Template:Puteri Indonesia Organization
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 January 25. Izno (talk) 18:20, 25 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:Chicago Heights Subdivsion
- 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 Speedy deleted. Unused creation by a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused train template with no mainspace for use or any other relevant articles for that matter. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:52, 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:Andrei Medvedev
- 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) 18:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these templates are for tennis players and all of these players don't deserve one. They are purely decorative linking articles of very little connection to them other than what tournament they either won or appeared in. Very few articles exist for several of the players and that is very few. Most of the players don't even have a mainspace category. And if they do, the category is the only form of navigation that would be beneficial. The Andrei Medvedev template has no articles about him other than his own. His template is only used on his article. There are no other articles about Andrei Medvedev's career or career statistics. The user behind some of these templates has been told on his talk page to stop creating them. We leave templates for athletes that are more notable. In the case of Tennis, it's Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Serena and Venus Williams, etc. The more noteworthy players. Not every single one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. As noted at the earlier discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 10#Template:Aslan Karatsev these are purely decorative career summaries, fundamentally at odds with the actual purpose of a WP:NAVBOX which is to aid navigation. The templates generally have a multitude of colors, a photo, little icons or colored boxes showing whether it was grass, etc., often many lines followed by "nil", external links, etc. - none of which is any help for navigation between articles. Look at an article like 2018 Sydney International – Men's Singles which has ((Daniil Medvedev)) down the bottom (as the winner). How is this any aid to navigation. Anyone interested in Daniil Medvedev can click on his name in many places (eg the lede, the infobox, etc) and get to his article, the hidden navbox at the end is no use at all. When they get to his article they'll find an infobox which contains a summary of the most important aspects of his career and other details will be in the article. That's the way it's meant to work. Nigej (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most but... - As has been discussed at Tennis Project and two deletion discussions at Template:Samantha_Stosur and Template:Aslan_Karatsev these things are pretty much trivial overkill. Many do not even have the correct tournament names. I would get rid of all of them for all players... even Roger Federer and Serena Williams. Sorry but Venus is a tiny blip on the radar compared to Serena Williams. Federer already has a whopping 21 bottom templates in his articles and our player articles already have navigation through their infoboxes of the most important events in tennis. We really don't need these templates at all. The old way of handling Federer's template was like this, which is more simple and palatable, but again nothing that isn't already in his infobox or Roger Federer career statistics article. These templates have no real reason to exist. But if for some reason we wind up using some arbitrary system for whom to include in having these templates, there is no way you could dump Chris Evert! She is at the pinnacle of our sport. Serena Williams having a template but Chis Evert not having one would smack of WP:RECENTISM and ignorance of how great she is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments/Analysis in terms of deciding what is a suitable entry for a WP:NAVBOX and whether these players need one. One of the principles of a navbox is that "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject." In the list below I've provided a link to the category for these players (mostly red links) and noted the number of articles that genuinely "relate" to the player (excluding the player article itself). As such I've excluded all tournaments. A tournament is not about a player, even the player than won it. It could be that some family members/coaches could be added, but they should only be included in a navbox if they're primarily known because of their association with that player. The fact that so few of these players have categories is a sign that they don't need a navbox; generally a category should be created before a navbox. The ones that do have categories have relatively few entries and, as WP:NAVBOX says, a NAVBOX "If simple, can often be replaced with a category." See eg ((Kobe Bryant)) for what I regard as a good navbox. Nigej (talk) 09:12, 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:EEC evolution timeline
- 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 along Nigej lines. Izno (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Single-use templates used on the Eurasian Economic Union article under the Structural evolution section. However, both seem to mimic each other. The EEC template contains no links and is merely article content. The same could be said for the EAU template even though this has links to relevant articles. I think merging the contents as a list on the main article can do a better job of presenting the relevant information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ((EAU evolution timeline)) which seems excessively complicated given its content. Substitute content of ((EEC evolution timeline)) into Eurasian Economic Union. Indeed the latter could just be a normal list rather than this horizontal-style list:
- 1995 Treaty on the Customs Union between Belarus and Russia
- 1996 Agreement on Increased Integr...
