Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates

message: *Template:Akhil Bharatiya Rajarya Sabha/meta/shortname
*Template:Akhil Bharatiya Rajarya Sabha/meta/color
*Template:Akhil Bharatiya Loktantra party/meta/shortname
*Template:Akhil Bharatiya Loktantra party/meta/color
*Template:Akhil Bharatiya Lok Tantrik Alp-Sankhyak Jan Morcha/meta/shortname
*Template:Akhil Bharatiya Lok Tantrik Alp-Sankhyak Jan Morcha/meta/color
*Template:Akhil Bharatiya Desh Bhakt Morcha/meta/shortname
*Template:Akhil Bharatiya Desh Bhakt Morcha/meta/color
*Template:Akhand Bharti/meta/shortname
*Template:Akhand Bharti/meta/color
These templates are the parts of the categories, :Category:Party shortnames templates (India) and :Category:Party colours templates (India) which will be using on other templates. Some of them are already part of the :Category:LS2004 templates. So, I object of complete deletion of these templates. Regards,  Shyam (T/C) 02:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since signature templates are not allowed, per Wikipedia:Signatures#Transclusion of templates, I've substed and deleted the template. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *Same as above. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is a useful template that is often used.--Richard McCoy (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections 

message: === Non-transcluded templates ===
How does this process account for templates that have not been transcluded (ie, templates that are substituted)? --bainer (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stubs are excluded. Right now, there is no mechanism or method to know if a template is subst'd all the time or not. I brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Template substitution, but no one has responded. Mistakes have been made (see above). The  template is not put inside a <noinclude> tag, specifically so if a template is substituted, the big bold message will be shown. If you have a proposal or method of knowing which templates are substituted and which ones aren't, please share. Generally speaking, most templates are not substituted, so this really isn't an issue. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if a template is meant to be used only by substitution, there should ideally be some indication of that in the usage documentation on the template page itself. If this is missing from a template and it causes confusion, hopefully adding some documentation after the confusion is sorted out will prevent future recurrence. Bryan Derksen 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I brought that up here, however, there was absolutely no response. There needs to be standardized way to mark templates that are always substituted. Perhaps someone should take this to WP:VPR. --MZMcBride 02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have an objection, though, there should be a little more consensus before this is done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems no one really cares. I've gone ahead and made the move. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! — Black Falcon (Talk) 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, some of those would qualify as being transclusion-less, however, others have many, many transclusions. I'll start going through them soon; any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to pitch in. - Black Falcon (Talk) 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: How does this process account for templates that have not been transcluded (ie, templates that are substituted)? --bainer (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stubs are excluded. Right now, there is no mechanism or method to know if a template is subst'd all the time or not. I brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Template substitution, but no one has responded. Mistakes have been made (see above). The  template is not put inside a <noinclude> tag, specifically so if a template is substituted, the big bold message will be shown. If you have a proposal or method of knowing which templates are substituted and which ones aren't, please share. Generally speaking, most templates are not substituted, so this really isn't an issue. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if a template is meant to be used only by substitution, there should ideally be some indication of that in the usage documentation on the template page itself. If this is missing from a template and it causes confusion, hopefully adding some documentation after the confusion is sorted out will prevent future recurrence. Bryan Derksen 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I brought that up here, however, there was absolutely no response. There needs to be standardized way to mark templates that are always substituted. Perhaps someone should take this to WP:VPR. --MZMcBride 02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-transcluded templates 

message: I suggest this page use the wording of WP:PROD as much as possible, to avoid confusion between the two processes. >Radiant< 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod 

message: Since this page "is not a deletion process" but rather "a way to aggregate templates that can be deleted", I suggest moving it to Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates. As long as it remains a subpage of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, it will be perceived as a formal deletion process. — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an objection, though, there should be a little more consensus before this is done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems no one really cares. I've gone ahead and made the move. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! — Black Falcon (Talk) 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagemove 

message: The scope of :Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates and :Category:Deprecated templates seems to be similar. I would expect that most of the templates in the latter could be transferred to the former for deletion (and perhaps the latter category could be disbanded/deleted). — Black Falcon (Talk) 00:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, some of those would qualify as being transclusion-less, however, others have many, many transclusions. I'll start going through them soon; any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to pitch in. - Black Falcon (Talk) 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Deprecated templates 

message: Could be used in the Astronomy article. Master of Puppets Care to share? 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Secret Treaties 

