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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ike Reilly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. The single blue link in this template can be better placed in a See Also section. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough links to justify a navbox. --woodensuperman 14:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are not enough links to justify having a navigational template. Aspects (talk) 09:15, 12 April 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 no consensus. Looks like the technical feasibility of replacement needs to be investigated more. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Finnish municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Convert to use ((Infobox settlement)). After looking into the code of this template, it appears that the only reason for a custom template is so that the data can be stored in templates. For example Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/land area stores the land area for every single Finnish municipality. This is NOT the convention for storing this data. Values should be stored directly on the page, not in some convoluted series of templates. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after replacement; but if there is no consensus for that, at least make it a wrapper, per nom. The data should be stored on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The template was created in 2009 (when there was no Wikidata) to make it possible to update population, area and demographics etc. information automatically at once instead of manually updating each and every page. I agree that nowadays this information should be fetched from Wikidata. However, I still think that the information should not be stored directly on the page. ̣––Apalsola ^{t • c} 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until replacement Besides information like area, it has also demographics data that has been updated annually and doing this individually makes no sense. Unifying these templates is a good long-term goal, but it shouldn't be done until someone can actually produce the replacement without loss of function. --Pudeo (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pudeo: you are missing the entire point of this discussion. The discussion is whether the template should be replaced or not. Under no circumstances is a template replaced if it results in a loss of function. So your argument is pretty pointless. We are discussing whether or not to replace with ((Infobox settlement)) and your comment is basically "don't do it until it can be replaced with something that works"...--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY CLOSE: is a wrapper since creation 2009-01-01 more than 10 years ago [1] 15:04, 1 January 2009‎ Apalsola (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,961 bytes) +2,961‎ . . (←Created page with '((Infobox Settlement |official_name = (({official_name|))} |native_name = (({native_name|))} |nickname = (({nickname|))} |motto ...') But it is proposed for substitution at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Infobox settlement wrappers. 77.183.12.176 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 77.183.12.176 that is not a criteria for Speedy Closure and putting it in all caps doesn't help. Just because you nominated it again doesn't help. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of the DRV discussion, I think it's clear this template should be kept without prejudice to renomination if someone who's well acquainted with the intricate functionality of the template is willing to support change and is prepared to put it in the apparently high amount of effort needed to implement that change. – Uanfala (talk) 00:45, 7 April 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 keep. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Similar to below but different as this would require more discrimination: these should all be replaced with an appropriate regional English variant. If none can be determined, then I suggest using ((EngvarB spelling)) or ((EngvarC spelling)) as necessary. The logic is mostly the same, just the implementation and logistics are more complex. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a temporary-use template for use when the specific variant cannot yet be identified. Its doc makes this clear. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - Wrong venue. See below. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep also has the advantage of not spawning more divisiveness over sub-sub-sub-varieties of English, nor requiring knowledge of same from editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:26, 7 April 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 speedy keep. Clear consensus for keeping these templates. (non-admin closure) Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Use American English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Australian English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Bangladeshi English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use British English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use British English Oxford spelling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Canadian English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Commonwealth English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Hong Kong English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Indian English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Irish English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Jamaican English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use New Zealand English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Nigerian English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Pakistani English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Singapore English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use South African English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use Trinidadian English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All non-displayed English variant tags are inferior to their edit notice alternatives (compare ((Use American English)) to ((American English))). First off, these don't display so there is no indication that a certain variety of English is to be used unless you happen to be editing near where the template is in the body and that can be at the top or bottom of an article in practice--section editing would not give you any indication. Secondly, the only goal of a non-displaying template would be to do tracking which the edit notice versions do anyway. There is no incentive to have a parallel version of the same functionality that has less benefit. I propose deleting all instances of ((Use American English)), ((Use Australian English)), ((Use Bangladeshi English)), ((Use British English)), ((Use British English Oxford spelling)), ((Use Canadian English)), ((Use Commonwealth English)), ((Use Hong Kong English)), ((Use Indian English)), ((Use Irish English)), ((Use Jamaican English)), ((Use New Zealand English)), ((Use Nigerian English)), ((Use Pakistani English)), ((Use Singapore English)), ((Use South African English)), ((Use Trinidadian English)) and convert them all to editnotices that will actually display when it's useful: as someone tries to edit the article. I'm willing to help with conversion, which would be fairly straightforward if a little time-consuming. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are intentionally non-displaying; their main purpose is to give an indication to bots and scripts as to which variant is the preferred one for the article. They also categorise the page, which an editnotice cannot do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redrose64: Then why have templates at all instead of just a category? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's something to do with the Engvar script, which isn't mine - someone like Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) will know exactly why it's coded that way. But in general, housekeeping categories like this are always applied via a template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Redrose64. I frequently check for the category these templates produce to determine correct variants for an article.-gadfium 22:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above rationale.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - Wrong venue. If you want to propose replacing or integrating their functions into an edit notice, this isn't the place to do it. It might be a conversation worth having, but not here. A lot of work would need to be done first. - BilCat (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BilCat: Where other than Templates for Discussion is the appropriate venue for discussing these templates? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep time saver. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Question: Can a category really not be added to the edit notice version? If this is possible, this request gets a support from me. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I wondered about that. The issue would still remain that the edit notice is not generally known about, that it is not read by the vast majority of tools, and that it is ignored by many editors as being part of the "noise" outside the edit box.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  

