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 2019 June 20. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:African_Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Life_in_the_African_Union (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 delete. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Netherlands squad 2019 UEFA Nations League Finals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Netherlnds squad 2019 UEFA Nations League Finals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Long established consensus on WP:FOOTY and past TfD discussions (example here, here and here) to only have international squad navigational boxes for the men and women's: World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition. The UEFA Nations League is not a top level competition, and there was agreement in a discussion from last month that there should not be squad navboxes for this competition. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 08:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nations League is a new concept but I don't think it could be seen as a top level competition otherwise UEFA Champions League or something should be create a list according to this sequence too. KyleRGiggs (talk) 13:04, 13 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).

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. Discussion is now here. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to the full list of nominated templates

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 2019 June 20. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Australian_tropical_cyclone_intensity_small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BOM_Scale_small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:FMS_Scale_small (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 relisted on 2019 June 20. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Saffir-Simpson_small (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 delete. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ISO 3166 adj (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Delete since it is unused. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Seems useful, though I bet it could be implemented better. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The functionality provided by this template (return a country name given a 3166 code) is available from Module:ISO 3166. The module is used in about 500k+ articles. No need to keep this template. —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant per Trappist the monk. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:22, 18 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).

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 2019 June 20. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:This_user_talk (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 relisted on 2019 June 20. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cs1_function (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 merge Template:Deletion history & Template:Multidel to Template:Old XfD multi and Module:Deletion history to Module:Old XfD multi. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Deletion history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Old XfD multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Deletion history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Old XfD multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Multidel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added at 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC))

Propose merging Template:Deletion history and Template:Multidel with Template:Old XfD multi
Propose merging Module:Deletion history with Module:Old XfD multi.
A clear instance of two templates serving the exact same purpose, of listing past nominations for deletion. Note: I have noincluded the TfD tag on Template:Old XfD multi given that the template being merged into it has only one transclusion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Would also support ((Multidel)) being merged into this. --Gonnym (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as well as support merging ((Multidel)) as long as existing transclusions of ((Multidel)) are converted to use ((Old XfD multi)) parameters and appearance. Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• ((Multidel)) tagged and added to nomination (I also support merging it, but simply didn't come across it when making the original nomination). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all It'll make life a lot simpler to only have one of these templates. They all do substantially the same thing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Pppery, Gonnym, Steel1943, and MJL, what do you think of ((Oldprodfull))? Either it ought to be included here, or it would help if someone would explain why it doesn't belong here. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nyttend: It doesn't belong here because the templates I listed are for past deletion discussions and it is for past proposed deletions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nyttend: That's a good question! I see prod as similar to ((Old moves)) in that it isn't a traditional XfD. However, and more importantly, I feel like if we were to include it within this merge that it'd confuse newbies. Prod is a very... different process to get used to. It'd just make it sound as if the article went through a more rigorous review than it actually did by surviving prod. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thank you both for your helpful responses. I wasn't sure whether the focus should be on the deletion process (more broadly) or the discussion (more specifically). Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (all): We don't need three different templates for noting previous XfDs; consolidating templates like these increase the consistency of display (and probably ease of using in the long term). Retro (talk | contribs) 15:11, 10 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).

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) 12:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2019 Liga 2 tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018 Liga 2 tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017 Liga 2 tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018 Liga 3 tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019 Indonesia PFL tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 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).

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DART color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DART lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DART stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DART style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DCTA color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DCTA lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DCTA stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TRE color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TRE lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TRE stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TRE style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((S-line)) templates for Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Denton County Transportation Authority, and the Trinity Railway Express, respectively. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Module:Adjacent stations/Denton County Transportation Authority, and Module:Adjacent stations/Trinity Railway Express. All transclusions replaced. There are also 14 dependent s-line modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 9 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).

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 listify. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Political protests in the 21st century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Navbox's scope is way too wide. I suggest that, before we delete it, we break it down into smaller, more reasonable topics. For example, we can turn each subgroup (i.e Colour revolutions, Arab Spring, Anti-war, etc...) into an independent Navbox (if such Navbox doesn't already exist).

This Navbox isn't helpful at all. Despite its name, it is actually about every protest in the entire 21st century. What will it look like a decade from now, for instance? --Bageense^(disc.) 12:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better covered by a list article or categories. Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes. Navboxes need to focus on a topic with a limited number of articles, or they need to focus on the premier items in a broad topic. I can't envision how to narrow down this topic to a few premier items (especially since 80% of the century hasn't happened yet), and as Bageense notes, the template is simply too large already. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a list a fascinating, encyclopedic and potentially useful resource for modern history inclined readers. Should not be a template, but I wonder if a list (eg Protests in the 2000s, protests in the 2010s) would be a more appropriate format in addition to categories. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to list per Tom. Very surprising there isn't a list already. --Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to list—completely unwieldy as a navigation template at this point and only going to get worse as nom says, but could be useful as list of protests in the 21st century (or split further) —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with nom that some of the categories could be hived off into separate navboxes (colour revolutions and international protests seem like obvious candidates, less convinced of the utility of some of the other sections for this) —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT), Gonnym, and Nizolan:  Done! List of protests in the 21st century. Still working on it though. --Bageense^(disc.) 16:35, 11 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).