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. Redundant. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Box-header1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Box-header)) with an archive link specified in |top= parameter, and only used in 4 portal subpages (all currently nominated for G8 speedy deletion). - Evad37 [talk] 13:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like it is an orphan now. Archive templates provide functionality, and ((Box-header)) has ability to customize as described above if there is a pressing desire to avoid archive templates. --Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – redundant, not in use.    — The Transhumanist   01:51, 18 June 2018 (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).

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) 23:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Australian drama TV series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian comedy TV series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian reality TV shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Networks have their own navboxes, these share little in common other than nationality and genre, which is better suited to category navigation. We don't have navboxes for ((UK drama TV series)), ((U.S. drama TV series)), etc, etc. --woodensuperman 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2018 (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).

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) 23:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Seven Wonders of Serbia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox based on a non-notable tourist campaign, and dependent on Seven Wonders of Serbia and Category:Seven Wonders of Serbia, which have both been deleted. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Regardless of merits of notability of the subject, I agree that this template makes little sense without the context of the article and category. --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable subject, no reason to delete. Templates are actually used right for that! Also, we have many sources about this list. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL and reasons stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Wonders of Serbia--DBigXray 11:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Wonders of Serbia. Frietjes (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2018 (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).

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 2018 June 29. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hover_title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:H:swl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:ShowMath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary Wikidata module. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we keep the module? While it's not used yet in production it's a nice demo how math formulae can be incorporated from Wikidata and be used in infoboxes or similar templates. --Physikerwelt (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. This is supposed to be the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and the as an editor sometimes active in mathematics articles the way I learned how to edit formulae was by editing articles and seeing how its done. Pulling formulae from Wikidata is therefore a terrible idea as it frustrates the ability of editors to edit them, learn from them, correct errors and re-use them or parts of them. Especially as there’s no-way to navigate to the relevant Wikidata item (and don’t suggest one should be added, there are already far too many 'edit on Wikidata' links appearing in articles). Whether in an infobox or not this is not the way to do it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no problem keeping this module space is free and it's that old someone may find it and begin using it. -- GreenC 15:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @JohnBlackburne: I agree that pulling formulae from Wikidata is scary. It makes use of the power of linked open data for the price that the wikitext does no longer contain all information that a reader sees. I am not arguing that all formulae should be pulled from wikidata. However, this demo shows what is possible. In theory, the same amethod can be applied to citations and other elements of semistructed lanuage indpendent information. I added another usecase to the module, showing a more reasonable application. --Physikerwelt (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2018 (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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Repeat symbols (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Aside from the extremely idiosyncratic input format, redundant to calling Module:String multiple times. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Module:String multiple times would make the raw page text totally unreadable (a function like this lessens this problem considerably), therefore function is very useful for isotypes, see [1]. In parts of the world (e.g. Netherlands, and probably surrounding countries) isotype is one of the preferred ways to simple stories with stats. Not yet so on Wikipedia.

See also this large isotype. There were issues with the latter page (choice of icons is a bit unintuitive, but that could be fixed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Zachte (talk • contribs) 08:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep replacement would use lua anyway, so no there would be no performance improvements, and there is no harm in keeping the more human-readable module. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Replacement on what page? Nothing that isn't an archive or a user sandbox calls this module. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ahecht. -- GreenC 15:08, 16 June 2018 (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).

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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Headgear (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Hats with Template:Headgear.
Much overlapping yet separate for no good reason. Hats section in destination ought simply be increased, while keeping it conveniently subsectioned. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hats is very large and quite un/disorganized. I'm not per se against a merger, but I also don't have much faith that Template:Headgear won't be badly increased in size as a result. --Izno (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Tend to see these templates as two separate entities, since "Hats" includes much more detail as to the many different kinds of hats, and "Headgear" is a much more general treatment. The choices here (if merged) seem to be either to increase the size of "Headgear" far beyond what it is now, or lose all those navigation links in "Hats". Not in favor of either of those options, sorry.  Painius  ^put'r there  15:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge, per Painius. I see "Headgear" as covering only the main type of headgear, but not just hats. I created "Hats" as a place to find all hats links, not just the main types. This is similar to how Template:Clothing has only the main types of Footwear and Lingerie, but Template:Footwear and Template:Lingerie should have all types of those things. tahc ^chat 17:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge. Some of the contents of Template:Headgear seem very remote to be included in an article about a particular type of hat. To the extent they overlap, I would suggest paring down Template:Headgear. --Bsherr (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Hat template does justification to the diverse hat types, that is not possible in the Headgear template. --DBigXray 11:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Template:Hats has been sorted and improved. Possibly its section on historical headgear could be moved to or at least merged with Template:Historical clothing. On a further note, some of it may be considered for moving or merging with Template:Folk costume, Template:Clothing in South Asia, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2018 (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).

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 2018 June 28. Primefac (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dysprosium_compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Holmium_compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Thulium_compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Radium_compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Protactinium_compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Curium_compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Einsteinium_compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).