User:PearBOT/TfD test 2



Template:MBTA two lines style

 * 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. Already deleted by. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC) This template was effectively deprecated when was introduced after the January 2011 TfD. It's remained in mainspace but had no effect on article appearance. It's now fully superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/MBTA. Mackensen (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MBTA two lines style
 * Delete per nom. What about ? It seems it itself is also unused. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is, but given the past procedural history with this template I wanted to handle them separately. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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).

Lehigh Valley Railroad s-line 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete - F ASTILY   00:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Lehigh Valley Railroad color
 * Lehigh Valley Railroad lines
 * Lehigh Valley Railroad stations


 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad left/Auburn Division
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad left/Bethlehem – Philidelphia
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad left/Easton and Northern Branch
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad left/Elmira and Cortland Branch
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad left/Flemington Branch
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad left/Main Line
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad left/Niagara Falls Branch
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad left/Rochester Branch
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad right/Auburn Division
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad right/Bethlehem – Philidelphia
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad right/Easton and Northern Branch
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad right/Elmira and Cortland Branch
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad right/Flemington Branch
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad right/Main Line
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad right/Niagara Falls Branch
 * S-line/Lehigh Valley Railroad right/Rochester Branch

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Lehigh Valley Railroad. All transclusions replaced. I've put the 16 S-line subpages within a collapsed section; they're wholly dependent on the three main templates and should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support deletion. We don't need to keep redundant, obsolete templates around.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just so this won't be missed again, Template:Lehigh Valley Railroad lines/branches is also included. --Gonnym (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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).

Merge redundant notification 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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Notified. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Deletion mention with Template:Notified.
 * Deletion mention
 * Notified

Merge the former into the latter. They serve the same function, and the former really has nothing to do with deletion. If we want some different wording options, that can be done with parameters. PS: might also be mergeable, or convertible into a wrapper for the same codebase, but I wanted to just deal with these two first. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Both do the same thing with a slight text difference. Not a reason for different templates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some differences. One allows multiple pages. The other takes an optional reason parameter. How will these differences be resolved? --Bsherr (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * By merging their code and features. That's what merge means (versus, say, delete and redirect).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I have no objection to merge templates that appear redundant, Deletion mention was designed to complement the more official Deletion sorting, specifically for use in deletion discussions, and indeed supports the additional reason parameter. Its documentation also matches this usage, pointing at relevant links about canvassing, etc.  I am however uncertain if other editors (than myself) used this template (all instances are also expected to have been substituted).  If I was the only user, another option could also be a deletion proposal.  No consensus was assessed when I created it.  I also have no objection to userfication if it is considered redundant and useless.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think it's useful; we just don't need two templates for this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with in that Deletion mention is mostly used for deletion sorting. If this merge proposal passes, User:Enterprisey/delsort and similar scripts should be updated accordingly. —  Newslinger   talk   06:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah; I figured the DELSORT stuff was coded to use this, and was thus thinking to merge addl. features of into, but use the more generic name and redirect "Deletion mention" to it so DELSORT scripts don't choke.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:Big Brother sidebar

 * 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 after replacement with Infobox television. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Big Brother sidebar
 * Big Brother sidebar/AU
 * Big Brother sidebar/Bigg Boss
 * Big Brother sidebar/Bigg Boss Kannada
 * Big Brother sidebar/Brasil
 * Big Brother sidebar/Bulgaria
 * Big Brother sidebar/CAN
 * Big Brother sidebar/Celebrity UK
 * Big Brother sidebar/NL
 * Big Brother sidebar/Pinoy
 * Big Brother sidebar/Thailand
 * Big Brother sidebar/U.S.
 * Big Brother sidebar/UK

The Big Brother sidebar and the twelve sub templates should be deleted and the articles should use Infobox television as a replacement.

The reason for this is all of the information can be handled by Infobox television and a list of contestants for that particular adaptation can be added in the starring parameter. For an example of how this looks in action see Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series).

Phasing out the old sidebars and transitioning articles like Celebrity Big Brother (UK TV series) to Infobox television would be a big improvement.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all and replace with Infobox television - these templates have a few issues:
 * They don't follow the television MoS. Specifically they don't follow Manual of Style/Television which says to use Infobox television for the parent article.
 * Sidebars aren't view-able on mobile devices which means that a big section of our readers can't even see these, unlike infoboxes which do appear.
 * They contain a lot of irrelevant information for a high-level article. Each section of the sidebar is a mini-season infobox. The seasons have their own articles and use Infobox reality competition season which handles this information.
 * From looking at parts of the code, it seems that it uses code that doesn't follow MOS:ACCESS in that the rows aren't really rows but each row is just one giant cell with all the information inside it.
 * Replacing with the general infobox will fix all these issues and make the few BB articles that still use this template WP:CONSISTENT with all other series level articles on Wikipedia. --Gonnym (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support the deletion/replacement. We absolutely do not need a zillion TV show templates (much less variants for every edition/season/whatever), especially if they're going to WP:TEMPLATEFORK in strange, guideline-noncompliant directions (which is a WP:CONLEVEL problem).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace per above. In addition as brought up by another editor in a previous discussion many of these sidebars (like the one at Big Brother (U.S. TV series)) hide text by default which shouldn't be done per MOS:DONTHIDE. The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace per above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:S-par/item

 * 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. Already deleted by. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC) This was a method of documenting the variants of s-par which was causing transclusion loops. I've removed it from the 4 variants (out of 200 or so) which actually used it. Cabayi (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * S-par/item
 * Delete as obsolete and replaced.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:Brightline style

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Brightline has been renamed to Virgin Trains USA, and Module:Adjacent stations makes the style templates unnecessary. Daybeers (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Brightline style
 * Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as obsolete two ways at once.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:IPAc-en/pronunciation

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Deprecated in 2015 by in this edit, no longer used or needed. DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * IPAc-en/pronunciation
 * Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as obsolete and superseded by a more capable module.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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).