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) 00:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Devonian graphical timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One transclusion. Seems to have some sort of connection/redundancy to Template:Devonian, and there doesn't seem to be a need for both to be standalone templates. In lieu of substitute and delete, maybe merge into Template:Devonian. Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Part of a series. Some like the one proposed and ((Carboniferous graphical timeline)) have just one transclusion but others like ((Cretaceous graphical timeline)) have several. Probably should have their own sub-cat within Category:Graphical timeline templates eg Category:Geological period graphical timeline templates to highlight series connection. Nigej (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete the fact that there are other similar templates with multiple transclusions is not relevant. This template is only used in one place, so just subst it there and delete the template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, part of a series. Frietjes (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is part of a series. Either delete all of them in the series as a whole in favor of the other type, or keep them both. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 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 relisted on 2019 February 28. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Autonumber (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 merge to Module:TableTools. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Array length (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:TableTools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Array length with Module:TableTools.
Consolidate table-related module functions under Module:TableTools ((3x|p))ery (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. While we're merging it we could make it use Module:Exponential search so that we don't have two separate exponential search algorithms. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:14, 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}) 18:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Unused, and unlikely to be used: it links to the NYSE site for NASDAQ-listed stocks. Nasdaq stocks should link to the Nasdaq site, and such a template exists. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "Provides a link to beta.nyse.com based on NASDAQ stock symbol" which doesn't seem to exist. Unused. Nigej (talk) 19:01, 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}) 18:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Korean Broadcasting System drama templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:KBS Special Project Drama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:KBS Saturday-Sunday drama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:KBS Friday-Saturday dramas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:KBS Wednesday–Thursday dramas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:KBS Monday–Tuesday dramas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:KBS Daily Soap Opera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:KBS TV Novel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 12#Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation navboxes and various other similar navboxes recently deleted for the same reason. --woodensuperman 15:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seven templates listing programmes only loosely connected by being shown at the same time and day on the same channel + one template linking to the other seven. Nigej (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are very useful templates. Deleting these templates will remove important information from tenths of articles - which drama was broadcasted before and after described drama. To keep same amount of information in articles without these templates you need to change hundreds of articles. Personally, I was using these templates very often. I can't understand why this information is considered as TVGUIDE, this is just logging of history. Are you time travelers? KarlHeintz (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a television guide. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:03, 27 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}) 18:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:JTBC drama templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:JTBC Weekend Soap Opera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:JTBC Friday-Saturday Drama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:JTBC Wednesday-Thursday Dramas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:JTBC Monday-Tuesday Drama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 12#Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation navboxes and various other similar navboxes recently deleted for the same reason. --woodensuperman 14:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Four templates listing programmes only loosely connected by being shown at the same time and day on the same channel + one template linking to the other four. Nigej (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are very useful templates. Deleting these templates will remove important information from tenths of articles - which drama was broadcasted before and after described drama. To keep same amount of information in articles without these templates you need to change hundreds of articles. Personally, I was using these templates very often. I can't understand why this information is considered as TVGUIDE, this is just logging of history. Are you time travelers? KarlHeintz (talk) 15:54, 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 relisted on 2019 February 28. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_Simpsons_episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_television_episode (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}) 18:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NXT UK Women's Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 09:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Two is too soon, whatever the merits of the other merits of the case. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Template:WWE United Kingdom Championship only has two and was created over two years ago. I understand deleting Template:WWE Women's Tag Team Championship and Template:NXT UK Tag Team Championship as there are only one pair of champions each and are fairly new, but how many links warrants a navbox in this case? Not trying to start an argument - just trying to understand.--Stellar420 (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So few it does not help with navigation. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:36, 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}) 18:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NXT UK Tag Team Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 09:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - One event is clearly too soon. Serves no useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So few it does not help with navigation. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. KyleJoan^talk 10:44, 22 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}) 18:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Editor review is defunct. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 15:49, 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 relisted on 2019 February 28. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:See_also_if_exists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Category_see_also_if_exists (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}) 23:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Colombo District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Gampaha District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Kalutara District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template ((Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Western Province)), for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 04:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Author of template agreed to delete. See section below. Rehman 05:00, 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}) 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Badulla District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Moneragala District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template ((Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Uva Province)), for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 04:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Author of template agreed to delete. See section below. Rehman 05:00, 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}) 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Galle District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Hambantota District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Matara District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template ((Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Southern Province)), for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 04:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Author of template agreed to delete. See section below. Rehman 05:00, 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}) 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Kegalle District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Ratnapura District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template ((Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Sabaragamuwa Province)), for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Author of template agreed to delete. See section below. Rehman 05:00, 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}) 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Kurunegala District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Puttalam District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template ((Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - North Western Province)), for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Author of template agreed to delete. See section below. Rehman 05:00, 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}) 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Jaffna District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Kilinochchi District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Mannar District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Mullaitivu District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Vavuniya District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template ((Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Northern Province)), for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Author of template agreed to delete. See section below. Rehman 05:00, 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}) 18:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Anuradhapura District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Polonnaruwa District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template ((Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - North Central Province)), for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Author of template agreed to delete. See section below. Rehman 05:00, 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}) 18:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Ampara District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Batticaloa District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Trincomalee District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template ((Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Eastern Province)), for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Author of template agreed to delete. See section below. Rehman 05:00, 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}) 18:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Kandy District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Matale District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Divisional Secretariats of Nuwara Eliya District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template ((Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Central Province)), for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 100 of people have 100 of opinions. If possible I'd ask to delete what I have created in en.wiki. No offence and please do not response to me. Delete them all! --AntanO 15:13, 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) Hhkohh (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CNJ style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Central Railroad of New Jersey color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Central Railroad of New Jersey lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Central Railroad of New Jersey stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey left/Elizabethport and Perth Amboy Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey left/Freehold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey left/High Bridge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey left/Lehigh and Susquehanna Division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey left/Main Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey left/Newark and New York Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey left/Seashore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey left/South Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey right/Elizabethport and Perth Amboy Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey right/Freehold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey right/High Bridge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey right/Lehigh and Susquehanna Division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey right/Main Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey right/Newark and New York Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey right/Seashore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Central Railroad of New Jersey right/South Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Central Railroad of New Jersey. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this template being proposed for deletion? There is great historical significance for these component lines, the railroad had a 139 year history prior to its being absorbed by Conrail. There was no rationale given to delete the template.Dogru144 (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an outdated template style. Mackensen has developed Module stuff that's above my head. It's not deleting any of the information attached. Mitch32^{(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.)} 07:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Szqecs and Jc86035 have written module stuff that is above your head. Mackensen just converted the old template style to the new module style. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You get what I meant. I'm trying to just help the guy relax. He alerted me to the TFD as the one who makes those. Mackensen made a different one, so I thought he did them all. Mitch32^{(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.)} 18:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, since the data has been migrated and the templates are now unused. Jc86035 (talk) 15:59, 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; deleted as G3 by JJMC89 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fake-bot-shutoff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Serves no purpose; the user that created this appears to be impersonating a bot. Should probably be deleted. Aspening (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some kind of joke with no punchline. Ifnord (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete blatant hoax; I have tagged the article for CSD per WP:G3 --DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What in the world is this? ((3x|p))ery (talk) 04:43, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox television episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode with Template:Infobox television episode.
Only 8 uses. No need for a separate template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If the editor had actually researched those eight articles, they would find that the different layout requires a separate infobox. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alex 21: and if the responder had actually attempted to assume good faith instead of assuming I was just drive by editing they would understand that those additional parameters are not needed. Every TV show could have a custom fork for the couple custom parameters but that violates WP:INFOCOL. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The layout of this template is in fact quite different (particularly the episode chronology section) from the regular television episode infobox template. - Brojam (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alex and Brojam. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above. It does appear the nominating editor has not thoroughly researched these template uses, simply looking to how many uses they have. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, agree with above users. