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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fresno FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the team is no longer active; there is no longer a need for a current squad template Joeykai (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2020 (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. General consensus here is that, for various reasons, this template should not exist at this time. I do note the concerns of the first participant about losing the functionality - this template calls the module sandbox, so the work/functionality will not be lost. Assuming that consensus can be reached about implementing the idea of having a duplicate row at the bottom of the template, there is no prejudice against recreation, but per Gonnym it should definitely not be invoking a module sandbox. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Episode table/bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per this request, I am nominating this template for deletion. The goal of this discussion is to find out if there is consensus to optionally use it in Television list articles. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep functionality I don't care if this template is kept, it's only used in one article right now, but the functionality should be kept, either as a template, a module, or a "how do I do this" documentation page so editors can do it "by hand." As shown on List of Homicide episodes, it's useful for long lists to have a "footer" that matches the "header." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Long" tables do not require a duplicate header row at the bottom of the table. The code is mostly duplication, which is never good for upkeeping, the template calls a sandbox module, and major issues could occur between differing widths set in the header and "bottom" rows. "Long" episode tables have never required a bottom row before; I don't see the use in needing one now. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure about this. I personally don't like it, but that's an WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason. Let's talk about the implementation. First, using a sandbox version for a live article (and not for testing) is a no. So that itself should be undone. Second, I've been searching the internet about this feature and it seems it was coded incorrectly. Current code uses a regular table header, while this is a table footer. So this is semantically incorrect. As Alex said, the code also duplicates a lot of the code in the module which I'll also oppose. Finally, it seems that this feature is not really modern, with more modern approaches using some kind of JavaScript to enable either sticky headers or some other kind of implementation. As such, I don't believe that how this was implemented is correct. I'll support the current deletion, so this feature can be worked on more seriously than how it was done. --Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2020 (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 subst and delete. As mentioned, each page is a wrapper for ((ArtAndFeminism article)), which can now handle multiple years. I'll go through and merge any multi-year uses. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ArtAndFeminism2014 article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - links only
• Template:ArtAndFeminism2015 article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - links only
• Template:ArtAndFeminism2016 article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - links only
• Template:ArtAndFeminism2017 article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - links only
• Template:ArtAndFeminism2018 article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - links only
• Template:ArtAndFeminism2019 article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - links only

Now wrappers for ((ArtAndFeminism article)), with the year in a parameter, allowing for future years.

Will never find new uses. Should be subst: and deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions:
  1. Does the new template allow for multiple years? There are several articles with multiple of these banners.
  2. Why do they need to be deleted? Pretty sure they're wikilinked from places that would be better with a redirect.
  3. What is gained by replacing thousands of templates with something that does exactly the same thing? Why not just use this one moving forward? Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. No, but then neither did the former templates. Just use multiple instances.
    2. There are very few such links (see "links only", added above), and almost all of those that do exist relate to this proposal. We don't usually keep unwanted templates just because they were linked to in discussions.
    3. For very similar reasons to those explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and use a modified version of the new template that allows multiple years, moving forward. I agree with the concern above about breaking links. -Masssly (talk)
  • See reply, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If the proposal was to replace the year templates with ((ArtAndFeminism article)) then I support. This is similar to banner mergers. There is no reason to have multiple templates for the same thing. Use the year as a parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support a merge to a single template with a parameter. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I certainly don't see any reason to delete rather than, if it comes to it, deprecate and/or redirect, but I'm ambivalent on substitution. On one hand, I do agree that a flexible template is usually preferable to multiple others that differ only by one number. However, I'd want there to be clarity about what to do about the parameters. It seems like it could easily be confusing where, for example, someone goes to add the template for one year but doesn't because the template already exists, or someone adds it without a parameter, or where someone adds a year or replaces the year of one that already exists (maybe slightly less likely with separate templates). It's not enough of an objection to boldtext oppose it, either... hence meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I support a single template with parameters for the year going forward, yet also agree with others that it may cause confusion, deletion of old templates, or dead links. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation but trust that a more experienced user may understands how to make this work smoothly. Terasaface (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've updated it to support multiple years since there clearly is demand for that in this discussion. Since ((ArtAndFeminism article)) now has more features then the wrappers and makes it easier to update if an article is improved it should be deleted to make the new syntax standard and reduce confusion. I'm not worried about links breaking after checking some of them and most of them are basically I added the template to this article. Links on pages like Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/ArtAndFeminism 2016 instructing people to add the template should of course be updated however. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Zeebo Extreme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles list are redirects. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - navigates to nothing. --Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pagelist/sandboxRange (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused experiment. Contains false positive Linter errors, which might attract attention from well-meaning gnomes (like me). – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Untouched since 2013. I think it's safe to say this will not be missed. --Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2020 (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 merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Angel (1999 TV series) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Angel (1999 TV series) with Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
These two templates are both for two series set in the same fictional universe. The Angel template has around 60% link duplication. Instead of having two templates with a lot of the same links on all these articles, a simple merged template can handle this much more efficiently. This is similar to how Template:Arrowverse handles this. The merged template should be named Template:Buffyverse, after Buffyverse. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, these are two different television shows. Two different templates, related by a spin-off of the popular original. Many fictional universes have crossover components which are notable on their own, such as these two well-established examples. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 60% of the links are the same, so not sure how you can call these "Two different templates". --Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buffy the Vampire Slayer is such an iconic show that having its own template, rather than mixing it with its spin-off, seems appropriate. An overall universe template might work if done extremely well, but that mix seems like it would diminish the map of the important parent show. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge: The Angel navbox could probably be merged into a row or two of the Buffy navbox quite easily. You would probably need only one row for the episode links and any new characters, plus whatever else is unique in the Angel box. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Randy Kryn: Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/sandbox an optional merge. As I said, most of the links were the exact same links, so it's basically just the addition of an Angel specific group and some moving around of a few other entries. --Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I think the TV series has enough pages, so it could have its own template. Furthermore is a different series for a different audience. But I would merge this template with Template:Angel comics and Template:Angel novels instead of the Buffy template. --Dynara23 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Navbox looks good to me. Doug Mehus T·C 15:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. these are different TV shows. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: These shows may be related to one another, but they are still significantly different to warrant separate navboxes. Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2020 (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).