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. ✗plicit 03:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the top three could go. However 2011 Northern Mystics were runners up. Plus there is no hard and fastened rule set here as claimed. User:DjlnDjln (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any additional views for the runners up navbox? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete all, we don't need navboxes for non-championship winning teams. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2022 (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:Cartoon Network creators
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. ✗plicit 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cartoon Network creators is unused and just with the Nicktoon creators, these are too broad for a navbox. There's very little connection with these show creators other than they had shows on the respective television networks. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. as noted the "creators" are not closely "related". Better suited to a list article or a category. Nigej (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2022 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page was orphaned by the nominator without an edit summary; without that action, there would have been no valid TFD reason for this nomination. Pages that can be fixed by editing should not be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of a doc page for navbox? It only includes categories, which can be added to the template. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for templates to have documentation are explained well at Wikipedia:Template documentation. If you have questions about those reasons, that page's talk page would be a good place to raise them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep, documentation pages are useful. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2022 (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:4-polytopes
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. ✗plicit 11:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment though not all polytopes are regular... shouldn't the regular one be merged into the "regular"-free version? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate of the first part of ((Regular 4-polytopes)) "Convex", that template is used instead so there's no requirement for this one. Nigej (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2022 (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:WikiProject Food and drink/Status box
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. ✗plicit 03:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, not likely to be used. Izno (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2022 (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:Startflatlist/microformat
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. ✗plicit 03:25, 2 March 2022 (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:Koralt
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. ✗plicit 11:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear purpose. Nigej (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2022 (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:Hormone levels with estradiol benzoate by intramuscular injection
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. ✗plicit 03:25, 2 March 2022 (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:DirecTV
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. LizRead!Talk! 04:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. The only edits were creation in 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2022 (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:Codeberg
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).
Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gonym Rlink2 (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2022 (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:Pagetype2
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. LizRead!Talk! 04:34, 2 March 2022 (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:Pwlcat
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. LizRead!Talk! 04:35, 2 March 2022 (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:TabButton
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. LizRead!Talk! 04:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok to delete these templates, I have used them in help pages in Greek Wikipedia and I do not intend to build or restore such help pages in English any time soon. ManosHackertalk 00:41, 25 February 2022 (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:Verify edit
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. ✗plicit 11:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the name of the template seems to imply a specific issue, the text of the template is basically a catch-all Please make sure that this article is factually accurate, cites reliable sources, is written from a neutral point of view, and meets other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If there is a specific issue with a specific addition, either tag it inline with one of the dozens already available, bring it up on the talk page, or revert. This banner is the worst option, which is probably why it is also unused. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator, I made this as a test years ago and never used it anywhere. StartOkayStop (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2022 (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:List of chemical element name etymologies
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 the first template, rename the other two. As indicated in the discussion, the latter templates are formatting helpers, and not necessarily the intended target of "storing article text". I note that the text from the template has been merged into the article. If someone is dead-set against having these helper templates as well, there is no prejudice against a renomination. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TG #1 and #8; template being used purely for one article to store articlespace content. -- AsarteaTalk|Contribs 10:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the latter two. They appear to be helper functions for the list itself (the first item in this nom, and equally useful in that way if that were to be merged into its article). Even if they have use only in that one place (be it the template, or if that gets merged back into the List of chemical element name etymologies article), they are used to centralize intricate formatting that is reused 118 times on that page. That allows easy change of format, and easy change of content without risk of breaking the intricate formatting. DMacks (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCleanerMan, from DMacks's !vote above yours (and my later one below): I am genuinely interested in why you think the reuse of formatting templates is not acceptable? -DePiep (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your keep vote is not in line with the policy about what goes on templates. Templates are not supposed to have artice related content. Article content belongs on articles. The subpages will be useless and reusing such formatting when article content is on the wrong space is not appropriate storage or placement of such information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like not-a-reply. All of this has already been addressed above (by DMacks) and below (by me). Including the "no article related[?] content", reuse of formatting templates, btw it's guideline not policy, and the wikilawyering in general. -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And guidelines are standard practice. Every user should be aware of such practice. I highly doubt this template should be given an exception just because two users want it to remain as is. After all, the nominator stated the guideline in his nomination. And no, it's not wikilawyering. If the majority of users follow such a guideline, then it's not wikilawyering if they inform others why such article content should not be on template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
