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 November 5. Izno (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pictures_PLC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Lincolnshire_preceptories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ATX_size_comparison (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Astronomical_albedo_table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Relative_affinities_of_antiandrogens_at_steroid-hormone_receptors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Astronomical_albedo_table (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 relisted on 2021 November 5. Izno (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ferrari_sales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Lamborghini_sales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Maserati_sales (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 relisted on 2021 November 5. Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Airbus_A220_orders_and_deliveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Airbus_A320_vs_Boeing_737 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Airbus_A320neo_family_orders_and_deliveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Airbus_A330neo_family_orders_and_deliveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Airbus_A350_orders_and_deliveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries (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 relisted on 2021 November 5. Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Airports_in_Sergipe (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 relisted on 2021 November 5. Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Manchester_Airport_annual_statistics (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 relisted on 2021 November 5. Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Applications_for_EU_accession (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 relisted on 2021 November 5. Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BBC_modes (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; deleted as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was used. Not now, so delete — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:41, 26 October 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 November 2. Izno (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Blue_Flag_Beaches_Wales (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 relisted on 2021 November 2. Izno (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Battle_green (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. Izno (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to ((copy edit)), which is heavily used and well known. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 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 November 5. Izno (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bakerloo_line_extension_via_Camberwell_RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bakerloo_line_extension_via_Peckham_Rye_RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bakerloo_line_extension_via_New_Cross_RDT (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. Izno (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Schools in Madhya Pradesh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two articles. The other two are redirects. Fails navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No navigational benefits. Curbon7 (talk) 02:10, 27 October 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. Izno (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:B. Traven (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three links within the navbox outside of the main subject. Not enough for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:54, 26 October 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. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Professional Go players in Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are over 300 professional Go players in Japan. See here. This template is woefully incomplete, has no inbound links, and would be very unwieldy and difficult to maintain if used. There is already a list article covering Go professionals here, which includes a section on Japan.Coastside (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too large for navigation and will require a lot of updating. And on top of that, unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I updated the template (WP:HEY). The template can be maintained by normal editing. The template only needs to include players who have articles, which makes the size reasonable. Hundred of players exist but most do not have articles. Updates are manageable because new articles are written infrequently. Dan rank promotions are also infrequent (especially because players with articles are heavily skewed towards the highest possible rank). As for uses of the template, it's true that there were very few, but it's disingenuous for the nominator to say there are no incoming links when the nominator was the one who removed them (e.g. [1]). In any case, with regard to the "has no likelihood of being used" criterion, now that the template is in better shape, it can be used more. Adumbrativus (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I didn't mean to be disingenuous. There were only three links out of many articles on pro Go players. I meant there were no remaining incoming links, so there wouldn't be redlinks when it was removed. Sorry for badly handling. In any case, if you think this is useful, we can keep. What is the point of a nav for this, though? Isn't the list article sufficient? Do we need this as a nav? If you feel strongly that this is a useful template, I'm ok with it, but doesn't make sense to me. Coastside (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about "disingenuous", it was rude of me. I think the navbox is helpful enough, although I think there's a reasonable argument to be made both ways. The original creator adapted it from ja:Template:日本の現役囲碁棋士 on Japanese Wikipedia, where its usage on pages looks decent.

  As for the list article, my main concern is that it doesn't list the same people. That's because of differences in scope/organization (e.g. inclusion of deceased players). And also because it has its own problems of being out of date and incomplete (fixable, if someone wants to fix it). Maybe there should be a List of current professional Go players? (The template is about current players, even though it doesn't say so explicitly in the title.) I guess if we had such a list, I would be more fine with getting rid of the template. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a lot of work to be done in the articles about Go. I've been putting in effort to clean things up as best I can. I'd like to start bring the WikiProject page into better shape and create a shared to-do list. I think your suggestion is a good one. It would be good if a few like-minded editors collaborated to make these kinds of improvements. Coastside (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Withdraw nom - Given there is a basis for keeping the template, and Adumbrativus's effort to clean up the template, I'll withdraw the nomination. Coastside (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now, the template looks much better now. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 2 November 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 procedural close. The templates listed here are already included in the outcome of this TfD, and thus have already likely been merged into the related module. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 18/shortname templates

