Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 December 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 16 December 18 >

December 17 edit

Module:Break edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep The template was deleted, only to be undeleted upon finding that a lot of articles which used the module were broken et al. Discuss future prospects in template t/p. (non-admin closure) Winged BladesGodric 10:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason as I presented in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Module:Break (which was closed as delete without the module being deleted): No need for a separate module for this function; this is redundant to Module:String; {{break}} could be implemented as {{#invoke:String|rep|<br/>|{{{1|1}}}}}, which would be identical with the exception of error handling. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as G6 per nom. --TL22 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably should have done a ping: @Johnuniq: {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos/Archive_12#Module:Break as to why the template was undeleted again after the previous nomination (which IMO should have been a "no consensus"). Keep, currently used. Suggestions for replacing it with other code should go to Template talk:Break. —Kusma (t·c) 21:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The module was deleted. It was undeleted because the deletion broke more than 500 articles using the module resulting in them showing ugly script errors. Kusma posted the link to the relevant discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 22 December 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:Province of Ogliastra edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

former subdivision, all the comuni are now in other provinces Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 17 December 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:Protodynastic Pharaohs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, generally redundant to Template:Pharaohs Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 17 December 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:Project 17 class frigate weapon fit edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not used in Project 17A-class frigate Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 17 December 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:Progressive Party (Vermont)/row edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, redundant to {{party color|Progressive Party (Vermont)}} Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 17 December 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:Production discography skeleton edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was deleted per G7 by Anthony Appleyard. (non-admin closure)--John Cline (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and redundant to cut-and-paste of an empty template from the documentation for the infobox Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I totally forgot of this template, so much so that I don't even remember saving it at all; please accept my apologies, and my thanks to you for bringing it to light. I have expedited this deletion by requesting csd-g7.--John Cline (talk) 16:51, 17 December 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:Pro Wrestling Promotions Timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, not clear where this is needed Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 17 December 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:Pro 20 Tie Breaker edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, hard-coded, no clear purpose Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 17 December 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:Privacy International/Privacy index edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 17 December 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:Prince Julian of Moranmoor's Family edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 17 December 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:Primera Regional de Aragón edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 17 December 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:Primera Autonómica de Murcia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 17 December 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:Primera Autonómica de Galicia Group 1 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 17 December 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:Primera Autonómica Preferente de Castilla-La Mancha edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 17 December 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:Prime Minister of Thailand in 2010s edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) duplicates navigation provided by Template:Prime Ministers of Thailand, (2) format is inferior to the navbox since it crowds the article in places where more useful images/sidebars could be included Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 17 December 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:Prime Minister of Thailand in 1930s edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally redundant to other templates like Template:Prime Ministers of Thailand and to the images/tables in the list article Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 17 December 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:Primary Election with Runoff edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 17 December 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:Prev link edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 17 December 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:Presidents of Peru by era edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally redundant to Template:Presidents of Peru Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 17 December 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:Presidents of Indonesia Timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused. could be added to List of Presidents of Indonesia, but in that case, we can add it directly without using a template. Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 17 December 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:Premios 40 Principales categories edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and redundant to Template:Los Premios 40 Principales categories Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 17 December 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:Premier Pageants titleholders edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

old, unused, and not needed Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and not useful. The template's apparent function was to group not-inherently-notable state pageant winners by non-notable pageant organization. Not a notable or defining property of pageant contestants with Wikipedia articles. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 18 December 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:Prehistory of Poland edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 December 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 28 December 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:Preferente de las Islas Canarias edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 17 December 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:Prefecture-level divisions of Hunan edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally redundant to the map in Hunan#Administrative divisions Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 17 December 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:Predynastic Mesopotamian Culture Groups edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, generally redundant to navigation found in Template:Ancient Mesopotamia topics Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 17 December 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:Precambrian graphical timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no longer used, most likely replaced by one of the other timelines in Precambrian Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 17 December 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:Talkspace draft edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Draft. (non-admin closure) Winged BladesGodric 10:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Draft. Redundant with the other draft-tagging header templates that can be used in "Talk:" namespace (which is most of them). Also fundamentally broken; its intent is to be used on talkspace drafts (like other such templates), e.g. for a "Talk:Articlename/draft" page, but it has code for creating a talk page for the draft, which won't work because it's already in the talk namespace. No idea why anyone created this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:24, 17 December 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:Talkspace draft-talk edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See above; this has no legit use-case, since talkspace drafts are already in the "Talk:" namespace and thus can't have talk pages (without doing something daft). Almost all links to it are simply caused by its listing in the {{Userspace Disclaimers}} template navbox. There have been < 10 attempts to do something with this [1] by creating confusingly named pages like Talk:Bishopric of Utrecht/Cartulary section draft-talk. This is both counter-productive (redrafting should be discussed in the page's real talk page, not hidden from view and participation) and a "who cares?" matter today (none of these pages are active, they're just old talkspace detritus like various other archive pages that aren't named "/Archive n", so nothing is broken by them no longer having a special different header template on them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:41, 17 December 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).

