Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 7

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox sports team. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

Philadelphia Transportation Company templates

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

Unused SEPTA Regional Rail S-line aliases

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox character. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 February 20. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 20 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).
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 2019 February 16. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:33, 16 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).
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 2019 February 16. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 16 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).
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 2019 February 15. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 15 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).
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) 20:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 February 16. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 16 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox character. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused and redundant. Just use Template:Infobox military unit Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:36, 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was replace with Template:Infobox medical condition (new) / Template:Medical resources depending on context (as was already in progress). — JJMC89(T·C) 01:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox handball club. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) 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).
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).
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).
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).
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) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:46, 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).
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) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:46, 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).
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) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:45, 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).
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) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:45, 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).
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) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:45, 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).
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) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unclear what the use if of this template The Banner talk 12:44, 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).

Now-unused user warning templates

[edit]
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).
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).