  But if the templates are merged, then any bot that was able to read template A should be able to read template B. The only addition is the Edit notice part, which you can ignore or not, but that is the same with an invisible comment which is even less noticeable. --Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories can be added to editnotices, but they categorise the editnotice itself, not the page that it's used on. Consider Category:Pages with Livescores editnotice: this contains a whole bunch of editnotices (for example Template:Editnotices/Page/2018 FIFA World Cup Group A); but the related articles (for example 2018 FIFA World Cup Group A) are not in the category. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure that is because how those are coded. If I take your example then inside Category:Pages with Livescores editnotice I checked Template:Editnotices/Page/2015 FIFA Club World Cup, which uses ((Livescores editnotice)), which has an includeonly Category:Pages with Livescores editnotice. However, if you add a category to ((Editnotices/Page/2015 FIFA Club World Cup)), then pages using it will be added to that category. See for example User:Gonnym/sandbox which is placed in ((Test)). --Gonnym (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's one page (User:Gonnym/sandbox) transcluding another (User:Gonnym/sandbox/tests3) as if it were a template. No editnotice is involved. Put it another way: if you add a category to Template:Editnotices/Page/User:Gonnym/sandbox, it will not affect the categorisation of User:Gonnym/sandbox in any way whatsoever. Also, what does ((Test)) have to do with anything? It's a notice that is normally WP:SUBSTd to a user talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant Category:Test (my sandbox has since changed so not relevant anymore). --Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While Koavf is correct that opening a section will ensure that you don't see the template I think that there is less change of seeing a notice tucked away on the talk page. I rarely look at the talk page before editing an article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CambridgeBayWeather: No one is suggesting putting anything on talk pages. What are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template states that it can be used on the talk page. I hope you weren't thinking of putting it at the top of an article. Sticking it in an edit notice is the same as the hidden one at the top of the page. I doubt many people read edit notices based on the number of times that people don't notify someone after opening a section at WP:ANI. Also when I open a page with an edit notice and glance away as it opens the editing area forces the notice up where I can't see it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • ((American English)), ((British English)), ((Commonwealth English)) templates, destined for talk page, creates a banner about the English code used in the associated article. These should not be confused with the "Use [variant] English" templates, that have a script-based functionality. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per nom, subject to proviso: I created the script which became the basis for some of these templates. I have not be able to come up with a way of replacing the functionality of these maintenance templates with categories. Having said that, the only templates named above that serve useful functions for my script and that are important to be kept are the major English code variants (((Use American English)), ((Use British English)), ((Use British English Oxford spelling)), ((Use Canadian English))) – these codes all have distinct and more or less well-defined orthographies compared with each other. The other codes are merely "richer" (mostly just have an additional lexicon outside of mainstream British or Commonwealth English) but have no incidence on spelling variants that the script acts on. So the other templates, including I would say ((Use British English)), can be simply consolidated under the ((EngvarB)) template. If you look in the category trees of the template, you will see that they are all grouped under same. My script already replaces these other templates, but to do this job wholesale requires a bot. I propose therefore that we delete all except ((Use American English)), ((EngvarB)), ((Use British English Oxford spelling)), ((Use Canadian English)), and converge all the deleted into ((EngvarB)). Incidentally, I don't think it's helpful to entrench language ghettoes that these other templates seem to imply. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some of the templates. Redrose64 makes some good points. I think that we should definitely keep the ((Use American English)), ((Use British English)), ((Use British English Oxford spelling)) and ((Use Canadian English)) templates. Should the community decide to delete the rest, I would support the amalgamation of the deleted into ((EngvarB)) per Ohconfucius. Nevertheless, at this time, I don't see why the ((Use Australian English)), ((Use Bangladeshi English)), ((Use Commonwealth English)), ((Use Hong Kong English)), ((Use Indian English)), ((Use Irish English)), ((Use Jamaican English)), ((Use New Zealand English)), ((Use Nigerian English)), ((Use Pakistani English)), ((Use Singapore English)), ((Use South African English)) and ((Use Trinidadian English)) templates should be deleted. When they are used, they provide the benefit of allowing an editor to see the variant of English an article uses by viewing the article in the wikitext editor. —Ntmamgtw (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Redrose64 —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can this be closed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 7 May 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. There are no transclusions to subst. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2019–20 Eredivisie table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Based on this thread at WT:FOOTY. Only recently we got rid of seperate template pages for standing tables of eredivisie seasons. So there's no valid reason to start creating one for the next season. Against consensus. Speedy deletion might aplly. Sb008 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst in article and delete (or delete if already done) per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete as per the WT:FOOTY thread, templates no longer needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 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) 00:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PATCO color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PATCO infobox header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PATCO lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PATCO stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PATCO style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/PATCO left/ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/PATCO left/Speedline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/PATCO right/ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/PATCO right/Speedline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Patco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/PATCO. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 6 April 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Galatasaray SK Women's Volleyball Team Seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

1 blue link out of 59 links. Very useless. Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Useless collection of red links. PC78 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 6 April 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; deleted as G6 by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cast list needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is a non-template, clearly placed in the wrong namespace. Template requests belong at WP:RT. V2Blast (talk) 06:32, 6 April 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dynamite Boy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A red link farm; trimming this down to just the blue links wouldn't leave much. Only used in two articles and not a useful navigation aid. PC78 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The red links belong in the main article while the two "Related Articles" go in a See Also section. The template itself is just filler. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 14:40, 11 April 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) 23:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cr-BBL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost the same reason as the IPL one yesterday. In this case the template is never used in any Big Bash League related articles. So the purpose of its creation is useless. Human (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete serves even less use than the IPL ones I nominated. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused in article space, template is just a shortcut to adding a link. Spike 'em (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the IPL discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. – PeeJay 11:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As per above reason Delete (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 14:19, 10 April 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).