Over 150 unused political party shortname templates. These templates are sitting around and it's unlikely they will be used. Created a subpage for the complete listing. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all only if it is guaranteed that deleting them won't mess up anything, specifically their respective colors. From working with these party color templates a bit, I know they can be finnicky. Curbon7 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. The pattern of which meta-template is used where changes over time as editors revise and improve the forms of displaying data regarding elections and political tenure. Having the full range of templates available allows the display formats to be tested and developed and deployed without having to create a flurry of metadata templates ... but deletion would seriously impede that development. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is just as much of a pointless rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic as WikiCleanerMan's previous attempt to delete unused /abbr templates was. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The templates are unused and as such don't need to be migrated over to any system. Even if the new system for any reason, isn't created, these templates are still unused and should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all, eliminating the unused ones is helpful for the construction of a new system since it reduces the amount of data that needs to be considered/ported. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 2 November 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) 15:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cleanup title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Disputed title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Inappropriate title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Inappropriate title soft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:POV title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The proper process for requesting that the title of an article be changed is Wikipedia:Requested moves. All of these template do nothing other than put to page into an evidently unmonitored maintenance category (Category:Wikipedia title cleanup) and shunt the burden of going through the requested moves process to someone else. Also, if kept, consider merging into one template rather than having five templates that all do the same thing.

For transparency, I removed ((cleanup title)) and ((disputed title)) from several articles (and did the task of starting a requested move in several cases) before starting this TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. If someone thinks the current title should be changed, they should RM and not make work for other editors. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This has a valid use case: when a name change is desired but would benefit from further discussion before a WP:RM is initiated (such as when there are no suggested titles or too many). For ((Inappropriate title)), there's additionally the "should the title be changed to match the content or vice versa?" consideration. Furthermore, I think that if these were deleted, somebody would have to go through all the transclusions manually first and decide in each individual case whether the appropriate course would be to remove the template without doing anything about the title, to start a WP:RM, or to WP:BOLDLY move the page to a new title. I also don't agree that these templates are redundant to each other; they offer some nuance as to what the problem with the title is, and that's a good thing. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How many title templates do we really need? And all are used on a short number of articles. Those articles in question can be discussed on the talk pages or requested moves. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems completely out of process and no work is being done to fix the titles. We already have WP:RM which centralizes any discussion for title movement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Gonnym. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed more or less per TompaDompa. The statement that placing a template "shunt[s] the burden... to someone else" isn't always true: it might never go through the process, or the person who originally placed it might come back and do it later. If someone else does pick it up, so much the better. Finally, it serves as documentary value (especially if |reason= and alternate title params are included) and may make induce other editors to head to talk, or even oppose it and come up with a better idea. Mathglot (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, mostly per Mathglot and TompaDompa - there needs to be a way to highlight that the current title is somehow incorrect or disputed without having to also know what the best alternative is. Placing this template should always be accompanied by starting a discussion on the talk page (or placing a link there to a discussion happening elsewhere) and if this does not happen within 24 hours then the template should be removed without action. Ideally it should also trigger an article alerts entry, but (a) I don't know if that's possible and (b) this is probably off-topic for this discussion. These discussions should, within a reasonable time, lead to one of three outcomes - (1) consensus that the current title is unproblematic, (2) an uncontroversial move to another title, or (3) an RM discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The functionality mentioned by Thryduulf already exists in ((requested move)), from WP:RSPM: Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). This does open a formal RM which is listed on WP:RM and will eventually be formally closed; that has the benefit of expediting the process, for better or for worse. If one wants to test the waters, they can always start an informal talk page discussion about the best title for the article without (or before) opening a formal RM. Maintenance templates such as those listed here tend to languish on articles for eternity, and nothing ever gets done.
  P.S. Whichever way this discussion ends, I'd like to express my gratitude to TompaDompa and Pppery for starting the necessary cleanup work at the tagged articles. No such user (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That covers some of the functionality I mention, but does not indicate to readers that the current title is incorrect/inappropriate and an informal discussion is even more likely to languish than a maintenance template. Maintenance templates languishing is not a problem with the template, but with a lack of people doing the work (see also requested splits and mergers). Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Keep !voters have successfully argued that there exists a plausible use case for these templates—articles that ought to be moved but we're not sure where. However, a plausible use case doesn't mean that the templates should automatically be kept. Looking at the costs vs. benefits, I think it would be difficult to police inappropriate ("shunting") use of the template, and even in the appropriate uses, I think the more effective approach for those situations is to start an RM to something to draw in !voters on an unwatched page or, on a popular page, to start a preliminary talk discussion. Regarding how to proceed with the deletion, someone could create a list of the transclusions and place that at WP:RM for someone to go through sometime. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do stuff, don't tag stuff, if at all possible. Forcing these pages into the requested moves process actually gets eyeballs on them. RM "not liking" non-discrete proposals is a problem with that process (if indeed such a problem exists), and bandaiding it up with templates that languish for long times is not the solution. Also per Sdkb's "just because you can, doesn't mean you should". --Izno (talk) 15:59, 5 November 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).