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - a few issues here. First is the assumption that Arrowverse is the only TV series that has crossover episodes and is somehow unique (which means that even if this is not merged, all the hardcoded instances of the Arrownverse name should be removed). The second is that this can't be merged as they are completely different. The only unique parameters are the season and crossover chronology, while all the regular episode parameters are there. Merging will allow the crossover episodes to recieve any update that the main infobox gets and will allow other kind of crossovers episodes, that might need one of other parameters not available in the current corssover templates, to be able to use the template without any change. I see no issue at all with merging these. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym: thank you for pointing out the absolute absurdity of the oppose comments... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zackmann08, at least Gonnym has proposed a merge and how to go about it. Please remind me where you did so. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Alex 21: Right here when I nominated the template to be MERGED. As for how to go about it I didn't mention it because it is pretty self-explanatory and is handled once the page is moved to the holding cell. Your objections so far have basically been to either say that I'm just blanket nominating pages so based on that alone you object, or to say that you don't understand how the templates could possibly be merged so you object. Neither of which make sense. The question here is not about HOW the templates get merged, but about whether they should. The how is handled elsewhere. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom and Gonnym. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support generalising this template, no opinion whether as a ((Infobox crossover episode)) or as extra options in ((Infobox episode)). Daß Wölf 23:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose currently, but a generalised ((Infobox crossover episode)) may be preferable if similar examples from other shows emerge/already exist. Having said that, this is an unusual situation in being an annual occurrence of consecutive nights of The CW's broadcast schedule telling a single story (which are the articles' subjects) on different shows, hence the multiple chronologies being warranted. I wouldn't want to encourage any users to be using a multiple chronology on more usual crossover episodes, e.g. "The Simpsons Guy", which is an episode of Family Guy and not an episode of The Simpsons. U-Mos (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chicago Fire (season 3)#ep53, Chicago Crossover and Chicago P.D. (season 2)#ep22; Chicago Fire (season 5)#ep101 and Chicago P.D. (season 4)#ep70; Chicago Fire (season 5)#ep107, Chicago P.D. (season 4)#ep77 and Chicago Justice#ep1; CSI: Trilogy; The Vampire Diaries (season 7)#147 and The Originals (season 3)#ep58; Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 1)#ep15 and Law & Order (season 10)#ep219; Bones (season 11)#ep217 and Sleepy Hollow (season 3)#ep36. Also, animation crossover Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!!. I'm sure there are more. --Gonnym (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, shows what I know about American broadcast TV. None of these have articles set up in the same way as the Arrowverse crossovers though (perhaps Chicago Crossover should be, but I digress), so no current case for a more generalised template. U-Mos (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are CSI: Trilogy and Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!! not? The content style of the article matters not, what matters is if the infobox fits - and it does. Both are not an episode article, but a crossover article, both have more than 1 part and should have the chronology section. It's also obvious from the use of the incorrect infobox templates on both of these articles, that the editors didn't know what to use. --Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right; I missed CSI: Trilogy from your list. Doesn't change my opposition to this proposal though - a move to ((Infobox crossover episode)) would be more appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is actually an easier way to do this. I can create a sub-template/module that can be used inside of ((Infobox television episode)) so that you can insert as many chronologies as you want... The only thing blocking this from being merged is that there are multiple chronologies. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • As this infobox is specifically for multiple episodes/crossover events (its name and/or organisation could be improved), my opinion is it should remain separate. U-Mos (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @U-Mos: your statement misses the entire point of Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. It is specifically for 5 pages and can very easily be converted to use a nearly identical template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, I'm aware of that essay. I believe that in this case a crossover infobox should be made more distinct (ie. the multiple episode numbers, writers, directors etc. should be arranged more clearly - and there'd be a case for listing the merged main cast too) to improve, which means it should stay a separate infobox and be developed from there. U-Mos (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Obvious merge candidate, and infobox episode would benefit from the ability to display crossover information. Forking widely-used and well-supported infoboxes just creates more work for everyone. Mackensen (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per nom. Difficult to believe that this series is so unusual as to require its own infobox. Nigej (talk) 16:05, 2 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 March 8. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_Jane_Austen_character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_character (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 relisted on 2019 March 3. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_former_subdivision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_settlement (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 relisted on 2019 February 28. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Germanic_diachronic (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 relisted on 2019 March 17. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_Inhumans_IMAX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_television_episode (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 relisted on 2019 February 28. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:No_personal_headings (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 keep. Two transclusions now (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hormone levels with intramuscular estradiol benzoate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with one transclusion using line charts pictures. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep - Transcluded in two articles now (and possibly a third in the future). Also useful to have as a template for direct linking from outside of Wikipedia. And would be a lot of code to include in the body of the article – cleaner to have compartmentalized. Medgirl131 03:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Doesn't seem to be hurting anyone, and is useful for the cleanliness of utilized articles.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:48, 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).

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).

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 March 9. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 16. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_spacecraft (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 merge to Template:Infobox online service. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox online music service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox online service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox online music service with Template:Infobox online service.
Don't see any reason for separate templates. The missing params can easily be merged. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep infobox online music service is widely used and a significant proportion of parameters are different. It's clear editors of these articles have chosen to use these templates, presumably because they contain and display information readers may find relevant, information that won't be in the new infoboxes. I see no convincing reason to merge. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the templates are merged as proposed, no information will be lost. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, and for the reasons set out at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 16:31, 12 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).