Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 17

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}) 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nutsection (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{nutshell}}. As for the “This section” display, it can easily be replicated with the “title” parameter of that template. Only transcluded on 3 pages. Delete/redirect and replace remaining uses with {{Nutshell|(text)|title=This section}} PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 23:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace/Delete - Unused in mainspace. Nigej (talk) 08:15, 18 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 27. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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}) 00:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Permian–Triassic extinction event graphical timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One transclusion. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the {{Devonian graphical timeline}} proposal Nigej (talk) 17:31, 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 relisted on 2019 February 24. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:List_of_cult_films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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}) 19:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Navbox subgroup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replace with {{Navbox}} - this template was deprecated over 2 years ago in favor of {{Navbox|subgroup}} since it was less efficient, but still has too many pages still using it. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, the efficiency problem has since been resolved. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kraose (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it is deprecated, why keep?Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guilherme Burn: presumably because the closer doesn't want to trawl through all of the 1,830 pages that would break if they simply deleted it, just to find where it's transcluded from (like Template:Former monarchies Italian peninsula) and fix them? --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's far too much willingness to keep old, deprecated code around on Wikipedia. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:57, 23 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}) 19:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Television Drama Academy Award Best Supporting Actor Award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

award without article The Banner talk 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We don't seem to have an article on the Television Drama Academy Awards. Takeru Satoh#Awards and Nominations, for instance, does mention that he won the "98th Television Drama Academy Awards". However, the lack of an article means that the template should be deleted. Nigej (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kraose (talk) 15:35, 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Television Drama Academy Award Best Actress Award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

award without article The Banner talk 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom Nigej (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kraose (talk) 15:36, 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Television Drama Academy Award Best Actor Award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

award without article The Banner talk 14:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom Nigej (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kraose (talk) 15:37, 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:East Central Minnesota (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navobox for a very loosely associated group of pages. Article on topic was recently deleted per AFD here[1]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for the same reasons as the article it was based on was recently deleted for. Synthesis with no firm definition of what constitutes "East Central Minnesota". --Sable232 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above Nigej (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kraose (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the definition of East Central Minnesota is being firmed up, there is not a day that goes by without the region mentioned in the media, whether it is for politics, weather, economics, etc. This region is one of the most referenced regions of the state in recent newspaper coverage. More so than "Central Minnesota", "The Arrowhead Region" etc., all of which have their own pages.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 21:51, 21 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}) 19:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Element color legend/metal–nonmetal range (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Element color legend/spdf blocks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Element color legend/spdfg blocks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Element color legend/valences (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Element color legend/vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Element color legend/group 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - The "Element color legend" template series has been deprecated for over 5 years in favor of {{Periodic table legend}}. They are all marked as deprecated and unused. Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None is used in mainspace. (I have created the replacement {{Periodic table legend}} back then, and deprecated these). -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Nigej (talk) 19:10, 17 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}) 19:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Being Human summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst and delete - This template is always created in the "List of episode" article and then transcluded to the main TV series article. In this case, it should be placed in List of Being Human episodes and transcluded to Being Human (UK TV series). There is no reason for this to be different. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete - Per nom. Standardise. Nigej (talk) 19:49, 17 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}) 20:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:TOC-Xiaolin Showdown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - unused template that I can't even tell if it was ever used in mainspace. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Seems to be an abandoned attempt relating to episodes of Xiaolin Showdown and dating back to 2005. Nigej (talk) 19:43, 17 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}) 19:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Red vs. Blue characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst and delete - this template is used only in Red vs. Blue and uses a standard table which a lot of other television shows use. No need for a template, when this code is always placed in the article itself. Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete - per nom Nigej (talk) 19:18, 17 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}) 19:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Jodi Number One (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Place information in relevant places and delete - The template is only used in one article, the "judges" and "presenters" section can be placed in the {{Infobox television}} template (which is setup for that) while the winners should be written in prose in the lead. No need for a template for that. Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and delete - sort of pseudo-infobox. Support suggestion: use real infobox where possible, add rest and delete. Nigej (talk) 19:24, 17 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}) 19:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:HarveyBirdmanEP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replace with {{Episode list}} and delete - This episode template creates a non-standard non-accessibility compliant episode "row". Uses of this template should be converted to the standard {{Episode list}} template. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and delete - Only used in List of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law episodes but used some 40 times there. Difficult to believe that this series was so unusual as to need its own template. Nigej (talk) 19:34, 17 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) 00:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Town AT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

So far as I can tell, this wrapper only exists to facilitate the use of a large number of non-English parameters. I can't see any reason that every one of these transclusions cannot simply use a direct implementation of {{Infobox settlement}}. (WP:INFOCOL)

