The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 after substitution, noting that any other uses can be transcluded directly from the article using LST. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2020 Bob Willis Trophy North Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2020 Bob Willis Trophy Central Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2020 Bob Willis Trophy South Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless templates, only used once, so we should subst and delete Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete to Bob Willis Trophy where they clearly should be. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:2020 Bob Willis Trophy South Group is used twice - also used on the Kent County Cricket Club in 2020 article. In recent years it seems that only Kent have had articles written on them. There is potential to use these elsewhere as well fwiw - on 2020 English cricket season for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kent article should link to the Bob Willis Trophy article which should contain the detail, the Kent article containing some text "eg Kent finished runner-up in the ...". There's no need for the detailed table to appear in two places. Nigej (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree about there being no need for the table there - particularly with such a short table. Just about every club article linked from Template:2018–19 in English men's football has a cut down version of the relevant league table showing 5-7 places in it, for example. Given that this table only had that many teams in it, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we should do that here as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • More importantly, the nomination is in error in this regard. Regardless of how people think they should be used, one of them is being used elsewhere. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per precedent. Template:2019 County Championship Division One etc are only used in the same places. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Used elsewhere, and has potential to be used in many other places, for example if anyone resumes season pages for more of the counties (similar to every football team, which I believe tend to include similar templates). Bs1jac (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I suppose I should make that clear. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete This is purely static information that has no reason to be in a template regardless of how many pages it is used on. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• subst and delete, single use, and even if it were not single use, we could use WP:LST to show elsewhere. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per Pppery. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete per above. No need to put tables like this in templates when you can put them directly in the article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:46, 25 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 or do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Stellantis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Fiat Chrysler Automobiles with Template:Stellantis.
On 16 January 2021, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Groupe PSA has been merged to form Stellantis. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Groupe PSA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Stellantis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Groupe PSA with Template:Stellantis.
On 16 January 2021, Groupe PSA and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has been merged to form Stellantis. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge - Merging the three templates will result in one overly huge navigation box. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge - FCA and PSA template could be converted to Stellantis US/Stellantis America and Stellantis France, respectively, or whatever they will be called, just like how the Chrysler template was renamed to FCA US LLC template Andra Febrian (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since last post in this discussion Ridwan97 have made significant changes to the templates including renaming ((Groupe PSA)) to ((Stellantis France)). Have these changes resolved the initial concerns or is a merge still desirable? --Trialpears (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to disagree with merges like this since a) it does make large navboxes and b) companies that were fairly notable of their own accord are reasonable targets for navboxes themselves. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge: as per earlier opposition arguments. —Uzume (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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) 18:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FIFA World Cup Sponsors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Yes, the World Cup is sponsored. But is looks like template creep and fancruft to me. The Banner talk 11:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Absolutely template cruft. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 projectspace. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Worcs Mar2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template probably should be substed. It was a one-time newsletter. No issue with moving it to be a subpage of the WikiProject, retargeting all using pages, and subsequently deleting the redirect. Izno (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to somewhere in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire area. A link would be simpler. NB It says it was the second one. Nigej (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to project space. Clearly not useful as a template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:50, 10 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 2021 February 18. (non-admin closure) –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:? (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(s) or module(s) 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) 18:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dallas-Fort Worth grading scheme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This grading scheme is transcluded on only two pages. I think it would make sense to merge it to the assessment page and then just change the category page to link to the grading scheme rather than have the scheme transcluded it in full. The other option would be to use section transclusion (as stated elsewhere, I am not a fan, but that is an option). Izno (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst & delete Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth/Assessment#Quality Scale and link from Category:Dallas-Fort Worth articles by quality per nom. Surely sufficient. Nigej (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:50, 10 February 2021 (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).