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 00:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As was discussed at Tennis Project, these templates are pretty much useless as they simply show what's already in the article. The Samantha Stoser article was deleted for these reasons. And now one for Aslan Karatzev? These all really need to go... we don't create them just to navigate... they need to have a vital purpose to exist. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Wolbo (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one and only purpose of a navbox is to aid navigation. These decorative templates fail that completely. We have infoboxes "that summarizes key features of the page's subject." Navboxes mustn't be used for that purpose. Nigej (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't mind these, but they should only be created for the top top players. WP:Tennis needs to set a clear threshold for their creation so good editors don't have their time wasted creating them. I would suggest 5+ men's/women's top-level singles titles, which would limit the field down to 19 men and 26 women since 1990. Sod25m (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's quite clear that they shouldn't be created for any tennis players. See WP:NAVBOX "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." that's their only purpose. Decorative summaries like this are contrary to that principle. Top tennis players are not an exception. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, but that will be up to a larger delete discussion after this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You quote "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia", but provide no evidence/argument that these templates don't fit that definition/purpose. But let's wait for the future Tfd Fyunck(click) has foreshadowed to discuss this further. Sod25m (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The problem I have is that this template has clearly been designed to be largely decorative, rather than being designed with navigation as its sole purpose. How does the rainbow color aspect aid navigation? How do sections like "Australian Open Nil French Open Nil Wimbledon Nil US Open Nil" aid navigation? How does a picture of the man aid navigation? Clearly they don't. If they're to be kept they need to focus 100% on how they can be optimally designed to help readers navigate between articles, with no other thought in mind. Nigej (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree the decorative aspects (which were added recently) should be removed, and the number of players with them severely cut down, but Template:Roger Federer for example is in my view clearly useful and fits into a longstanding category of templates for top athletes, which is why I disagree with your sweeping statement that they shouldn't be created for any tennis players. Sod25m (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Agree with much of that. I was referring to These decorative templates which are essentially Decorative summaries like this. Navboxes (focused on navigation) for individuals are perfectly acceptable and indeed quite common. It's the decorative/career summary style I'm objecting to. Even the Federer example you give is excessively long and is more along the lines of a career summary. See eg ((Kobe Bryant)) which is a much more suitable length. Nigej (talk) 11:07, 12 January 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 Indiana
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 00:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Year in Indiana is unused and both only link to categories as there are no articles about years in Indiana. Indiana year nav is used on irrelevant spaces. Don't see the navigational benefit. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both They don't seem to have a useful purpose. WP:NAVBOX says that "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." But there are no articles, only categories. Categories like Category:1829 in Indiana have their own internal navigation provided. Nigej (talk) 20:52, 10 January 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:SRC
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 00:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Entire content is a simple flag template, which is easy enough to generate on its own. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - tucoxn\talk 15:56, 12 January 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:Creation/1
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 00:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content seems to have been merged to the parent template, which I think is a better way to code the template. User:GKFXtalk 19:55, 10 January 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:SPL map
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 00:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Article content. Could be added to Scottish Premier League or List of Scottish Premier League clubs, if anyone is interested. The colors for the various cities are unexplained, which is not a deletion reason, but it would need some explanation, per MOS. I have posted a note to the talk pages of both articles linked above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly critical, and is obviously out of date, but there's nothing wrong with it as such. Suppose it's up to the groupthink of the relevant article maintainers. Analogues like ((MLS labeled map)) are likewise little-used, though in the case of annotated maps they can have utility even with only a couple of transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete2021–22 Scottish Premiership has a perfectly good map showing the location of the clubs this season. Given that it covers "the current Premiership teams in Scotland" I'm struggling to see where else this map could usefully go. As noted, the three-coloured aspect is baffling. Nigej (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not used & not needed. GiantSnowman 17:48, 12 January 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:Current US population
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 00:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template. Presenting data extrapolated in this way feels like a step beyond what WP:CALC permits. User:GKFXtalk 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an unverifiable externallink to the World Population Clock, as it fails to account for change in population growth rate. number. Unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia. Nigej (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not match the external link to World Population Clock], as it fails to account for change in population growth rate. Also, in no circumstance will we need something in an article (aside from the current time, like in ((Time sidebar))) that is updated frequently or on the fly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:42, 12 January 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:Databox star system
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 00:10, 18 January 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:SG/JPS
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) 19:41, 17 January 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:Welcome training Leeds
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) 19:38, 17 January 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:Womusstatus
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) 19:38, 17 January 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:New York City Council districts
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).