because two users want it to remain as is??? Pls read the two posts I pointed at. At least read the bold part. -DePiep (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the latter two. Of course, "to store articlespace content" can be said about half of all templates having text, numbers or images. So this guideline is misunderstood for this case. Then, ../row and ../row/content do not have any "articlespace content". They are to help/format/reuse; also, they are used repetetively (then, to apply "used on only one page" here is counter to understanding & applying prime Template principles, and wikilawyering). There is no advantage for the article editor having to edit some formatting issue in multiple cells manually (potentially in 118 rows)—instead, such a requirement introduces the plausible risk of formatting variations in the list. Actually, this is why templates exist. -DePiep (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the formatting templates to keep ease of editing. No harm done, TfD not prejudiced. Incidentally, some formatting errors were introduced in the hardcoding change. -DePiep (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would highlight "some formatting errors were introduced in the hardcoding change" as a substantive reason to keep the formatting-helpers. It demonstrates that the layout is intricate enough that even an experienced presumably just trying to hardcode the whole thing via subst: broke it. Guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."WP:RULES and Wikipedia talk:Template namespace discussions appear to have no consensus to make single-page-use templates never-allowed. This case seems like a good example of where not follow the guideline has actual benefit and solves/prevents problems. DMacks (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clearify, at the risk of over-explaining—I'd be sorry for: I'm fine with current setup (I made). Currently, in-article is template ../row (118 times), which processes (formats) in-article parameter input like |meaning="water + begetter" (i.e., content text is in-article, as parameter input, available for editing). IMO resolves main problem raised by nom. The fact that the ../row template is used in 'only one article' (albeit repeatedly, 118 times) is not even an 'exception' I'd say, but YMMV. A pity nom User:Asartea did not return. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this comment (have been busy). I have nothing against keeping the /row templates; they do indeed provide a valuable service. I was mostly concerned with the main template. -- AsarteaTalk|Contribs 18:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute/delete the first but keep the second two. Might be useful to rename the second two to avoid them looking like subtemplates of a non-existing template. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Convert back to table and delete - It used to be a normal table. The current solution can not be edited with the visual editor, and with the text editor you have to figure out the syntax of the template before you can edit the content. Christian75 (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2022 (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:US multiparty balance shading
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. ✗plicit 13:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused shading template. Gonnym (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator. Unused and unlikely to be used under the template as it exists today. May require some restructuring to be usable which I'll do and recreate if ever required in future (unlikely). ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 14:45, 23 February 2022 (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:جعبه اطلاعات هنرمند موسیقی
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. ✗plicit 13:59, 2 March 2022 (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:YRT fare
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. ✗plicit 14:00, 2 March 2022 (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:Year in Quebec
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. ✗plicit 14:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this supposed to go on categories? There are "Category: yyyy in Quebec" categories -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its a wrapper to ((Year in region)) and the example there show it being used for articles, eg 1965 in India. There are a few such Quebec article for the 17th century, eg 1613 in Quebec, but none of these use this template, preferring ((Year box)). Nigej (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2022 (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:Record human space flight by individuals
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. ✗plicit 14:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly get rid of it if the community wishes. But I was asked to enhance SpaceFactsBot to also auto-generate this data table. Creating this template was the first step in the process. Unfortunately, due to COVID and a busy life in general, the project hasn't moved forward much. Anyway, it can be deleted and I will recreate it when I am able to get back to the project. Andrewpullin (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2022 (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:Russians mosaic
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. ✗plicit 14:24, 2 March 2022 (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:SC Bern roster
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. ✗plicit 14:29, 2 March 2022 (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 Winter Olympics Participating National Olympic Committees
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. ✗plicit 14:37, 2 March 2022 (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 FIBA Women's EuroBasket Spain team roster
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. ✗plicit 14:37, 2 March 2022 (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:2016 Olympic Cycling Schedule
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. ✗plicit 14:38, 2 March 2022 (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 Pew poll on public opinion of the U.S. by country
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. ✗plicit 14:38, 2 March 2022 (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:2010 Widnes Vikings squad
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. ✗plicit 14:38, 2 March 2022 (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:2022 Winter Olympics medal table
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. ✗plicit 14:38, 2 March 2022 (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:2020 WNBA Eastern Conference standings
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. ✗plicit 14:39, 2 March 2022 (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:2020 stock market crash
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. ✗plicit 14:39, 2 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 14:39, 2 March 2022 (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:Timeline of ancient Mesopotamia
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. ✗plicit 14:39, 2 March 2022 (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:Total confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people
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. ✗plicit 14:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unused, time-sensitive data outdated, and redundant to a better-designed template. Jroberson108 (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2022 (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:BERKL color
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. ✗plicit 23:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No tranclusions. Unused historic site color templates, presumably orphaned by consensus of editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2022 (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:Nashville SC current roster
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. ✗plicit 23:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - team is defunct, so does not need a 'current squad' template. GiantSnowman 12:23, 24 February 2022 (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:National Symbols of Pakistan
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. ✗plicit 23:49, 2 March 2022 (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:Ireland ODI cricket records by opponent
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. ✗plicit 23:49, 2 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:50, 2 March 2022 (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:Prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe
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. ✗plicit 23:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Created on 4 Apr 2020 and not updated since then. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unused and time-sensitive data outdated; unlikely to be updated or used. Jroberson108 (talk)
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:Nordic countries topic
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. ✗plicit 23:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a now globally user, unused, and just links to Nordic countries. Nothing directly related to topics of the region. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused and a somewhat odd selection of countries. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2022 (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:Sourcehut
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 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 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:SWEint
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 userfy. ✗plicit 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator, would it be possible for me to have those templates in my user space so that I can work on or test them in the future? Querii (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it will be userfied as a subpage of yours. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. Nigej (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2022 (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:Réseau Express Métropolitain
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. ✗plicit 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and does nothing but transclude a file image. No value here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused with only three links. Fails basic navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that it's a minor event, so that the winners are not "related" in any meaningful sense. Nigej (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2022 (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).