- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
(non-admin closure)
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 11:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
Clearly fails
WP:NENAN, it includes two links: the parent article and a singular episode article. -- /
Alex/
21 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was merge to
Template:Infobox station.
Primefac (
talk) 17:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
Propose merging the above into
Template:Infobox station.
Proposing merging these two low-usage UK railway station templates into {{
Infobox station}}, which follows
the July discussion that merged the main GB railway templates.
Sample converts of these templates can be seen in my sandbox,
User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox2. I think these look much 'prettier';
Heworth_Interchange#Metro is a bit of a mess and the templates horribly out of date.
Data is carried over with two exceptions: "Distance from datum" on the T&W template, which is pretty much trivia especially for an infobox, and "[number of] Escalators", same reason. As for styling changes, consensus from the GB station merge & post-merge discussions should apply, for example the A-Z "List to stations" will be removed. To accommodate for colours on the Manchester set, a
Module:Adjacent stations system will be created (already done for T&W at
Module:Adjacent stations/Tyne and Wear Metro). For remaining points, see sandbox mockup.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 23:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Support: There is no need to have separate infobox templates for two small systems. I agree with the removal of the two trivia parameters.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 00:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Support, these two templates have no significant differences in functionality.
Cards
84664 02:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Support - Don't see any good reason to have the infoboxes be seperate, and the proposed converts seem OK.
Jumpytoo
Talk 09:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom. Long overdue.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Support: agreed with the above points
MJ (
talk) 16:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Support per nom.
ETI 15TrSF (
Chat
Box) 05:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom.
WT79 (
speak to me |
editing patterns |
what I been doing) 18:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Merge Seems like a good idea.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Valid concerns, no opposition, plenty of precedent in the past for deletion of this type of template. Based on low participation though, this can be considered a soft deletion.
Primefac (
talk) 01:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
Track listing templates are typically reserved for albums that have articles on the majority, if not all, of its songs. Only a few songs from each album have articles and navigation to them is already provided by the {{
Electric Light Orchestra singles}} template. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars
Talk to me 20:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Most likely. I came across these during my review of the daily updates at
User:AlexNewArtBot/AlbumSearchResult. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars
Talk to me 00:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
(non-admin closure) --
TheImaCow (
talk) 20:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
Nominated for discussion and possible deletion here following an initial discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Most-produced aircraft. Essentially this falls afoul of
WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the concerns brought up in the essay
Wikipedia:Avoid template creep, plus it duplicates the article we already have:
List of most-produced aircraft.
Ahunt (
talk) 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at
WikiProject Aviation and
WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. -
Ahunt (
talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This is useful as a list, but not as a template. The nominator explains well why this is. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 00:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Per nom.
BilCat (
talk) 00:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Clearly of no encyclopedic use as a navigation tool, just a bunch of indiscriminate links.
MilborneOne (
talk) 18:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Per nom.
TSRL (
talk) 20:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisted on
2020 December 7.
Primefac (
talk) 01:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was merge to
Template:Old moves. There was some valid opposition to this merger which seems to have been reconsidered, leaving a fairly straight consensus to merge to the "multi" version of this template family. Regardless of whether the merge involves a switch to Lua (like the multi XfD template) or some other method, it should still be backwards-compatible (at least from the outset) with all extant uses. If this provides too challenging and/or a different solution is needed (per some of the now-removed opposition comments), this discussion can be relisted for more input from the community.
Primefac (
talk) 01:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
Propose merging
Template:Old move with
Template:Old moves.
Redundant template. The whole setup of {{
Old moves}} should be replaced with Lua similar to {{
Old XfD multi}} or {{
Copied}}.
Soumya-8974 (he)
talk
contribs
subpages 12:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment that needs rebuilding of {{
old moves}} to support formulaic parameterization of multiple inputs, instead of it currently being used to wrap a user generated list (which should also be supported). {{
old move}} is also missing a parameter to a permalink of the discussion. --
65.92.246.246 (
talk) 04:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Support. The distinction seems to be plural old move requests versus just a singular old move request, but we should try to handle that at just one template. Longer-term, we should move toward automating this sort of thing (perhaps through Twinkle, etc.) so that old moves automatically get listed. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 00:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Support per nom and Sdkb.
Crouch, Swale (
talk) 21:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisted on
2020 December 6.
(non-admin closure)
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 11:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisted on
2020 December 5.
(non-admin closure)
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 17:24, 5 December 2020 (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).
Country templates part 1