Propose merging Template:New York City Council districts with Template:New York City Council.
Template:New York City Council districts and Template:New York City Council are similar enough that Template:New York City Council districts could be merged into Template:New York City Council. HugoHelp (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New York City Council districts Can't see anything to merge. ((New York City Council districts)) is only used in the New York City's 37th City Council district type articles and ((New York City Council)) appears in all those too. Readers wanting to find the 38th district will find two templates down the bottom and will wonder which one to open, when either would do. Better to present just one, they can readily find 38 and click on it. Nigej (talk) 19:11, 10 January 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).
Youth Olympics ice hockey champion navboxes
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) 18:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are different as they are about teams as a whole. They aren't rosters of a winning team like the two nominated by Sabbatino. There has never as far as I am aware been consensus to delete ones like this. Only ones that list the players on a winning team. -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The US one is not used in any biographies. The Finnish one is, but the articles don't generally mention that they played in the 2012 Youth Olympics, see WP:NAVBOX. Nigej (talk) 18:16, 10 January 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:IfCommons
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) 18:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Only substantive edit was in 2013, marked as "preliminary". Creator was indef blocked in 2017, FWIW. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless since this the English Wikipedia, not Commons. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a Transwiki aid for moving files and their file pages to Commons? Or the reverse, for copying a file to local Wikipedias and their file pages, when media becomes high profile in the local Wikipedia (such as featured image, or in a highly viewed use) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 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:ITN update
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) 18:43, 17 January 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:ITN candidates
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) 18:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, no documentation. This appears to be an out of date, possibly misleading version of [[Portal:Current events/((CURRENTYEAR)) ((CURRENTMONTHNAME)) ((CURRENTDAY))]] (with link: Portal:Current events/2024 March 31). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:14, 10 January 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:ITN candidate/image
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) 18:42, 17 January 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:IPL 2019 Statistics
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) 18:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No documentation, transclusions, incoming links, or categories. Appears to be an abandoned experiment from 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 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:IFSL cl footer
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) 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This is article content that exists at Iranian Futsal Super League, the only existing article that could use this code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not used & not needed. GiantSnowman 17:48, 12 January 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:IBARcorporatestructure
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) 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Navbox with only two links, covered easily by "See also" links in the main article and links from the lead of the two articles back to the main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 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:IAAF points
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) 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No documentation, transclusions, incoming links, or categories. Appears to be an abandoned experiment from 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whatever was planned never got off the ground. Clearly related to points in IAAF events but otherwise usage is unclear. Nigej (talk) 14:46, 10 January 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:Hurricane season related
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) 18:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or documentation. This 2008 discussion appears to indicate that the functionality of this template was incorporated into one or more relevant infoboxes, making this template obsolete at this time. All edits to this template since 2008 have been maintenance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 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:Stage short
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) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused progress related template. Gonnym (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other Wikipedia progress templates do get used. This one doesn't and after 10 years I think it can go. Nigej (talk) 14:50, 10 January 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:Hurricane Michael related
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) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This template was used on multiple articles at one time, but they were merged into a single article, so this content is no longer usable as a multi-article transclusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No longer has a purpose. Nigej (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
close this as delete now NoahTalk 17:18, 10 January 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:Hebrewmonth
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) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template which produces the current Hebrew month in Hebrew. Seeing as how this is the English wiki, I don't see a usecase for this. The month itself is a parser function so does not need a template. Gonnym (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Templates.Wikia. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, it should be rewritten to display a couplet of Latin and Hebrew or Yiddish with an option, and be able to covert both ways, not just from Latin to Hebrew -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 10 January 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 13:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just 2 articles linked. Not the minimum of 5. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Not currently useful for navigation. Maybe it will be at some time but we shouldn't be creating navboxes until there's a clear case for them. Creating them to decorate the bottom of articles is not a valid reason for having them. Nigej (talk) 15:00, 10 January 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:Women of Honor World Championship
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 13:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just 4 articles linked.. Not the minimum of 5. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. — Czello 11:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful for navigation. ((Ring of Honor)) provides useful navigation and the "Women of Honor World Championship (reigns)" link there neatly takes you to the list of champions. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 10 January 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 PCAP Related
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 12:58, 17 January 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:Moldovan National Division
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 12:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, no incoming links. This template contains two navboxes that can be (and apparently are) called separately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused wrapper for 2 other templates, created over 10 years ago. Nigej (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not used & not needed. GiantSnowman 17:47, 12 January 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).
