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).
Just {{Infobox military unit}} with details about an army used in only one article
Pakistan Army. Not sure why a separate template is needed here, it can simply be placed directly in the article (like in all other Army articles).
Gotitbro (
talk) 17:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Or as
User:Bsherr puts it below "Single use templates that can be substituted into their article."
Gotitbro (
talk) 17:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Single use template, per nom.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC):reply
Substitute. Per me? 😀 --
Bsherr (
talk) 18:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Substitute per nom. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 00:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)reply
subst then delete per nom
Hhkohh (
talk) 08:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
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).
Sure, replace Infobox holiday camp with Infobox campground. --
evrik(
talk) 16:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support merging. Makes complete sense. -
Darwinek (
talk) 00:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. -
Sdkb (
talk) 08:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 00:55, 22 November 2018 (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).
Substitute. Single use templates that can be substituted into their article.
Bsherr (
talk) 15:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete both supporting characters. This was a mess to begin with as it involves a lot of original research in figuring who gets star billing or recurring/guest billing. It's for a cartoon show. The voice actors don't show such billing in the first place.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Hmm, maybe it is best to substitute first and then edit the article to remove them so they are preserved in the history? --
Bsherr (
talk) 18:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete both - No reason why this series should use a style that literally all other TV series articles don't support. The table should be created in the article. --
Gonnym (
talk) 19:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete both per nom. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 00:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)reply
subst both then delete both per nom
Hhkohh (
talk) 08:25, 24 November 2018 (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).
Support deletion. There will be some cleanup required, as it is referred to in a number of documentation pages.
Urhixidur (
talk) 03:27, 20 November 2018 (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).
Delete. I don't typically take part in TfDs, but I have been a bit concerned about this template before and have thought about starting a discussion on the talk page several times. The whole point of revision deletion is to make harmful revisions as hidden as possible. If you have a giant red box on the top of the page screaming what exact revisions to look for to see RevDel-worthy material for everyone to see, then that makes the revisions much more visible than if it's buried within the history and an admin is privately emailed about it. I think this would very much create the
Streisand effect and as mentioned, it is against
WP:REVDELREQUEST.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Enterprisey and
SkyGazer 512: I've made a change. I've added <div class="sysop-show">, to the effect that the big message is only displayed to administrators.
∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 16:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
WhatLinksHere can still be used to check all pages this template is on, which is mainly what I'm worried about.
Enterprisey (
talk!) 17:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree, you could easily see all the revisions that have this purely disruptive material by constantly browsing through the transclusions. Imo, it's much better to just email a willing admin.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:08, 19 November 2018 (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 Withdrawn. Apparently discussions aren't allowed anymore. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This in reality is a nomination for all 122 templates in
Category:Infobox element per element but before I tag and list all 122, I want to make sure I'm not missing something... These templates all seem to only be used in one place. The article about the element. Is there a reason there is a template for the infobox as opposed to just placing the infobox on the article as is normally done? {{Infobox element}} exists for a reason... Why make 122 single-use templates that are just transclusions of that template? @
DePiep: I definitely want to make sure you chime in here. I'm guessing this is a relic of the way things worked at one point? Either that or I'm missing something. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep,
WP:SNOWBALL. There is no rule or reason to delete single-use template. -
DePiep (
talk) 01:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
DePiep: I'm not sure why you chose to get so confrontational with edits
like this. Not sure I possibly could have approached this better. I specifically pinged you to get your take on things. Is there a reason you felt the need to approach it this way instead of offering a simple explanation? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This template was considered for
deletion on 3 April 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep".
This template was considered for
deletion on 28 June 2014. The result of the discussion was "keep".
This template was considered for
deletion on 30 October 2016. The result of the discussion was "keep".
This template was considered for
deletion on 30 October 2016. The result of the discussion was "2018?".
Zackmann08, this looks more like a drive-by tagging. "Single-use" is no reason for deletion, and so you could not provide a policy link.
here, -
DePiep (
talk) 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
T3. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 01:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I use encoded instances ('hardcoded') of {{math}} everywhere (they are intended for this even). So what? -
DePiep (
talk) 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Ok lets get a few things straight here. I never said there was a policy that banned single use templates. What I saw, as part of some work that I am doing, is a series of 122 hard coded instances of templates. This seemed odd to me. So I started a Template for DISCUSSION thread, to, wait for it, DISCUSS A TEMPLATE. Why on earth
DePiep felt the need to tell me to fuck off is beyond comprehension. If people want to keep them, that is FINE! I don't agree with it, but again, I was just trying to start a discussion. Not interested in dying on this particular hill. As for the fact that I nominated this in 2016, honestly had forgotten.
lengthy breaks for health issues will do that to you. I honestly don't understand why the need to take this so personally, particularly when I filed this with a number of questions. I wanted a discussion, instead what I got was Fuck off, you're an idiot. REALLY helpful folks. Sorry I bothered. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Who called you an 'idiot'? Ban them! I listed (by simple copy/paste, no hard work) the history. 2018 was missing, so it is completed by now. Actually, a current(!) discussion:
here,
here. I am still waiting for an argument to delete single-use templates. -
DePiep (
talk) 02:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. After reviewing the previous discussions, I believe this is an edge case which should be allowed
to bend the rule assuming there's a policy that says all single-page templates should summarily deleted. But fortunately there's not even that rule. I see no valid reason for deletion. I hope the proposer will withdraw just
like this they did in this similar unsuccessful attempt to delete {{infobox hydrogen}} two years ago. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 03:04, 19 November 2018 (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).