June 22
- 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 Move to userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 22 June 2019 (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).
Template:Purpose needed
- 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) 23:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overly specific inline cleanup tag; in the extremely unlikely case where this would apply directly, why can't ((clarify)) be used instead? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What inline cleanup tags besides ((clarify)) aren't overly specific? Hyacinth (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's unclear what specifically this is for. (What does "purpose" mean in this case?) I also note that it has been redirected out of process. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and oppose redirection. The documentation indicates that it puts articles in Category:Articles needing examples but instead it appears to put them in Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification. I suppose the documentaiton can be corrected but this would make it redundant to the existing clarify template. As for redirecting, the wording is vague and really does not imply clarification is being requested so a redirect would just be confusing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2019 (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).
Template:Chess diagram 24x24
- 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) 23:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No pages using. 217.117.125.72 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the template page). In fact, it is being used at Chess on a Really Big Board. Double sharp (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC) (changed vote, see below)[reply]
- delete: Double sharp, it looks like you could replace this with
((#invoke:Chessboard mxn|board|cols=24|rows=24 rather than passing the parameters through the template (see demonstration here). I would support doing this for all the infrequently used nxm chessboard templates to avoid having one for every size. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, fair enough. Then I think we can safely delete at least: this template,
((Chess diagram 16x16)) (both were only used on Chess on a Really Big Board), ((Chess diagram 12x12)) (was only used on Grant Acedrex), ((Chess diagram 8x12)) (was only used on Courier chess), ((Chess diagram 4x8)) (was only used on Minichess), and ((Chess Diagram 32x32)) (really unused). I've replaced all of them in the articles with Frietjes' code (of course with different numbers). We can have further discussion if it is even worth keeping any of the others except the main and small 8×8 templates, of course. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2019 (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).
Template:1963 2. divisjon Group A table
- 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) 22:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:12, 24 June 2019 (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).