December 26
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Db-inc with Template:Db-club.
Virtually the same template, just a minor difference as to which types of organizations are covered. Could easily be combined into one template that covers all types of organizations. Combining these will reduce interface clutter for both Twinkle and the New Page Curation Toolbar. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, sounds like a good idea. TJH2018talk 19:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose -- seems to me that keeping things specific helps make people use these templates correctly, since you have to choose whether it's a company or a club and can't use it on things that are "vaguely something like a club or a company." CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose- There is just a minor difference, but that difference is very specific in some cases when we have to deal with group or club of 3 or 4 people. I just came accross this article Faggyblog, Db-club is more specific here than Db-Inc. We have to keep in mind that these tags are normally places on the pages created by new users and informing them with specific logic is not at all bad. Hitro talk 10:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is merged, then Db-club should be renamed to Db-org, and both Db-inc and Db-club should redirect there. 2600:1:B15E:F8AA:F976:AEF:8D7A:E6AD (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. It isn't doing anybody any harm by having two similar tags here. Nördic Nightfury 12:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Both are useful in distinct ways. Cabayi (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2016 (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:PD-CVV
- 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 2017 January 6 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2017 (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:PASSHE
- 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 after substing onto page. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template is only used in one article, where the data could easily be transferred. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with the article, then delete. Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2016 (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:GEW2013riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2013 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2013 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 13:29, 26 December 2016 (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:BPK2014riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2014 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2014 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 13:29, 26 December 2016 (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:USC2009riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2009 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2009 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 13:27, 26 December 2016 (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:FCL2008riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2008 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2008 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 13:26, 26 December 2016 (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:SLU2012riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2012 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2012 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 13:26, 26 December 2016 (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:TCW2010riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2010 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2010 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 13:26, 26 December 2016 (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:TMP2007riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2007 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2007 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 13:25, 26 December 2016 (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:TMP2006riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2006 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2006 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 13:25, 26 December 2016 (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:CWT2011riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2011 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2011 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 13:24, 26 December 2016 (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:TLP2015riders
- 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 subst and delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2015 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2015 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 12:33, 26 December 2016 (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 keep. Consensus is to move as well, but the final target is more of a talk page discussion. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 05:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you broke it, and now you want me to fix it? Useddenim (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Useddenim: Wait, what? I didn't replace anything. I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. That infobox was deleted per a deletion discussion, and I had no involvement in orphaning it. Please feel free to either provide a diff to show me what you mean or strike your accusations. ~ Rob13Talk 12:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That infobox has been deleted for a year and a half. What exactly are you accusing me of? ~ Rob13Talk 12:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies; I was looking at the wrong diff. It appears that PhilipTerryGraham orphaned the diagrams when he replaced ((Infobox rail line)) with ((Infobox rail service)). (But I still vote Keep.) Useddenim (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to withdraw these if they're put into use, but RDTs don't help us when they're just out in the ether. They just clog up the database report for unused templates and occasionally require complicated maintenance. ~ Rob13Talk 16:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- … working on fixing them … Useddenim (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suggest if we must reuse these particular route diagram templates, we should a) rename them to Sydney Trains Line templates, instead of CityRail Line templates, and b) try to find the best use we can outside of the infobox. I took them out of the infobox simply because it was my understanding that Route Diagram Templates were only for railways and not services on those railways. I based my redesign of the infoboxes on the London Underground services infoboxes, which do not have Route Diagram Templates, but instead have in place an objectively more helpful navbox of Transport for London services. Examples of which are the Piccadilly line and Bakerloo line articles. I set up a similar system for infoboxes of Transport for New South Wales services. Philip Terry Graham 01:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2016 (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 keep. See above. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 05:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2016 (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 keep. See above. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 05:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2016 (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 keep. See above. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 05:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2016 (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 keep. See above. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 05:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2016 (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 keep. See above. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 05:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2016 (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:Coleraine-Portrush branch line
- 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 soft delete. REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 05:23, 26 December 2016 (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:Commons category redirect
- 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) Primefac (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 05:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Unused Asian Games roster templates
- 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) Primefac (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. No objection to userfication, but even if these could be inserted into articles, it should just be substituted. This information won't change. ~ Rob13Talk 05:19, 26 December 2016 (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 IOC alias XYZ
- 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, replaced by ((country alias)). Primefac (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2016 (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).