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) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:8TeamBracket-MLS-2legsOnlyQF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by ((8TeamBracket|legs=2/1/1)) Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 5 May 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) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:8TeamBracket-MLS-3set-ExceptFinal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by ((8TeamBracket|legs=3/3/1)) Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 5 May 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 May 13. Izno (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User_article&talk_ban (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:User_article_ban_probation (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) 16:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Warhammer 40,000 Novels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Massive list of red links that have little to no chance of ever becoming articles, as these Warhammer 40,000 novels simply do not receive coverage in third party sources. Of the 16 blue links in the template 13 are redirects to the same list article, 2 are links to other list articles, and 1 is a link to an article on a seemingly NN book sourced only to material from it's own publisher. This is used on one article, List of Warhammer 40,000 novels, where it basically repeats the content of the article in unusable navbox form. If these books do start getting sufficient coverage to justify standalone articles it would be better in my view to add a "novels" section to Template:Warhammer 40,000, which already includes links to the various Warhammer 40,000 book list articles. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wow. What an extreme example of what a navigation template should not be. --Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator, the current state of the template doesn't serve any purpose, the novels can be later added to Template:Warhammer 40,000. Less Unless (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 8 May 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) 16:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:South Georgia Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was marked as deprecated 6 months ago, noting that this may be WP:OR. The template is currently unused. This is a strange way of handling an unwanted template. If it is indeed unwanted, it should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think the reason this got tagged is that we don't assign every US radio station to a navbox, especially those outside of a metro area or well defined region. This can safely go. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:18, 5 May 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) 16:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:U.tv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

U.tv now redirects to itv.com, leaving these 4 uses dead. ((Itv.com)) already exists to link to shows there. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as the buyout of UTV by ITV and closure of the UTV website left no need for this template. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 5 May 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) 16:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FCCmap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Marked as dead in 2017 and currently unused. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I believe this died when the FCC had to stop using Google Maps for some things internally? I recall something of the sort related to changing terms in the API. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:20, 5 May 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) 16:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BitChute (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created in 2019 and unused 2 years later. Safe to assume the community would have used it if it wanted it. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BitChute isn't a site we should be routinely linking to. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:40, 6 May 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) 16:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AMG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template which from the /doc seems to have been meant to be used as one template for both films and games instead of the current 3. Since that didn't happen and the game website has been shutdown, this has no use. Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 5 May 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) 19:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AllGame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As noted in the talk page of this template, the website is now dead and all links lead to a 404 page, making this external link pointless. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Its uses as references should be rescued, probably by WP:URLREQ. Its uses as a non-reference can be deleted. @GreenC:? --Izno (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (There are probably sufficiently few that someone could do it by hand if necessary.) --Izno (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a generic archive URL. It won't work in every case but most. This is one reason we have these templates so anyone can instantly add archive URLs. Unwinding the template to a cite web is custom coding, just for this template. There are many thousands of custom templates, each would require bespoke bot code to unwind when the site dies. It's not practical really, at least not for me. Now, had it been cite webs and square-links, no problem we have tools to support that, no bespoke bot code required. -- GreenC 01:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing any citations with archive-linked citations. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 14 May 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) 14:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Željko Komšić series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Governor Sheng with the reason "There's no "series of articles" on Željko Komšić. All of the links point to just one article - his biography)" FASTILY 02:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey! Yes the links do point to just one article, but so does, for example, the Slobodan Milošević sidebar and his Early life section point to his biography. Plus, the sidebar further down does lead to events which are associated with Komšić during his presidency terms, including his current one. I do hope that it does not get deleted as I belive it does justice to it and that it does have enough information for it to stay on wikipedia. Bakir123 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Komšić is not an important historical figure like Milošević was. I don't know anything about Milošević's sidebar. Sidebar's purpose is to help the readers navigate to the subject directly related to a specific figure. My opinion is that the sidebar was created for political promotion purposes. He is a living politician that did nothing of significance. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Governor Sheng Firstly, in no way was it created for political promotion purposes. Where did you get that from? Secondly, does a person need to do something that much of significance or does it need to be an important historical figure to have a sidebar? I made the sidebar for Komšić solely since he is an important person in the political life of Bosnia and Herzegovina and I belived that hey, why not, let's make him a sidebar, after all he is a head of state (albeit one of three of them) and has done enough things in his political career to have a sidebar. And plus, why is it important if he is a living politician, does someone have to die to have a sidebar? Do Biden, Putin or Boris Johnson need to die have their own sidebar? Bakir123 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Putin, Biden etc, are leaders of major, global powers. Komšić is a minor politician in Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Governor Sheng Minor politician compared to other world leaders, major one in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By that logic then, does Edi Rama's sidebar need to get deleted since he is a "minor" politician in Albania? Does Michel Aoun's sidebar need to get deleted since he is a "minor" politician in Lebanon? Bakir123 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not discussing other sidebars. You're free to do so. What I know is that there's no article directly related to Željko Komšić except the one dealing with his bio. As far as I can see – there's no need for Komšić's sidebar. --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Governor Sheng I appreciate your responses. Well okay, there isn't necessarily an article directly related only to Komšić, but the events during his Presidency are related to him, and some other polticians, in some from or another. The reaction to Kosovo's independence he is mentioned in with a pretty bold statement that he recognised Serbia without Kosovo, even repeated the same stance recently in December 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic link as he is one of the high ranking officials that has led Bosnia's response to the pandemic. The Balkan non-paper one with him stating his strong opinion about it. The article's in a sidebar don't really need to be directly related to someone. It's enough to have a person associated enough with the topic in hand, and Komšić frankly is, in some even more. And yes, I know that you are not discussing other sidebars, but really, Edi Rama's one only has his cabinets as prime minister, his elections and his official trips, and that's okay? In that regard then, Komšić's sidebar one is even more okay, since it is far more detailed and, in my oponion, even more important than Rama's. I do hope that you understant :). Bakir123 (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All of these are just political stunts. Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't recognize Kosovo, his comments on the issue are that – his comments. He changed nothing on the matter, and Bosnia and Herzegovina's recognition of Kosovo remained the same. In essence – his importance = zero. Response of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the corona pandemic has little or nothing to do with the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the great majority of the work is done by the entitites of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Constitution doesn't give any authority to the Presidency in the area of healthcare. His statement about the Balkan non-paper is also just a political comment. I believe Komšić has opinions on other subjects as well, but that doesn't make him "important". --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Governor Sheng I understand that, but how does that make him not "important". He is a head of state, which automatically makes him a person of some importance. Plus, he has been on the political scene of Bosnia for 15 years, and belive me when I say this, he really is one of the most important and most significante political figures in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are even some controversies related to the elections he took part in, which, by the way, I had thought about possibly making an article about. Some years ago he was a leading figure in SDP BiH and one of the most important people during the 2010–2012 Bosnia and Herzegovina government formation, which is also included in his sidebar. Was part of dealing with the aftermath of the 2014 Southeast Europe floods, did some important actions regarding the 2013 JMBG protests in Sarajevo, all of that mentioned in his sidebar as well. I just don't see how that doesn't make him "important" (of course important in Bosnia and the Balkan region, not compared to the USA or Russia :D). So... I really do hope you understant now haha. Bakir123 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend toward delete here. There is probably scope for a ((presidency of Željko_Komšić)) WP:NAVBOX (rather than sidebar), based on the content of this sidebar. --Izno (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, outbound linking can be achieved through standard prose and "see also" linking. in-article linking can be achieved with anchor links. sidebars don't appear on mobile, and are problematic for the layout on articles with a lot of floating content (e.g., infobox and images). Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 14 May 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).