Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 17

< March 16	March 18 >

March 17

Template:TV channel categories

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV channel categories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is eventually becoming useless as its categories are listified by a discussion. Eye snore (pc) 20:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Alakzi (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The tourism of Villabuena de Álava/Eskuernaga

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The tourism of Villabuena de Álava/Eskuernaga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template used briefly by its creator and replaced with a wikilink. May have been intended to duplicate content across Villabuena de Álava/Eskuernaga and The tourism of Villabuena de Álava/Eskuernaga, but I've just merged them. McGeddon (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fits CSD-G6 at this point. All content should go in Villabuena de Álava/Eskuernaga (which should be moved to one name or the other, but that's a different discussion). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Col-6

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Col-6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

rarely used, can be replaced by {{col-break}}, and large fixed numbers of columns are bad for narrow browser screens (better to use div col). Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Historical capitals of Serbia

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep and reformat. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical capitals of Serbia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is based on Capitals of Serbia, which has no references. The template is redundant. All listed historical capitals, with reliable sources, will have the information in the history section as well as in the intro. Zoupan 14:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of this strikes me as a reason for deletion. That a template is based on an article is not a reason for deletion, and this template is not based on that article anyway. That the article has no references is not a reason for deletion, and anyway this information is well-known, no one is disputing any of it, and if anyone wishes to add references it could easily be done. That a template is redundant is not a reason for its deletion, and finally, it is not true that all the capitals will have the information - they may well have the information that they were a capital of Serbia, but they will not have the information about other capitals of Serbia. Nikola (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, but reformat in a less opaque way to capture the information presented in Capitals of Serbia. currently, the format is hard to parse. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with caveat - Per Frietjes' comment above, with the same qualification. I was inherently skeptical of this navbox until I reviewed the articles, and saw that this navbox does provide a useful navigation aid among the several cities that have served as the capital. In restructuring the template per Frietjes' comment, I recommend running the linked capitals, followed by the parentheticals of effective years, chronologically from left to right; this is the way most of our "succession" navboxes are set up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lone Star Soccer Alliance seasons

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lone Star Soccer Alliance seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987 Lone Star Soccer Alliance closed as redirect, which makes this navbox unusable. Tavix | Talk 09:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, all redirects. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Navbox serves no valid navigation purpose: all included links are redirects to the same article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Phil-sources

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phil-sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template to list possible reliable sources. Only used at Talk:Acatalepsy. I think the template isn't necessary and could be better served with a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Reference resources in the WikiProject template or something. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Rename to {{find philosophy sources}} and integrate into the {{find sources}} template family -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, after replacing with a simple {{tmbox}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, I removed it from Talk:Acatalepsy since all of the links provided zero search results. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

First Days of Months templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:First Days of Months 2100–2199 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:First Days of Months 1900–1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:First Days of Months 1800–1899 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:First Days of Months 1753–1799 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These serve no purpose. They are not encyclopaedia articles, far too big to be transcluded into any article. Content wise they are just data. The topic is covered encyclopaedically by Determination of the day of the week, there is no need for these.JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query - For what purpose(s) were these templates intended? These templates are newly created, presently unused, and apparently incomplete; before I vote to delete, I'd like to know what the creator intended they be used for. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete or move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Airsport aircraft

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, navbox has been expanded. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airsport aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template effectively tries to navigate between one item. That is not where templates are for as they should help with navigating between several items. The Banner talk 02:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

!vote withdrawn in light of article creation by Mojoworker described below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAVBOX and precedent. Alakzi (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, only one working sublink, and the articles are already well-connected by normal linking. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have created the missing articles and all 5 links are now working: Airsport, Ultralight aircraft, Sonata, Sonet, and Song. Mojoworker (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: since the rest of the redlinks now have articles the initial deletion rationale no longer applies and the template should be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still a rather meagre template (I would prefer more items) but at least it is now supporting navigation between all three items instead of just one. Request speedy close as keep, as nominator The Banner talk 12:38, 23 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:StrategyWiki