I also think it is worth noting that of the 2,411 transclusions, 2,328 of them contain unknown parameters. To be clear, the unknown parameters issue is NOT a reason alone for deleting the template! Not saying that it is, but I think it might be indicative of the larger issue. Use the standard template and you won't have so many unknown parameters. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for replace and delete. A template very suited to merge with the settlement infobox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replacement and deletion - this infobox is a mess and is an endemic problem with these wrapper templates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it has more than 2400 transclusions, I think that's enough to have a dedicated infobox wrapper template. Will the population subtemplates {{Infobox Town AT/key}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Austria subdivision population templates still work after substing? About the "unknown parameters", most of these are actually recognised by the infobox (e.g. "Höhe", "Fläche") so I don't know why they were listed as "unknown". Note that much of the content of the infoboxes was copied from German wikipedia. Markussep ^Talk 19:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the intent was to subst all of the population templates too. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Markussep: as part of the subst/replace process all necessary code would be converted over. From the front end perspective, nothing would change. The same information would be displayed. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you (Pppery) are wrong, that would mean that the populations would have to be updated manually every year. Up to now, we could copy the data from German wikipedia into templates like {{Metadata population AT-6}} Markussep ^Talk 20:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Markussep: that template is a whole different can of worms. Personally I think it is an absolutely disaster that should be removed. That being said, there is no reason it cannot still be used with a direct call to {{Infobox settlement}}. What you are talking about is a separate issue. To be clear, this specific TFD is NOT discussing removing the use of {{Metadata population AT-6}}. That would be discussed in a separate TFD. So if that is your only concern, that you need not worry about it. These pages can simply make a direct call to that template. If that doesn't make sense let me know and I can show you an example of what I'm talking about. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not so fond of how it is done here with {{Infobox Town AT/key}}, which looks up the municipality code, personally I prefer the way it is done at {{Infobox German location}}, where the code has to be given as an infobox parameter. Still I think these metadata templates are a nice way to store and reproduce population data in a controlled and verifiable way. Anyway, I guess you have a point if you want to replace wrappers that only serve a few dozen articles, but this is something else. I'm leaning towards keep. Markussep ^Talk 08:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Markussep:, to store DATA use wikiDATA. Then you can even avoid copying the templates every year AND all Wikipedias would benefit. 77.13.146.241 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there a way to update population data in Wikidata for a few hundred municipalities at once? Markussep ^Talk 20:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Markussep, https://tools.wmflabs.org/quickstatements/#/. 77.11.1.236 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just so you're aware, infoboxes drawing data from Wikidata are controversial here. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Pppery, also for coordinates? And what if only used on fallback? IB settlement often misses coordinates and so does not display a map, while coords are in WD. 77.11.1.236 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The concern is that Wikidata is unreliable. Unreliable sources are still unreliable regardless of what they're used for, see Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • German Wikipedia is equally unreliable. Neither that nor Wikidata are being cited as sources. Many of our infoboxes already transclude data from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • https://wdcm.wmflabs.org/WD_percentUsageDashboard/ - almost 60% of enwiki articles use Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessarily complicated. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 77.13.146.241 (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete. Open a discussion about transcluding population data from Wikidata, on the Infobox settlement talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete. About time to standardize this one too. - Darwinek (talk) 23:37, 21 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 Module:String. Although Module:String is fully-protected. Feel free to ask an admin to reduce protection or just use {{edit protected}} template to let admins assist with the module. Since Module:String is being merged with more modules, so it is necessary to use sandboxes for many tests before actually merging not merge with Module:String2 and no consensus to merge others I missed to read Module:String2 was created per WT:Lua outcome while closing. Although I did not count !votes while closing. Note that Module:String is currently under Cascading protection. So this module can only be edited by admins and override any other common protection. Hope RexxS becomes an admin. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:String (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:StringFunc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:String2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:StringFunc and Module:String2 with Module:String.
No need for three separate lua modules containing string functions. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as all current uses continue to work and proper documentation is added, I don't think this is an issue. A working sandbox with testcases should be created before any change happens. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with caveat that the module protection is reduced to Template-protected (OR is it possible that a new Module-protected level can be created?) so previous creators can still edit and maintain their code. In RexxS's specific module, the last addition was specifically something that I asked for at Wikipedia talk:Lua, so without him being able to edit the module, I'd either not have that piece of code, or it would be in a new module, which brings us here again. --Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems like a very sensible suggestion. The only reason I can't support with the current wording is that the three modules have different maintainers and different levels of protection:

  Module:String is fully-protected and is maintained by two or three admins;

  Module:String2 is template-protected and is maintained by me;

  Module:StringFunc is unprotected and has been maintained by Falconjh.

  If String2 and StringFunc are merged into the fully-protected module String, none of the template-editors will be able to maintain them, unless the protection level of the merged module is altered. --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that none of the modules has been edited in two months suggests they don't need much maintenance. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true: they don't need much maintenance. But when they do, it's not a good idea to prevent the editors who know them best from editing them. I assume that whoever performs the merger will clean up all of the #invokes that will break? --RexxS (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support makes it easier to find the functions you need (and to maybe add new ones). – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no concerns with the nomination. Kraose (talk) 13:59, 25 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) 01:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Bots (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext using Module:String ({{#if:{{#invoke:String|match|{{{1}}}|MassMessage|ignore_errors=1}}|[[Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery]]}} {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment from creator Could we implement the potential alternative at {{Bots}} and see if it indeed works before deleting the module? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at {{bots/sandbox}}, and it works. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question How many #invoke:Bots will be broken and need fixing as a result of the deletion? --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

one. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move functionality to template and delete Should be easy to do (fwiw, search insource ignores all non-alphanumerics, so you can simplify your search). --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 17 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) 00:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Partido Argentina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded wrapper. Just use the standard {{Infobox settlement}}. The precedent has long been established (for example: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_14#Template:Infobox_Argentinian_Department). Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 24 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}) 19:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:September 2008 image loss (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template used for a short period in 2008 and is unused. Should be deleted, as there is no reason to keep it for historical reasons (there isn't even a page on Wikipedia dedicated to this event, which shows how notable it was). Gonnym (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 19:35, 17 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).