Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 25 February 27 >

February 26[edit]

Template:Cite hearsay[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 delete. Already deleted per G7 (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No links, no transclusion, no documentation, no code. Creator does not recall exactly why this template was created; see User talk:Uanfala. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 26 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).

Template:*mp[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 keep. This seems to be a case where it is more beneficial to keep a deprecated template than to delete it. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Procedural TfD: Given the recent deletion and restoration of this template, it makes sense to bring the dispute as to whether old revisions justify keeping this template to TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Pinging the users involved: @Gonnym, RHaworth, and Howcheng:. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging the !voters in the previous TfD: @Luis150902, Nihlus, Galobtter, Frietjes, and Plastikspork:. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It should be noted that the previous discussion, which had 6 editors involved (including closing admin), of which 2 were admins and 2 were template editors, was closed by an admin as delete; no one, not even another admin, should be allowed to ignore the normal procedure if they disagree with an outcome - that should have been done at the closing admin's talk page and then at deletion review. Now to the template itself - the template was deprecated since 2013 and unused with no transclusions. The argument of not deleting to keep old revisions is a confusing argument, as it can be applied to all templates listed for deleting here, and to a greater extent, to all templates that have been merged or had their code updated with breaking changes. If keeping old revisions intact is a valid argument, then the whole way of how we handle templates has to change - not that I believe it should, as I don't think it matters if a 2008 revision is broken. Experience has shown that keeping old code in the system, will make others use them. --Gonnym (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument about the whole way of how we handle templates has to change is a red herring, because otherwise, why do we have {{Historical template}}? That exists specifically to indicate that an unused template shouldn't be deleted. I don't know if Gonnym is familiar with me and what I do here, but I have been running WP:Selected anniversaries for years now (since November 2010). I frequently need to view old revisions of the subpages, and when this template is missing, it just makes my job more difficult. After several months of being frustrated with the screwed-up layout, I went rouge and undeleted the thing myself, as WP:IAR is a policy and having this template around makes my editing easier, I took the liberty of bypassing deletion review. You may not care if a 2008 revision is broken, but I do. Additionally, the statement Experience has shown that keeping old code in the system, will make others use them is undercut by the fact that this template has no transclusions and hasn't had any since 2013. Nobody is using it, nobody is likely to use it in the future, so what exactly is the problem here? Lastly, Gonnym should have contacted me first about it, rather than slapping a speedy deletion request on the page, as it was deleted while I was asleep and could not contest it. —howcheng {chat} 01:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And furthermore, if someone were to use it, they would get an error:

The template {{*mp}} has been deprecated since March 2018, and is retained only for old revisions. If this page is a current revision, please remove the template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, let me understand, you can ignore the process by IAR, but I need to contact you before I legitimately use a consensus-established process? No. --Gonnym (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm asking for common courtesy. If the situation were reversed, that's what I would have done. —howcheng {chat} 16:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    so, did you contact the deleting admin before restoring it? Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's almost no benefit in deleting a template like this: it's already marked as deprecated, no-one is likely to come across it as it's not otherwise categorised and it's name isn't something that anyone would imagine to search for, and if some editor somehow ends up attempting to use it, the template will output a warning. On the other hand, deleting it would break (apparently a high number of) old revisions of pages, and if that makes life more difficult for at least one editor, then there is clear harm in deleting it. – Uanfala (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Howcheng makes a very good case for why it is needed. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout to Howcheng for bypassing the proper process. Deletion review would have been much preferable. That said, the arguments for keeping do seem to outweigh the arguments for deletion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, should be put through WP:DRV if there is a compelling reason to restore it. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your objection based solely on procedural grounds? That this is the wrong venue to discuss this? —howcheng {chat} 16:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how anything has changed since this was last discussed. I find it fascinating that you say that Gonnym should have contacted me first about it, rather than slapping a speedy deletion request on the page but yet you didn't notify Plastikspork before undeleting it. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Plastikspork was simply processing TFD nomination, which means (if they are doing their job correctly) that they have no dog in this fight and thus was just the individual who happened to click the button. Applying the golden rule, if the roles had been reversed and another admin undeleted a page that I deleted as a result of a non-controversial nomination and gave a legitimate reason, I would trust in their judgement. —howcheng {chat} 22:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    you don't seem to understand common courtesy, you reversed the deletion of two admins, and I see no mention of either admin's talk page. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make this clearer: I would have notified them if they had any interest at all in the actual usage of the template. —howcheng {chat} 05:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you haven't answered my question yet. —howcheng {chat} 07:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Howcheng, I did answer your question I don't see how anything has changed since this was last discussed. your personal view of the old revisions can be fixed with javascript. for example, I tried this script and verified that it works on your test page. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work, but do you expect all of our readers to install this script? —howcheng {chat} 18:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    no, just you, since you appear to be the only saying there is a problem. Frietjes (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have no solution for readers who encounter the issue then, got it. —howcheng {chat} 20:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing that really gets me is that you are going to great lengths to delete a deprecated template that is still useful to (admittedly a small number of) readers and editors. You propose a solution that only works for registered users who are experienced enough to know how to edit their user script to either import yours or write their own (assuming they know jQuery or how to manipulate the DOM using vanilla JS). I really don't understand this mindset. If you could be so kind as to enlighten me by making it very simple, I would greatly appreciate it. Complete this sentence: "I object to keeping this template because _____________." Thank you so much. —howcheng {chat} 05:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Howcheng: The thing that really gets me is where you said "I would have notified them if they had any interest at all in the actual usage of the template". Troubling that you would assume that you know what I think. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Plastikspork If you had any interest at all in the template itself, you would have participated in the discussion instead. I believe that's a reasonable assumption to make. Since you didn't, then as a responsible admin, you would be a neutral arbiter who is merely closing the discussion and making a decision about consensus based on the what you saw in the discussion. Am I wrong? —howcheng {chat} 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Howcheng: Yes, you are wrong. I am interested in knowing when someone reverses the outcome of a discussion that I closed. It's common courtesy to first ping the admin who closed the discussion, before reversing a deletion decision. Troubling that you don't know this already. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whatever makes Howcheng's life easier dealing with OTD. Valid use of IAR. I cannot fathom a good reason for a trout, nor for deletion just so that we can discuss this all over again at DRV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When it was deleted the impact of doing so wasn't understood, but now the impact is known it can quite happily stay without bothering anyone. Stephen 22:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is obvious... Template is not used, there is no reason for it to be here. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated above, I have a perfectly valid reason for it to be here. —howcheng {chat} 22:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My attempt at creating a broad discussion of this dispute seems to have worked. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (my nom was purely procedural, so this isn't a duplicate !vote) I think a wider consensus is necessary on whether "this breaks old revisions" is a valid reason to keep a template, but the current convention seems to be "no", as evidenced by the fact that Template:Persondata is currently a redlink, and this case should follow that convention. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the wrong question to ask. The better question is, "Does keeping this deprecated template help editors and/or readers?" If the answer to that is yes (and it is here) then why not do the right thing? —howcheng {chat} 05:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC) P.S.: Persondata is a template that doesn't break layouts; you just get a red link at the bottom of the article. So that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. —howcheng {chat} 07:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep breaking old revisions isn't a super high concern most times, but for select templates, it certainly is. For example, {{cite doi}}. It throws an error if you use it, but if you browse article histories, you'll be able to understand what the reference was at the time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It occurs to me that some of you may not be concerned about old revisions because you presumably think that anyone savvy enough to look through page histories will understand that templates occasionally get deleted, and experienced editors such as myself should know how to work around it. However, most casual readers who end up looking at old revisions of OTD (On this day, aka Selected anniversaries) don't get to those old revisions from the page history tab. On the talk page of every article that has been featured in OTD, we link directly to them from either {{OnThisDay}} or {{article history}}. For example, you will find the following on Talk:Dissolution of the Soviet Union:
    So imagine you are a casual Wikipedia reader who follows the 2012 link, and you see this (this is a mockup in my userspace that replaced *mp with *mq so you get the same effect). That broken layout looks extremely unprofessional and is more difficult to read than if the bulleted lists were properly rendered (and yes, it does make my job of maintaining OTD subpages on a daily basis more difficult when the pages look this way because it just slows me down and I already spend a lot of time doing this). Granted, the number of people who are looking at these is probably low, but I would submit that even one reader who encounters this is too much. —howcheng {chat} 07:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an opportunity to help someone who is regularly putting a lot of work into Wikipedia. There seems to be no downside other than that it rewards a reversion that did not follow established procedures. I think we can be adult enough to overlook that transgression in this case; it is not a case of a serial offender of whom we need to set an example. Whatever the general principles about deleting templates, the merits of this individual case seem clear. Please show some flexibility. Jmchutchinson (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether Howcheng handled right is for an other place to discuss. Whether to delete: apparently a serious use of this template has been established now. With that, bean counters should stop a wikilawyering deletion. It is a tool, and telling an editor "you should do this differently" is not needed. -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the example showed. Last TfD said "but make sure that the output is the same after replacement", and obviously that didn't happend. Christian75 (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're claiming that the closer of the previous TfD was asking editors to do the impossible. That is a rather strange interpretation. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not impossible. Just need a smart bot to find all links, and write a new revision without the *mp. Or we could just keep the template. Christian75 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Christian75, this was already done, which is why the template had zero transclusions before it was restored (see WhatLinksHere. No smart bot will be able to change old revisions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Howcheng and Headbomb. Deletion has downsides and no significant benefits. —Kusma (t·c) 17:53, 2 March 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).