Fails WP:BLP for those who doesn't have articles — DaxServer (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is the deletion reason here? That page says Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. I'm sure that we have plenty of family trees with some non-notable living people listed on them. Can this issue be addressed by removing the names of the unsourced living people? WP:BLPNAME says names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed unsourced presumable BLP names per WP:BLPNAME, except for the names of spouses of notable people. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jonesey95 for the cleanup. BLP was the only concern I had for nominating. I suppose, this could be closed as a speedy keep? — DaxServer (talk) 13:28, 10 January 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:Subject bar/item
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 12:56, 17 January 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:Str len subst
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 12:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like whatever the problem was with early implementations of the lua version have been worked out. Delete as per nom. VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 09:37, 10 January 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:Str len/traditional
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:Str find/logic
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:Presidents of Lombard Regional Council
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 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article noted is maintained and this duplicate isn't. Nigej (talk) 15:29, 10 January 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:Presidents of the Romanov Family Association
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 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Created as an article in error, moved to template space, not used. This navbox is doing a job that is better served by a category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:13, 10 January 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:Principals of Somerville College, Oxford
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 12:55, 17 January 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:ProjID
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 12:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Only edit was creation in 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Additionally it is dependent on MediaWiki:Lang, which does not exist. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:52, 11 January 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:Property law AU
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 12:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Substed in 2019 and no longer serves any useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 15:43, 10 January 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:PSL tasks
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 12:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Has no template code. Appears to be WikiProject content created in the wrong namespace. Only one substantive edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invalid template use. If someone from that WikiProject thinks it's useful content, they can subst it to an appropriate place before this is deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 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).
No transclusions. Not enough links for a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hope it's okay now!! No need to delete. Hirok Raja (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Template is now used, and has enough links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 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:Infobox education in province
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:Party shading/Apruebo Dignidad
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 12:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More unused political party shading templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, keeping unused elements in Wikipedia is only confusing to (new) editors. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:10, 10 January 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:Southeast Missouri State Redhawks women's basketball navbox
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 12:52, 17 January 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:Sultan of Brunei uncertainties
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 12:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. Article content living in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Difficult to know what else we can do with it. Clearly article content, perhaps for List of sultans of Brunei, and has been edited a bit over the years, but in 8 years no one's got round to adding it to an article. Nigej (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I got a notice for this, and through exploring the history I created the template many years ago. I can't remember exactly why, or see where its used now. I suspect it was that the history of the Sultans of Brunei was such a mess, and that I had a template on many people's pages, rather than cut and paste and maintain 20 pages information in sync. Surprising as it worked then, but wouldn't be a standard way to structure a WP page now. I'm not massively au fait with the original pages now, but might just merge the text into the main article. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I moved the template text to the main List of sultans of Brunei page. On looking at it the template seemed to be used in a fair number of pages, but obviously over time with changes it was removed, and has become orphaned. I'd probably recommend deleting the template, but as an interested party will leave it to an admin. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 16:09, 12 January 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:Current EP Ireland
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 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An unused duplicate, except that I suppose it's meant to change in 2024. Not a good idea to main a template for "current" MEPs. Not 100% clear to me that we need the other: List of members of the European Parliament for Ireland, 2019–2024 covers it all. Nigej (talk) 16:18, 10 January 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:Galatasaray A2 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 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need these squad templates for reserve/youth teams which is what this team is. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do not need a squad for a youth team. GiantSnowman 17:47, 12 January 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:DUNPenang
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 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. This seems like article content that could be substed into a relevant article, but without documentation or a clear template name, I don't know which article would be appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article content masquerading as a template -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 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:LIRR lines
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 12:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/LIRR and are all unused other than in an example at Template:S-line/doc which should be removed and replaced with an example that is using still in-use templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:47, 10 January 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:World Karate Championships Junior
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 12:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Navbox with no links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Lets have some content first. Nigej (talk) 17:27, 10 January 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:UTA lines and other orphaned rail templates