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StrategyWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Listing for deletion per recent deletion of template of another game guide template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_8#Template:GameFAQs. In that it is unreliable being a wiki, and and does not meet WP:VG/EL. Lorson (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently has 513 transclusions. The template should not be deleted until it is shown that there is consensus to remove each of those links; whether they be references or in 'External links' sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Transclusion count is irrelevant. 2. This is removal of the template, not the individual links. 3. There is already consensus to remove gameguide links from EL. 4. This template is for external links, not references, besides there's already consensus it's unreliable WP:VG/RS. 5. If you had actually bothered read the page linked in the nomination, you'd know all this already.--Lorson (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the links are not being removed, then they're better kept in the template; and your "unreliable" claim becomes irrelevant; as it is if the template is used for ELs, not references. This is about StrategyWiki, not gameguide. WP:VG/RS does not mention StrategyWiki. And your attempt to guess what I have and have not read has failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I think you miss the mark with shown that there is consensus to remove each of those links, as I think a discussion such as this one can do just that. What would your comment have been in the case of GameFAQs? --Izno (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No; this is the forum for deciding what templates we want, not what content or external links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until few articles have links to this site, as templates add benefits over simple links in such cases. For instance, the wikia template was kept. —PC-XT+ 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in WP:ELNO which suggests that this an inappropriate link (nor for that matter nothing regarding the GameFAQs link—the only commenter's opinion I happen to agree with is Hahnchen, of all people's). The comment about WP:WEIGHT is bogus. I'm struggling to see how such a link is WP:LINKSPAM as well. I probably need to pay a visit to WP:VG/EL because it doesn't look like that guideline is in tune with WP:EL (and particularly WP:ELNO). --Izno (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny that the comparison with GameFAQs has been brought up, because one of the main reasons for my nomination at the time was that GameFAQs provides gameguide-like material. I don't mind repeating my arguments though.
StrategyWiki is intended for gamers, not for the general reader of Wikipedia. The StategyWiki tagline reads: "Welcome to StrategyWiki, a collaborative and freely-licensed wiki for all your video game strategy guide and walkthrough needs!" Does the average reader of Wikipedia play video games? Maybe, maybe not. Does the average reader need a direct link to StrategyWiki about a video game after reading an article about said video game? Absolutely not.
- WP:VG/EL states: "Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game", and that is exactly what StrategyWiki does: defining how to finish the game, 100% it, find all collectables.
- It fails WP:ELYES No. 3: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, because it isn't relevant to know how to get through a game.
- It doesn't pass WP:ELMAYBE No. 4: Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. While the information itself isn't notable, as StrategyWiki allows anyone to edit it, it can't be verified if it's true to begin with.
So even if there are not clear WP:ELNO arguments that qualify, it still fails the ones that would make it okay for having it. Saying it should stay because it has a template form or because it used on 500 something pages is not an argument. In the end, we're discussing whether or not having StrategyWiki has an EL is okay. I don't see why we should stick with a template to one provider of gameguides, while there are dozens of other sites just like it. That makes it WP:LINKSPAM, giving it WP:WEIGHT (yeah, yeah, that's not for ELs, but still, we give it a bigger spot than it deserves). --Soetermans. T / C 09:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me work down the list of your comments…
intended for gamers, not for the general reader of Wikipedia. Irrelevant. WP:EL does not restrict external links only to general users (reference the large number of scientific general sites linked in the context of birds, animals, etc.) and even implies that this is a legitimate use under WP:ELYES #3. I'm a little incredulous that this is an argument—you certainly wouldn't find a consensus to remove the 100s of links to the various Wikia wikis on comic book characters, etc.

Does the average reader need a direct link to StrategyWiki about a video game after reading an article about said video game? The real question in response to that question is whether the average reader plays a video game. My assertion is yes, but that cannot be substantiated. Either way, Absolutely not. is no more evidenced than my question.

WP:VG/EL states: [snip] WP:VG/EL does not have basis in WP:EL nor do I believe it accurately reflects WP:EL. Nor does it happen to be a community-wide policy, but one which is under the auspices of the WikiProject (which, while it's a good thing to have such guidelines, does not make it a Wikipedia-wide guideline).

It fails WP:ELYES No. 3: Per above, I would assert that it in fact is the perfect link to match the intent of WP:ELYES #3. That said, failure of an enumeration in WP:ELYES does not disqualify a link from use.

