable squad, all red links, and (if anyone wants to see it) the squad is already saved in the 2009 and the 2011 articles. Frietjes ( talk) 21:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- unused , I find it not important. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Russian Ground Forces
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
unused and generally redundant to navigation found in Template:Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Frietjes ( talk) 21:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- unused , I find it not important. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Running bot
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Running bot ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 21:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- unused , I find it not important. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox basketball official
- 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 to Template:Infobox basketball biography , or rather limited merge as indicated in the discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox basketball official ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox basketball biography ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox basketball official into
Template:Infobox basketball biography.
The 'official' template only has 17 transclusions. Most of its parameters are in the 'biography' template and of those that are not, most are generic and apply equally to players (e.g. |parents=).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 20:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose unless 'official' basically converts to the current format of basketball biography. Fields like "spouse," "children," "religion," etc. are not in basketball biography by design. That is all superfluous information to a basketball career. Essentially if this move is proposing any significant changes to "basketball biography" - which is used for thousands of players and coaches - I am against it for 17 articles.
Rikster2 (
talk) 21:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- The format would indeed be that of the basketball biography infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Merging would prevent nonsense like the two infoboxes on
Bernie Fryer.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 22:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment OK, then the recommendation in my opinion should just be to delete "basketball official" and add fields for "referee_start" and "referee_end" to basketball biography and use it for officials. No further changes should be made to an infobox that is already loaded like basketball biography. We are probably talking about an incredibly small number of people who have both been a professional player and an official. Basketball biography is used by over 13,000 articles. We shouldn't try to stretch it for a handful of cases. Rikster2 ( talk) 23:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge Agree with Rikster2 to add only "referee_start" and "referee_end" from the official's template. The rest are trivial and cause infobox bloat.— Bagumba ( talk) 01:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited Merge agree with Rikster and Bagumba. Bluesangrel ( talk) 01:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose merging, as it's used very specifically, and in thousands of articles. Comments by Rikster2 are also good. - Mardus / talk 07:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge per Bagumba's rationale. DaHuzyBru ( talk) 08:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge Agree with Rikster2. AlfaRocket ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge via Bagumba's idea, although I request we also add something for front office or general manager roles also. After all some former players like Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, and Steve Kerr have managed to do some coaching and hold a front office role in the NBA, not to mention someone like James Jones is now considered an assistant general manger (or rather, Vice President of Basketball Operations), so it's not like being a general manager or holding a front office role with a team excludes former players from entering the reigns there altogether. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan ( talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited Merge Agree with Rikster and Bagumba.-- AirWolf talk 23:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge, per Rikster2 and Bagumba. Also agree with AGreatPhoenixSunsFan's idea of adding a section for administration work to this template. I know
Template:Infobox NFL biography already has this; see
Jim Finks for an example where his career as a player, a coach, and an administrator are all covered in the infobox.
Ejgreen77 (
talk) 11:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There is a
discussion underway on the front office question. I suggest we keep this discussion to the merge of basketball biography and basketball official so that it can be resolved quickly.
Rikster2 (
talk) 11:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the discussion shout-out there, Rikster2. I honestly really appreciate it. Same goes for you, Ejgreen77. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan ( talk) 01:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There is a
discussion underway on the front office question. I suggest we keep this discussion to the merge of basketball biography and basketball official so that it can be resolved quickly.
Rikster2 (
talk) 11:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Limited merge Adding the two parameters mentioned by Rikster2 seems like the best option. – Fredddie ™ 11:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox robbery incident
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Had only two transclusions, each now replaced with {{ Infobox event}}, which offers extra parameters ( example), so unused and redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox alternative medicine
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Only 30 transclusions, which should variously be replaced by {{ Infobox medical condition}}, {{ Infobox medical intervention}}, or {{ Infobox medical speciality}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely not — They are distinct phenomena and the amount of work needed to make sure there is no vandalism and that certain parameters don't unduly show in one or the other template is enormous. Why is it a negative that there are only 30 transclusions? It serves those articles very well. Carl Fredrik talk 20:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose merging because it is a different template. It is for "alternative".
QuackGuru (
talk) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- No merger is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Very different things so no merging is not a good idea.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 22:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- No merger is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per my rational in the following section for Template:Infobox alternative intervention. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 22:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose not a good idea. I agree with user Doc James. AlfaRocket ( talk) 15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The two infoboxes are largely separate as it is, I'm failing to understand how you would incorporate them into the same thing without making one tremendously long. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 15:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Doc James. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 07:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox alternative intervention
- 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 Snow not merged ( non-admin closure) Ppp ery 14:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox alternative intervention ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox medical intervention ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox alternative intervention into
Template:Infobox medical intervention.
We don't need a separate infobox (with only 20 transclusions) for "alternative" interventions.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose — There is a very good reason to keep these separate. By definition much of what exists in Infobox intervention cannot apply to alternative medicine, and the other way round. Alternative medicine per definition does not have many of the codes listed in the intervention infobox, while medical interventions do not divide into schools or other alternative medicine groupings.
Carl Fredrik
talk 19:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's as maybe, but the issue is the overlap in parameters - the 'alternative' template only has five which are not repeated in the other template; and one of those (
|legality=) appears to be unusable on an international project such as this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's as maybe, but the issue is the overlap in parameters - the 'alternative' template only has five which are not repeated in the other template; and one of those (
- The template serves the articles very well, and adding those 5 parameters to the intervention template is to invite confusion. And to add the others to this one is to invite vandalism and to allow for misuse to promote ineffective therapies.
legality=is used, see for example Colloidal silver. Carl Fredrik talk 20:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- The template serves the articles very well, and adding those 5 parameters to the intervention template is to invite confusion. And to add the others to this one is to invite vandalism and to allow for misuse to promote ineffective therapies.