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 12:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Rail template no longer needed after relevant articles were converted to ((Adjacent stations)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Useddenim, I sympathize, but commenting here will not fix that problem. Please address your concern on an appropriate talk page, either for the Trains project or individual editors who are creating pages without documentation. You could also add ((Improve documentation)) to the page's doc page or inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags on the template page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 16 January 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:Nationalist Congress Party/meta/symbol
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 12:49, 17 January 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:Top 10 Polls
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 12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, vague template name. If this unsourced article content were to be used anywhere, it would presumably be in 2019 U Sports football season. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:51, 10 January 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:Thai–Denmark Khonkaen Star squad 2018-2019
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 12:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. The current roster is listed at Khonkaenstar Volleyball Club. If there is an article for this specific season, this is article content that should be used there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:48, 10 January 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:TSL Pro
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 12:48, 17 January 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:Suburbs of Albany
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 12:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Appears to have been superseded by the more comprehensive and better-formatted ((Towns Great Southern WA)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see a need for its existence? Any other concern stems from the disadvantage of transcluding a collection of links, an arbitrary adjunct to cited content through the scope of npov. ~ cygnis insignis 13:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nominator. Steelkamp (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not very clear what the "Albany region" is exactly. Nigej (talk) 13:39, 12 January 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:Saturday Night Fever soundtrack tracks
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 12:47, 17 January 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:SUG
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 12:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Welcome template intended for use by a single editor. Delete or userfy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator hasn't made an edit for 15+ years. Nigej (talk) 17:20, 10 January 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:Rodez AF
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 12:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with no transclusions and only two links (and two links to categories). Not needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 19:43, 10 January 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:Pror
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 12:40, 17 January 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:Proprietary card games
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) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox created in 2020 with no transclusions, no documentation, no categories. Without documentation, it is unclear why there are so few links in this template, when Category:Dedicated deck card games has hundreds of articles. This navbox seems like it would be impossible to keep maintained. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this with the aim of doing exactly that, but got diverted. The templates for traditional card games are pretty full and new proprietary games are produced all the time, so they probably justify their own template, unless we think the category's enough. If we elect to keep this, I'm happy to populate it. Bermicourt (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how this would work with hundreds of card games being listed, it would not seem better than the category or a list article. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hundreds of proposed links makes it a list article instead of a template. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 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:Profile MDH
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 12:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. A template intended for User space, but highly unlikely to be used. A more generalized template, or a custom table, should work just fine for User content like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:32, 10 January 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:Proclamation of the Republic
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 12:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Template content is just a file and a caption. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless template. Scolaire (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. Just use the file directly. Nigej (talk) 17:34, 10 January 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:Major Depressive DALY Rates
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 12:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. The content is a table that looks like article content but is not used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:23, 10 January 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:Hypersphere volume and surface area graphs.svg
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 12:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This article content is just a file and a caption. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting to know that 5-dimensional spheres have the biggest volume while 7-dimensional spheres have the largest surface area, but it seems that no one wants the diagram. Nigej (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fine with deletion as no longer in use. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:09, 11 January 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:Highways topics
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 12:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. The better-organized ((Road types)) appears to be preferred in relevant articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 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 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:Braintree Town F.C. 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 12:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Only four links in this navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A current squad template for a team in the National League South, the sixth tier of English football. Hardly surprisingly no one's too interested and it rarely gets updated, the parent article Braintree Town F.C. being the suitable place for such material. Also not many of the players have articles, so it's not useful for navigation (even if it was in some). Not encyclopedia content either. I can see that we need to cover current events in some detail but maintaining a template for such a lowly team is simply wasting effort when we should be building an encyclopedia. We have even worse examples: ((Wingate & Finchley F.C. squad)), a team I've never even heard of, at the 7th tier of English football. The "current" squad listed there is 5 years out of date. We need to set a line somewhere and teams at the 6th and 7th tiers, and probably those at the 5th too, are below that line IMO. Nigej (talk) 13:43, 11 January 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:2020-21 NBB 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).