It doesn't pass WP:ELMAYBE No. 4: I think this application of both WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE is incorrect. A link does not need to pass everything in each of those two sections to be considered for inclusion (though I think it's clear that this is the case for WP:ELNO).

Saying it should stay because it has a template form [...] is not an argument. This is actually considered a valid argument in this forum.

I don't see why we should stick with a template to one provider of gameguides, while there are dozens of other sites just like it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? There didn't seem to be any discussion about expanding the scope of the template for other game guide providers or for building other templates.

That makes it WP:LINKSPAM Unqualified assertion that is in fact an untrue one. The point of LINKSPAM is to prohibit bad faith actors and especially advertisers, not good faith actors, and I think it's pretty trivial to assert that the vast majority of instances of this template were added in good faith.

giving it WP:WEIGHT (yeah, yeah, that's not for ELs, but still, we give it a bigger spot than it deserves). WEIGHT (and its parent WP:NPOV) is not an inter-article policy nor is it even correct to apply it here, as you attempt to handwave away.
I think that pretty clearly means that there isn't a reason to delete this template (or these links). You're stretching really hard here for a reason not to have these templates. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a clear argument in WP:ELNO. StrategyWiki has been edited by 50 different users in the last 30 days, Point number 12 in WP:ELNO states that open wikis must have "a substantial number of editors.", StrategyWiki has got a substantial number of dormant editors but I don't think that 50 active ones meets the spirit of the "substantial" rule. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MemoryAlpha has a bare 127 active users. I'm skeptical that we'd call one of the largest wikis covering fictional content inactive. WoWWiki has fewer but is on the larger side of MemoryAlpha (Wowpedia more than WoWWiki but still probably on the OOM of no more than 100 actives--I can't check exact numbers because I'm at work). That number isn't persuasive. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is against including the links, not against the template. Come back when you can show consensus to remove the links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, unless there is some discussion I missed which bans this as an external link. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep, keep per Frietjes. This is not a MOS forum. If the template is deleted, it should be subst first. Christian75 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics.
Geography of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics can cover its districts. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz: I have notified the creator of Template:Kyber Pakhtunkwha topics of this pending TfD merge discussion. In the future, please notify the creators of both templates to any proposed merge. Template creators are often among the best sources of background information regarding the architecture, background history, purposes and uses of templates, and my add to the understanding of other TfD participants. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not really a good idea since we have these district templates for all provinces. The template can exist by itself as it is useful in its own right and is easier for navigation of district articles. Besides, there's no real need to further clutter Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics. Mar4d (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There is presently no unifying navigation device for Pakistani provincial districts other than this one. Lumping all of the districts into the generalized "topics" nanvbox only creates a very large navbox with many tangentially related subjects. Better to keep the existing "districts" navbox (and the others like this one), which includes a single coherent topic, with all closely related links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dirtlawyer1. Also, a list of all districts is too granular for a generalised "topics" navbox. Alakzi (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Unused CTA templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CTA Blue Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CTA Brown Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CTA Orange Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CTA Pink Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CTA Purple Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CTA Yellow Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dan Ryan Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Douglas Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lake Street Elevated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Milwaukee-Dearborn Subway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:North Side Main Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ravenswood Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South Side Elevated (CTA) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:State Street Subway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposed deletion: all unused, and all potential usage replaced with standard Route diagram templates. Useddenim (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, so template:CTA Blue Line is redundant to template:Blue Line (CTA), etc. ? it seems like it could be useful to have these reformatted as navboxes, but I can see that this would generally duplicate the navigation provided by {{s-line}}, so probably not necessary. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding notice - @Useddenim: Please notify all of the template creators of this pending TfD instructions per the TfD instructions. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please post the standard TfD notice template on the individual template pages per the TfD instructions. If you are new to TfD, and need help with these procedures, please feel free to continue this discussion on my user talk page. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. Real life interrupted before I finished. Useddenim (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of the notices, Useddenim. Real life can be an inconvenience. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced most (if not all) of these, and should have simply replaced the code in these templates instead of creating new ones. That said, it is highly unlikely that these will ever be used again unless you're interested in historical versions of their corresponding pages. I have no particular feelings one way or the other, so I guess weak delete for me. Lost on Belmont^3200N_1000W (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.