User:Larsona/User talk under construction edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was deleted Frietjes (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and would serve no purpose; it's a temporary comment that could have been put in {{Notice}} while it was still needed, but which has been hard-coded into a navbox (not what navboxes are for) as a permanent template. I guess this could also be taken to MfD, but it's actually a template and categorized as one, and, well, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I guess. I had to find out about this via email, and I’m still confused as to exactly what it is. ~ Preceding post created by larsona //Talk// 04:30, 18 December 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:Draft edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete and redirect to Template:Draft article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting: Redundant variant of {{Draft article}}. The {{Draft}} template is used in < 100 pages, and has a bunch of WP:CREEP in it that is already covered in WP:Drafts (it doesn't help to have instructions in the template for how to create the draft, since that has to be done before the template is placed). Its categorization cannot be customized. Meanwhile, {{Draft article}} is used on > 1000 pages, has category customization, useful in-template features, and no instruction creep in it.
Propose renaming {{Draft article}} to {{Draft}} after deletion of the latter, for conciseness. The only parameter accepted by the latter is also accepted by the former, so the transition will be seamless.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I prefer leaving the final version at {{Draft article}}. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but similarly to IJBall, I prefer leaving the final version at {{Draft article}}. "Draft article" specifies that a page is a draft version for an article, and not for some other namespace. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that {{Draft article}} is useful to clarify that a page is a draft version. So, I prefer to leave the final version at the template. --Ykhwong (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template:Draft as instruction creep per nom. It can then be recreated as a redirect to the other template, which should be left where it is because usually a draft becomes an article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{Draft article}}. Draft's an oldie but the new target is the goody. Happy Holidays to all!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both {{Draft}} (including {{Olddraft}}) and {{Draft article}} to {{AFC submission/draft}}. What is the point of having these 2 templates in the first place after these draft articles got deleted without any authors being issued warnings about it at all. These templates are fatally flawed since it does not include automatic warnings that notifies users that it is past six months and it is about to be deleted right now as well. --2602:302:D1A2:C740:9990:FB7F:B300:5ED6 (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are almost 3,000 AfC drafts waiting for review, a severe backlog. So including their template as way to reduce usage is a terrible idea. — Wyliepedia 18:55, 29 December 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).

Module:IUCN status edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 December 29. (non-admin closure) Winged BladesGodric 10:34, 29 December 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:Thailand at the 2018 Winter Olympics edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As of right now, the only links in this template are red ones — no prejudice against recreation when a reasonable number of articles actually exist to use it on — but templates exist to serve articles and not vice versa, so creating the articles comes first and then maybe a template to link them. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Personally I thought this would be considered navbox cruft, but the amount of boxes at the bottom of some articles suggests otherwise. At least delete for now as it's all red links. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete sort of a Too soon case; this template will almost certainly be useful in the future, but not now. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:39, 18 December 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:Local time edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete localtime and local current time. Please feel free to relist "datetime" if you would to see it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Local time and Template:Local current time with Template:Datetime.
Redundant to Template:Datetime with less features. Last thing we need is spam of templates people need to refresh in article namespace. Moxy (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)¨[reply]

@Moxy: Local time is ment to be used in articlesa bout cities but in ongoing testing please do not merge with Datetime as they have diffrerent uses and loow different in many ways. ★BrandonALF★ talk edits 00:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pls don't spam this all over.....the article namesspace is not the place to TEST things. Don't see a template of this nature making into main space.--Moxy (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:I'm sorry about that it's removed now. Can you please understand that these two templates don't need to be merged.

Perhaps your right deletion is in order.....as it adds zero encyclopedic value and needs to be refreshed by readers for it to be correct. Moxy (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:Great! Can you cancel the merge request now? ★BrandonALF★ talk edits 00:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what others say.....as some may think a redirect of the name may be prudent.--Moxy (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:The temple is in testing stages so should not be merged with another template yet. ★BrandonALF★ talk edits 00:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no propsal and as seen by your talk page already....not much chance our editors will want to see this is articles.--Moxy (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:What?★BrandonALF★ talk edits 00:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just to be clear, the issue here was that the template in question only displays a cached record of the time at which it was last updated by either a page edit or an editor manually refreshing the template — but if one of those two things hasn't happened, then the template just keeps displaying the last cached time, even if the last cached time is hours (or days) off actual current time, rather than matching actual current time. And even when it does get manually refreshed, it will still only display correct time for 60 seconds at most before it's back to being (and remaining) wrong until the next time somebody manually refreshes it again. But if your wall clock or alarm clock worked like that, you'd either change the batteries or throw it out if changing the batteries didn't actually fix it — and at least one editor who knows much more about how Mediawiki works than I do has confirmed that it's not just a problem with the template coding that could be easily fixed to make it more useful, but is built right into the very nature of how Mediawiki handles basic page loading. There's simply no value in a clock that requires its viewer to manually update it before it actually displays the correct time — and its only other plausible use, as a "what time was this article last edited?" counter, is already served by the edit history tab. I'll grant that the creator was acting in good faith to try something that he thought would be useful, but it just isn't useful and there's no way to make it so. He can hold it in his sandbox if he really thinks there's any other testing he can do with it — I can't imagine what that would be, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as long as he keeps those tests in projectspace rather than mainspace — but there's no need for it in templatespace if it's not useful and can't be made so. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this temple is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Current Local City Time and should remain that way and should not be merged or deleted. ★BrandonALF★ talk edits 01:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inactive project that literally hadn't done anything in almost a decade until you added yourself to it barely 12 hours ago, precisely because you were trying to make this template happen. You weren't acting on behalf of a WikiProject that had any discussion or consensus that this was warranted — you singlehandedly "revived" a long-dead project earlier today, precisely so that you could give your own preexisting idea the imprimatur of a WikiProject, without actually running it by anybody else first because there are no other participants left there to discuss it with. Before you commandeered it today, that project hadn't undertaken any actual activity since 2008. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Bearcat's explanation has it covered as to why this is worse than useless. If BrandonALF needs code that does precisely what these templates do, for the testing needs he claims, he can put it in a userspace sandbox; the "Template:" namespace is not for temporary code experiments. No need for a "merge" (a redirect); we don't need every conceivable text string someone might imagine to redirect to an extant template that might match what the user is looking for; people can use the search feature and the categories to find utility templates like this, and we mostly all learn about them by osmosis, through encountering them in articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove this article keep it. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_17&oldid=1073609988"