No transclusions, no incoming links. Only one edit, in mid-2021. This is content that presumably would be used only at the parent article at 2020–21 NBB season, which does not exist. Delete or userfy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Presumably the creator has some idea to create the article. Nigej (talk) 18:01, 10 January 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 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. ✗plicit 03:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, it should be deleted. This is according to the deletion policy.
The Page Maker II (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template does not duplicate the other two templates listed. They display different text and different colors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added this template and ((scrapped)), specifically because another editor had grown confused and had complained about the use of ((Incorrect)) together with overriding text ("intentionally destroyed" or "scrapped") in a table. See Talk:SpaceX_Starship_development/Archive_3#Incorrect_templates. The problem is that table source code is already very messy and complicated, so anything that can make it simpler will reduce the chance of error. Yes, these two templates are highly specialized, but so are many of the templates in this class. The documentation (Template:Table cell templates/doc) makes it clear that such specialized templates are acceptable and even encouraged, and templates are cheap. -Arch dude (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After I added this "keep", I found that the nominator had hijacked the ((scrapped)) template and redirected it to the nominator's new ((NE)) template without discussion. I suspect this was done because it's easier to change a template name in the documentation than it is to figure out how to actually add a new template. I think I have repaired that damage, but there is still damage in the documentation related to ((Intentionally destroyed)). I also found that the nominator is engaged in what is effectively an edit war on SpaceX Starship development, which is apparently where all this originated. -Arch dude (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NE is likely able to take the place of Intentionally destroyed. Intentionally destroyed is only specialized for SpaceX test tanks destroyed on purpose, but NE specializes for rockets/test tanks in any slightly negative condition. The Page Maker II (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. "Intentionally destroyed" is for any prototype of any product that is intentionally tested to destruction. This happens in many industries, and it is distinct from "scrapped" and from accidental destruction. NE does not have a meaning unless the user adds replacement text, which defeats much of the purpose of this entire class of templates. You also ended up changing the colors, which had been fairly carefully selected by other editors prior to your change. Please discuss on the articles talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I consider Template:Intentionally destroyed being merged with Template:NE or otherwise deleted is because scrapping a rocket is just as bad as intentionally destroying it. So, I created NE, because it could fit both scrapping and intentionally destroying it. Also, in the future, if a rocket was not found, it is also as bad as scrapping it or destroying it on purpose. NE is not for something like accidental destruction, because that is worse. Thanks for understanding. The Page Maker II (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep alternate templates suggested are not adequate replacements. I believe the nominee did this in bad faith based on action/behavior with the scrapped template. ALKIVAR™☢ 03:29, 11 January 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:Subprojects
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 03:27, 17 January 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:OracoCu
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 03:34, 17 January 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:StableVersion
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 03:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in conformance with en.WP's current way of displaying articles. We don't make claims about the stability of a particular version of an article, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. Surely not the way we operate Nigej (talk) 07:27, 11 January 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).
Propose mergingTemplate:Smaller with Template:Small.
I'm nominating this template for merge with ((small)) because the name is confusing, the distinction is probably unnecessary, and having fewer font variations should make Wikipedia typography look more professional.
In English, the general sequence from biggest to smallest is "small, smaller, smallest". But confusingly, ((small)) (resizing to 85%) produces text that is bigger than ((smaller)) (resizing to 90%). I'd argue that in nearly all cases, 100%-size text would be just fine, but in any case where editors think smaller text is needed, switching from 90% to 85% should be acceptable and will probably go unnoticed. Any page that really, really needs 90%-size text can still use ((resize)). -- Beland (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beland, is there a way to remove the "See TFD" that appears next to every instance where this template is used? It's breaking it. —El Millo (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: I've changed the TFD notice to "disabled" for transcluding pages; hopefully that fixes the breakage you were seeing? -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge, as an acceptable second choice to fixing the obvious bug of "smaller" being larger than "small". Has anyone tested all the other variations to see if, say "large" is larger than "larger"? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
((large)) is "font-size: large". ((larger)) is "font-size:110%". ((large)) does in fact appear larger on my screen. I haven't tested any other combinations. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see a problem. IIRC, "font-size: large" is browser dependent. "font-size:110%" is not. In my opinion, we should take a look at all the font size templates, redirect any that are basically duplicates, and convert all of the rest to percentages. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:13, 11 January 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:Arbinputbox
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 03:38, 17 January 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 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).
