Singapore League Cup and Piala Tun Sharifah Rodziah table templates
- 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) 01:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:17, 18 November 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:ThunderCoach
- 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) 22:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template is now redundant to Template:Wichita Thunder and Template:Succession box. ilamb94 (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This template has transclusions, and there is no clear evidence of why this template should be deleted or is safe to delete ... considering that the links present in this template do not seem present on either one of the other templates. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per wp:navbox, succession boxes are preferred to navboxes for positions such as a coach. And I think what Ilamb is getting at is we have a link to the list of coaches in the team navbox now which is how the hockey project handles coaches typically as opposed to separate navboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, the succession links, category, and main article are sufficient for navigation. don't need a fourth method. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 24 November 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:2015 Singapore League Cup Group A
- 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) 01:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:09, 17 November 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 merge to Template:StagecoachGroup. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template is not needed and most linked articles were either never created, have been deleted or currently in discussion for deletion. The remaining linked articles are already present on Template:StagecoachGroup which is already included in every article that Template:StagecoachGold is. Commyguy (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Premature at least wait until the set of AfDs you have initiated are complete. If some or all of them end up being kept, the template would have value. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: All AfDs are now closed leaving 3 non-redirect links in the routes section.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per there are a number of non-deleted bus routes, which survived AfD; some didn't due to low participation, but they could, and perhaps should, be re-created. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with StagecoachGroup - only 2 routes which can be merged into ((StagecoachGroup)). --Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with StagecoachGroup agree with Gonnym. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with Template:StagecoachGroup per nom. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 24 November 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:2019 Summer Universiade men's basketball pool A standings
- 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) 01:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unused and empty, probably replaced by the tables in the article Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 17 November 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:2018–19 NBL Philippines standings
- 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) 02:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unused Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 17 November 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).
Module:Infobox school tracking
- 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) 01:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No longer needed after being replaced with a Module:Check for clobbered parameters Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 17 November 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:2018–19 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division 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) 01:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Frietjes can you point me to the actual discussion on WT:FOOTY please? NZFC(talk)(cont) 17:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- NZFC the original thread is here, with subsequent discussions here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, ... Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, all makes sense to me. Can I suggest when doing the deletions that you link to that first WP:FOOTY discussion instead of the general page. Just so if you have people like me that don't really follow all the threads, can go straight to the discussion that leads to the deletion decision. NZFC(talk)(cont) 17:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- okay, will try to remember to do so. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hope it is ok to also chuck in the extra template for the current year of the NZ Football Championship. Have added it to its article so isn't required either. NZFC(talk)(cont) 00:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @NZFC: please do not bundle new templates to an existing discussion after people have started !voting and discussing. GiantSnowman 10:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that per @Frietjes:'s tagging of the extra page as a G7 speedy (as NZFC had created that template anyway), I've just deleted and unbundled that addition, so the discussion can continue as normal! ~ mazca talk 15:44, 18 November 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).
Hockeyettan
- 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) 01:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 17 November 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).
Module:IPAc
- 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 November 24. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:48, 24 November 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).
Module:IPAc-ro
- 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) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused pre-alpha module by mostly-inactive user. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The archive page shouldn't need to use this archiving module since it's already archived. I always hate to see source code contributions deleted, as, presumably, someone went to a bit of trouble to code this. That said, if it's not being maintained, that's problematic, too. And, if the editor returns, we can always undelete to his or her sandbox, correct?--Doug Mehus T·C 21:45, 17 November 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).
Module:IRC Nick
- 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 Soft delete. No opposition. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.
The archive page shouldn't need to use this archiving module since it's already archived. I always hate to see source code contributions deleted, as, presumably, someone went to a bit of trouble to code this. That said, if it's not being maintained, that's problematic, too. And, if the editor returns, we can always undelete to his or her sandbox, correct?--Doug Mehus T·C 21:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dmehus: This module has nothing to do with archiving, and the creator is banned. Your comment here appears to be misplaced. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pppery Oops, sorry, I copy-pasted my response from other noms. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:57, 17 November 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This massive (31kb) template is used to show links for every single station of this subway system. There are several problems with this. One, there is no need to navigate from one station article to the articles of every station on the same lines - that is what categories are for. (The adjacent stations and line are shown with an unrelated template, which suffices for navigation.) Second, the wrapper template is limited to 20 subtemplates, and this subway system has more than 20 lines.
