Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 2



Template:Link-ja

 * 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. I misinterpreted the reason for these templates existing. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Not sure why these templates were created, since you'll need more characters to type this out than just using ill. No uses anywhere, but they are subst-only templates so who knows whether they're actually being used by anyone. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Link-ja
 * Link-zh
 * Primefac, they are used by people translating articles from other languages. for example, see the redirects zh:template:link-ja or ja:template:link-zh.  I don't see why they are a problem if they are automatically substituted and reduce the number of pages that I have to fix in Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates. the real question I have is why [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Rich_Farmbrough&dir=prev&offset=20190101031819&limit=250&target=Rich+Farmbrough Rich is making hundreds of cosmetic edits] to change  to . Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , so does that mean it holds a similar function to Cita libro where a user doesn't need to find ill since it will automatically be substed? I suppose that makes more sense. As for RF, I've asked what's going on, but who knows when/if I'll get a reply. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Primefac, more like Literatur since cita libro isn't automatically substituted for some reason. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 3 January 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:The Clover 2030 Engineering

 * 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Not enough links to justify an infobox. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Clover 2030 Engineering
 * Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:17, 4 January 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:TfL Rail from May 2018

 * 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:TfL Rail. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Propose merging Template:TfL Rail from May 2018 with Template:TfL Rail.
 * TfL Rail from May 2018
 * TfL Rail

There is only one transclusion at TfL Rail for this template. We can just merge this to Template:TfL Rail and delete this template and use Template:TfL Rail instead on the TfL Rail article. Therefore, I propose merging Template:TfL Rail from May 2018 to Template:TfL Rail. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, Template:TfL Rail has zero transclusions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge to Template:TfL Rail and transclude the merged template. We don't need to retain separate templates for old editions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:17, 4 January 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:Sandals Resorts International

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Presumably accidentally created in template space and intended as an article. It duplicates Sandals Resorts and so it is not needed. B (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sandals Resorts International
 * Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted with a long rationale. I could close this, but I'm curious to see if the bot reproduces the whole deletion log entry.  Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, that didn't happen. Rationale was IAR. Combo of G6 (accidentally in wrong namespace) with A10 (had it been in the right namespace), and also G12, an unattributed copy of a source requiring attribution.  Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 5 January 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:Mbabel/RKD

 * 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) 13:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Abandoned article draft in the template namespace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mbabel/RKD
 * Delete per nom. Not enough content to merit saving. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. It doesn't even have a single complete sentence; it's three placeholder sentence fragments that would need more content to convey information at all.  Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 7 January 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).