Category:Indianapolis Colts draft navigational boxes[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 relisted on 2019 March 6. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 13:00, 6 March 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).

Template:Chicago River bridges[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no incoming links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like it was replaced with Template:Chicago Landmark transportation
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:Canadian Hot 100 top 10[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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming links, no transclusions, no documentation. Appears to duplicate a portion of Template:Canadian Singles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unused and not suitable for this encyclopedia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:15, 28 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).

TvN 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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 20:58, 26 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).

Template:Nach Baliye 1[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The seasons for this show do not have their own page. Significant information about the show is already included in Template:Nach Baliye Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the important information is already in {{Nach Baliye}} and there is no reason for a season nav template, when the season does not have an article itself. --Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:15, 28 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).

Via Rail S-line 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 -FASTILY 01:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Via Rail. All article space transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 17:19, 26 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).

Template:Bk-icon[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an abandoned experiment. No transclusions, does not have a reasonable name or any documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It indeed seems to be some sort of unused and abandoned basketball icon template. --Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:15, 28 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).

Periodic table deprecated color 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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following templates have all been placed in Category:Periodic table deprecated color templates over 4.5 years ago, are unused and replaced by Template:Element color. A couple are used by Template:Periodic table (discovery periods, compact), which itself is unused and deprecated. Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom – deprecated since 2014 and not used anywhere; some substantial changes have since been made at WP:ELEM that are not reflected here. ComplexRational (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The information, like legend colors, may be outdated/wrong. (Five years ago I was the editor that created the remplacements that made these deprecated and superfluous). Well-checked re usage. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the esteemed DePiep. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:15, 28 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).

Template:Bakerloo line extension 2014 plan RDT[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 keep. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Bakerloo line has route information on page already. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer unused; therefore keep. (Accidentally removed at 23:21, 20 March 2016.) Useddenim (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason: It is well-established practice that Route Diagram Templates — even single-use ones — should be kept separate because of the potential for accidental damage. (A misspelled word will generally not cause a problem with an article; a single incorrect character can completely break an RDT.) Useddenim (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As Useddenim explained, RDTs should be kept separate to avoid accidental breakage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Keeping the very complicated template code out of the main article also improves accessibility for those editors who want to improve the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, better not to have the source code in the article. Basically, this template is a diagram written in wikicode, comparable to SVG files, which we allow even if they are only used by one page. —Kusma (t·c) 19:09, 2 March 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).

Template:Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area[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 relisted on 2019 March 5. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 5 March 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).

Template:Bahrain Governorates Image Map[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unused and outdated anyway. (it's 4 governorates now). GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:38, 28 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).

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina historic noble families[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: is this proper place for discussion? What if we move this template to "draftspace" or my "sandbox" so that I can see if there is an article or two where I imagined it could fit - I completely forgot that I created it.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99: since you are the creator, absolutely nothing stopping you from moving it to your userspace and then WP:G7ing the template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:22, 1 March 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).

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina parliamentary election, 2010[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template. Data already present on page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:21, 26 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).

Template:Boston Surface Railroad[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Data already on the page in a much clearer format Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:20, 26 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).

Template:BSO[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no clear purpose Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:19, 26 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).

Template:Belgium national football team other minor tournaments record[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:13, 26 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).

Template:Belgium national football team Belgium-Netherlands Cup record[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:13, 26 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).

Template:Barnometer[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no clear purpose Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can't seem to understand what its used for and it isn't linked to from any other page. --Gonnym (talk) 22:46, 1 March 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).

Template:Airlines list boilerplate[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have a boilerplate template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:10, 26 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).

Template:Bernstein symphonies[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template that is redundant to {{Leonard Bernstein}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:08, 26 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).

Template:Bosnian presidium election, 2006[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:08, 26 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).

Template:Block-appeal[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 relisted on 2019 March 5. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:22, 5 March 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).

Template:BC-FedRep[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 relisted on 2019 March 5. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 5 March 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).

Template:Bosnian presidium election, 2002[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:05, 26 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).

Template:Bermuda legislative election, 2003[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Data is already present on the page in question. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:05, 26 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).

Template:Austrian legislative election, 2002[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Data is already present on the page in question. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:05, 26 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).

Template:Blocks of Ranchi district[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 relisted on 2019 March 5. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:18, 5 March 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).

Template:Bg-magenta[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is just a hardcoded bg color Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 26 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).

Template:Birmingham bus routes 2 & 3[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Over 5 years old. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:03, 26 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).

Template:Bohrium[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 relisted on 2019 March 5. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 5 March 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).

Template:Botswana general election, 2004[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:01, 26 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).

Template:Box Office Entertainment Award for Box Office King[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:00, 26 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_26&oldid=903572864"