I personally believe this template should be deleted outright. However, if navlinks are absolutely necessary, then this needs to be broken up into templates for each line, which can then be added individually: ((some wrapper template |1=((Seoul Line 1 navlinks)) |2=((Seoul Line 6 navlinks)) )) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If individual line templates are needed then they can be created easily. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin question for the nominator; you say that you think a wrapper template would suffice, but this is in essence what this template is doing; if you look at any of the articles linked here you will likely see a
(({line1|yes))} or similar parameter, which will then only display that line's information. Mackensen's suggestion to delete this template and recreate the individual templates seems rather pointless if we can simply have them all in one location for ease of updating. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/divvy into individual templates (and then apply WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as appropriate). I'm not a fan of navboxes having any 'complex' logic (which includes selection of certain groups); these templates should be relatively trivial to display and update for any old user. (A similar template at Template:Final Fantasy was much worse and finally fixed.) --Izno (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the current way of handling it is appropriate. The entire navbox isn't actually displayed anywhere so the size issue isn't that large. While making it easier to edit is a noble goal I don't think it's actually a big aid. Updating links is still just as easy, which is what almost all navbox changes are and the ease of adding more sections is by far weighed out by having to use an additional template to have it combine properly. Someone failing at combining the navboxes directly impact the readers while someone struggling to add another section doesn't. If theres a way to combine certain navboxes If stacked on top of eachother that would be great, but I don't believe that is possible. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "One, there is no need to navigate from one station article to the articles of every station on the same lines - that is what categories are for" -- the categories cannot show the relative position of stations (not just adjacent stations) on a line, merely in alaphabetic order. This argument is very weak, tens of thousands of templates will be deleted if this argument is allowed to stand at all languages. The line templates easily show the geographical characteristic of a line in a much simpler way than lists in articles (unless you are not familar with said region). ibicdlcod (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't know the reason to keep/delete, so I'll just defer to Trialpears and say, "per him or her." This seems like a very nice template—especially the subway line colour-coded numbers. It's a bit detailed and maybe could be pruned somewhat, but the editors can handle that. Doug Mehus T·C 21:48, 17 November 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually unused obsolete template. Currently six portals use this; which is down from at least several dozen. Those that did use this got resigned to the MfD dumpster, at least partially because newbies were "nominating" new articles on unwatched sub-sub-pages instead of being bold. Replace with Template:Random portal component. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it could be called "add more pages" instead of "nominate"? In the only instance I just checked, Portal:Somerset, the "nominate" link goes to a page that tells you how to boldly add new pages, see Portal:Somerset/Nominate/Selected article. Such a page with instructions is better than what we have in most portals. —Kusma (t·c) 15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if that would solve the problem of newbies not knowing to update the transclusion counter. But also who's going to put time into implementing it? Rebuilding this template wouldn't be a significant concern for those who want to save portals at MfD. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no issue with this template. If the portal has a dedicated instructions page we may as well use it. I would support a merger or rename if proposed, but really who cares. It's barely used and most, if not all, portals will probably be deleted. Feel free to return here when it's unused though. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Trialpears, I've boldly removed this template from the last five portals that used it. No sense sending users to instructions if those instructions are out of date. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Schierbecker, I've reviewed all removals and the only one I really disagree with is Portal:Somerset. Given that this is only one portal, pherhaps it could be moved to a portal subpage? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Seems duplicative of other portal header templates. That said, I can see no real Earth shattering reason to delete it. Thus, I propose keeping it for now, with the usual proviso that this is without prejudice to renominating it in the future if under-utilized and/or not cleaned up; however, I would also add that I'd like to see it renamed, without leaving a redirect. The titling of this template is very bad. It needs both clarity and concision. Doug Mehus T·C 21:54, 17 November 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).
Module:SimpleArgs
- 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 November 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:15, 28 November 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:ForMultilingualTrans
- 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) 21:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template, plus used only on a bunch of modules I am also nominating for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What a template is simple is not a reason to be deleted, there are many templates that are simpler than this and that are very useful. I have added the documentation. My template does its function and enough. Do you want to give you examples of other simpler templates? Jmarchn (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Insufficient complexity !. Are you kidding us ?. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not kidding you. I genuinely see no need for the text "To translate or review the translation of the module to your language, edit carefully <pagename>" to be generated by a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not creating specific module/template for enwiki use, but cross tools to be used in any WM platform. You must understand that are live beyond enwiki, even over enwiki. You respectable work can not be against the other people work. Thanks to stop the deletion process of this and the rest of this block discussion. Amadalvarez (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly strong, per nom. I agree, the complexity is not significant. This is even to my level that I understand what's going on here. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 24 November 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).