message: Template:Deln trk LoPbN Entry served 
# to mark LoPbN entries for bios that appeared deletable, 
# to help find those entries again in order to move the corresponding bios a step further along the "deletion track" (say, from CSD to ProD, or Prod to AfD) if deletion did not occur in the earlier step, 
# to prevent the red-link entries resulting from deletion from serving as distractions or soliciting recreation of the deleted bios, once deletion occured, and 
# to help find the uses of the template, for 
#* removal of the entry (in case of deletion) 
#* or conversion of the entry back to template-free form (in case of AfD retention or a compelling argument for retention under CSD or ProD procedures).  
My recollection is that i never noticed anyone but myself using the template; if there were instances of the template in use when the roughly a thousand pages of LoPbN content and infrastructure were deleted under Deletion Review, some bios on "the deletion track" may have escaped attention, since i was indisposed from even the normal process of following up on them at the time, let alone doing so under the conditions of disruption of the templates function that the LoPbN deletion imposed. But that would be of small moment, and no objection to the template's deletion will come from me.--Jerzy•t 02:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Deln trk LoPbN Entry 

message: There are currently two sections: "Templates currently marked for deletion" and "Templates ready to be deleted" - What's the difference? — Sebastian 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Templates ready to be deleted" section is for those templates that have been tagged with  for 14 days or more. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, so we have to wait 14 days before actually deleting them? I see now that it is implicit in the text above the sections, but I didn't make the connection. I'll therefore write it more explicitly on the page. — Sebastian 08:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There's a CFD update pending, to rename :Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates to :Category:Wikipedia deprecated and orphaned templates. It's far from obvious how the 14-days bit works, and presumably just updating  will stuff things up. I imagine :Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates for speedy deletion will need renamed too, but what's the automagical process of moving templates into that category? I updated  - since put it back the way it was - which has apparently confused things. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why two sections? 

message: Per the notice sent to me by User:Black Falcon, I have removed the  tag from this template, as I disagree with the nomination for deletion.
As a member of Canada's military forces, there are times when it is important to me to have a disclaimer that what I am saying is personal opinion and not representative of the Government of Canada. I created the template so that other users who might feel a similar requirement could easily include such a disclaimer. I would be happy to generalize the template so that it could be used by a member of any nation's military. Thanks.    ¥    Jacky Tar  05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I tagged the template, I assumed that you had created it for your personal use and subsequently substed it (there were no incoming links). However, given your explanation above, I agree that the template is not a good candidate for speedy deletion under the general housekeeping criterion. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. As I offered above, I have generalized the template so it is no longer specific to the Canadian Forces.    ¥    Jacky Tar  18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Disclaimer-military

message: Hi -- In wp:NRHP there is rapidly expanding use of  for date-sorting in tables, but i was just informed (by Belhalla at wp:ships) that DTS2 is "deprecated".  I see that there is a category tag "Templates deprecated since March 25, 2008", on DTS2, but the category link is a red-link.
What does that mean, and what does "deprecated" mean?  And i have tried some searches, but do not find my way to discussion of deprecating DTS2, so I don't understand what the issue with it is.  I happen to prefer the syntax for dts2 entry over dts syntax, and dts2 is now built into a NRHP list-table generator tool that is getting increased usage.  Any clarifications would be appreciated.  doncram (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know if this is the reason, but the use of wikilinking dates in order to facilitate format is deprecated.  This is because it is considered a bad idea that readers see something different compared to editors.  Autoformating of dates rely on Special:Preferences, which anons will not have.  Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Taemyr (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  is DTS2 "deprecated" and what does that mean 

message: I can see why this template was orphaned; having created it as potentially useful to anyone trying to understand the relationship of past and present Aintree stations I had forgotten to plug it in to anything. Having added a hatnote to Aintree railway station I will try to add similar links to the other stations it features over the next few days. Britmax (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Aintree Stations]]

message: Concerning the proposed deletion of the  template, I have a more general question about the deletion of templates that were formerly widely used (in this example, the  template was trancluded into ~3000 articles).  As discussed here, I expressed a concern that if this template were deleted, then it would compromise the viewing of older versions of articles that transcluded these templates.  I don't have any strong objections to deleting the  template (and the closely related , ,  templates).  However I wanted to bring up the issue of maintaining the history of articles that translcluded these templates.  Any thoughts?  Boghog (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:CAS registry]] 

message: We still use it but we the Users have been busy with othe stuff, school, other wiki articles. House1090 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE Taskforce ToDo 

message: This template was tagged for speedy deletion as deprecated on July 17. As of July 30 however it is now in use at Aquilegia chrysantha. Leaving note here per . Jujutacular talk 16:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Calphotos]] 

message: This template is a mess up between WP-project and WP-namespace (ie articles). Indeed, as proposed somewhere, TFD-it. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  " Are you all crazy?"