- Oppose This is useful, I found it good for wikipedia users.
AlfaRocket (
talk) 19:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- WP:ILIKEIT applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose because they are different templates for different purposes. One is for "alternative". The other is for "medical". Because one is not used as much as the other is not a reason to merge. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - speedy keep/close - interventions based upon blatant quackery vs mainstream evidence-based medicine shouldn't have the same classification template. Even if there is some overlap in the parameters, merging them would create the potential for misuse as stated by CFCF. Moreover, having a separate template for alternative medicine (quack) interventions also provides the utility of a tracking category. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think a merge would serve any useful purpose and I agree with Seppi333 and CFCF. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as before. This can be used for a lot more articles. Every template starts somewhere. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox StarCraft character
- 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 2017 September 7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Google books
- 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 Withdrawn by nom ( non-admin closure) Ppp ery 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Google books ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There is hardly any need for this template, editors should be encouraged to use reftag.appspot.com which works a treat. -- Nevé – selbert 17:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator's argument makes little sense for a template that is used in 6,000 pages. Maybe the nominator could explain better. What would you do with all of the transclusions? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I propose we deprecate this template and encourage users to use the external link above.--
Nevé
–
selbert 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- You realise that said external link leads to a third-party application with no guarantee of being maintained, not to mention it is hosted on Google Cloud Platform, right? How does this actually help anybody — Phil | Talk 17:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I propose we deprecate this template and encourage users to use the external link above.--
Nevé
–
selbert 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Can be very useful for so many users. AlfaRocket ( talk) 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Moral support for delete — We overuse google books in a way that unduly favours a for-profit company. However, the amount of work needed to get rid of this template is just too much. Carl Fredrik talk 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep It is very useful. Gazal world ( talk) 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I use this template all the time User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 21:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep On articles like Phenakistiscope the reference books are unlikely to be in your local library. Which means Google books and similar online repositories are needed. The choices that I know of are 1) put a long URL into a cite template (and hoping that Google never changes their URL format like most other online companies seem to do) or 2) use the Google books template. The Google books template has a simpler syntax than the URL. And if Google change their URL format then we make the corresponding changes in the template and thus rescue thousands of references. I don't see how reftag.appspot.com is an improvement over this. Stepho talk 23:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep this very useful template which as various people point out above future-proofs links to
Google Books in case of a change in format. Directing us to a third-party application hosted by the very same organisation against which the nomination is directed might be somewhat ironic in the circumstances. Might I also point out that the addition of the (admittedly standard) notice is producing some ridiculously ugly and broken results when this template is in use inside {{
cite book}}, using
|plainurl=as per the rubric, which if intended borders upon being WP:POINTy to my mind… HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 17:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC) - Keep: Deleting it would be chaotic unless there is a bot that can replace all the usages. Although simply using the url of the google book works just as well.e.g.
- Williams, D. M.; Knapp, Sandra, eds. (2010). Beyond Cladistics: The Branching of a Paradigm. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-26772-9.
- Williams, D. M.; Knapp, Sandra, eds. (2010). Beyond Cladistics: The Branching of a Paradigm. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-26772-9.
Incidentally the app has some problems - for instance it does not distinguish between editors and authors - see below
- Williams, D. M.; Knapp, Sandra (2010). Beyond Cladistics: The Branching of a Paradigm. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-26772-5.
-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Request withdrawn. I was hasty in nominating this template and for that I apologise.--
Nevé
–
selbert 20:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Annualsportingevents
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused navbox Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- delele it , unused. I find it inappropriate. AlfaRocket ( talk) 13:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- delete, has been replaced by {{ MonthCategoryNav}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Sydney Botany Bay suburbs
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
City of Botany Bay and its suburbs are now part of Bayside Council. a new template for its suburbs has already been created. LibStar ( talk) 06:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: What is the new template? Was it a cut-and-paste creation from {{ Sydney Botany Bay suburbs}}? If so, there should then be a merge rather than a deletion. Useddenim ( talk) 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{ Sydney Bayside suburbs}} LibStar ( talk) 13:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 01:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:2017–18 in Danish football
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
No parent article, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as not all the links are red, but trim all redlinks so that we have a usable navbox. I am generally concerned about the condition of these types of year in country football navboxes, however. -- wooden superman 14:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep useful!. AlfaRocket ( talk) 15:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:N-VR
- 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 substitution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:N-VR ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
| Previous TfDs for this template: |
Subst and delete This wrapper template provides no advantage over transcluding the text directly from the Non-visa travel restrictions article directly (where it's previous content was moved) Ppp ery 16:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I LST-ified this template and left it as a template in case it was decided that the page Non-visa travel restrictions should be moved to another title, which would necessitate updating the hatnote on all 200 country-specific articles. If people are happy enough with the current situation then I'm fine with subst-ing and deleting this one. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Passp-restr
- 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 ⚡ 02:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Passp-restr ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-use template; should be merged with the article (and then deleted, since it contains no copyrightable content; only calls to other templates). Ppp ery 16:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I just replaced the transclusion with a transclusion of {{ N-VR}} for consistency with the other articles. This one can now be deleted. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. not much useful. AlfaRocket ( talk) 19:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. It looks like it is an article. Merge or delete. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Passp-valid
- 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 merging with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Passp-valid ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Except for the use on the now-unsused and soon to be deleted template {{
passp-restr}}, this is a single-use template that should be merged with
the article.
Ppp
ery 18:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. It does not look like a template. It looks like an article. Merge or delete. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Subst into the LSTified article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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).