Nigej (talk) 19:04, 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:Pol orgs1
- 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, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused train templates. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 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:California Metrolink link logo
- 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, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused train template. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Template:Rail icon for the first (and maybe the others, haven't looked into them). As best I can trace, I created the first one because the train system of templates was incredibly opaque, searching for it didn't bring up anything, and a similar template existed at ((LACMTA link logo)). At some point later I realized ((Rail icon)) was what I was looking for, so I switched to that, which is why it is unused. But the fact I searched for it makes it a plausible search term, so redirection is the best option. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally am against the redirect. Just noting that for the closing admin. That redirect won't be usable as an editor would think it should and I'm completely against creating a wrapper out of it. Template:Rail icon out of all of the other templates, is pretty simple to understand how it works and the name of the template is extremely clear what it does. Gonnym (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No good reason to redirect has been provided here. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, no need for a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Being an unused template I can't see a need for a redirect. Nigej (talk) 16:23, 24 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:Royal Canadian Mounted Police
- 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, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. The template's entire content is ((flagicon image|Flag of the RCMP.svg)) [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]]. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- comment catsorted -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this should probably be converted to Template:Country data Royal Canadian Mounted Police, per other paramilitary unit countrydata flagtemplates. The RCMP is a uniformed reserve mounted rifleman unit, though rarely called to service (Riel Rebellion, WWI) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it could be put into use, as there exists uses that look identical to this template, which are coded in directly. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. If there is ever a requirement for it, it could readily be recreated (being a trivial piece of code). I don't believe we should retain it on the off chance there will be some future use. Nigej (talk) 15:51, 22 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:Regional Cricket Associations in 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. Izno (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. No main article for this navbox, and not enough blue links to justify its existence. The more comprehensive ((Cricket in Pakistan)) appears to be preferred. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:29, 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:RCB Batting records
- 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, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This is single-article content that presumably belongs at Royal Challengers Bangalore but is not used there. There is no "records" article in Category:Royal Challengers Bangalore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 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:Pol orgs in country
Template:Poptrack/soubes
- 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, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, no incoming links, no documentation, no categories, no parent template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unused graph with no indication what it is. Nigej (talk) 17:23, 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:Planet Waves 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. Izno (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This single-article content exists in a more complete form at Planet Waves. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:00, 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:LA Metro station and sibling 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. Izno (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. These rail templates have presumably been replaced by ((Adjacent stations)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Added one more. --Gonnym (talk) 18:22, 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:SMART stations
- 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, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Rail templates that have presumably been replaced with ((Adjacent stations)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Added a few more. --Gonnym (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ((Smarts)) - it is a useful shortcut wrapper for adjacent stations. (A number of other systems also have these useful wrappers). Delete all others as replacement by adjacent stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If ((Smarts)) were useful, it would probably be transcluded after existing for more than three years. It should also have a much better name, like ((SMART station link)), and some documentation. I would be OK with keeping it if it were improved and transcluded in a few places. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closing admin, I'm against leaving ((Smarts)) as a wrapper.
((stl|SMART)) is already short enough. Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- delete all, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 20 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:RugbyLeagueNomination
- 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) 18:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Abandoned wikiproject templates from 2007. Most edits have been maintenance edits to tidy style and replace deleted templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 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:Washington Huskies men's ice hockey 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. Izno (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, no main article for this navbox, only one blue link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Useless. We don't even have Washington Huskies men's ice hockey so there's zero content. Nigej (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete would only be useful if we had an article for the team, and the three seasons in question (as that would be the only way there'd be enough blue links to justify a template). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 24 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:Western Collegiate Hockey Association men's coach 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. Izno (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Per the lead of Western Collegiate Hockey Association, the men's section of this hockey league is defunct as of July 2021, so there is no longer a use for this navbox listing the current coaches. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Explicitly says "Current men's head coaches ..." Nigej (talk) 17:12, 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:WPAthleticsTab
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. These templates were orphaned with this update to the WikiProject page in 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (and as creator). SFB 01:20, 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:Food portals/core
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused portal template which was replaced by Template:Food portal links horizontal. Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 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:Negros Muscovados roster 2021
- 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 speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 14:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This is either unsourced article content that belongs on an article, or an experiment. The three blue-linked players are listed as playing for a team with a name that does not match this template's name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:33, 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/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 result of the discussion was move back. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused sub-template of Template:Str len. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with history merge and then deletion. Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As a simpler equivalent to histmerge, delete Template:Str len/sandbox (G7) and move this back to where it came from. I moved it because I was surprised that the 2013 version was in the sandbox, but obviously the sandbox just needed synchronizing with the main template not anything else doing to it. User:GKFXtalk 08:34, 19 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 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 result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused sub template of Template:Str find. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't disagree, I do think anyone reading this should take a moment to glance at that "implementation" to remember what a mess string functions were in the days before Lua. :-P Dragons flight (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be surprised, but there are still active messier templates around :) Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, tag historical, and wrap in <pre> tags: I think it’s worth keeping a few of the old string templates for interest, as they were a big part of the debate leading to the installation of Lua, and their whole messy implementation is quite interesting. If they’re wrapped in <pre> then they can’t cause any trouble. User:GKFXtalk 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now and wrap in <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> for now. it would be nice if there were a page in the Wikipedia namespace for documenting what you had to do pre-lua and we could move the code there and delete this subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Frietjes and GKFX: By request, WP:Before Lua. --Izno (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, the new WP:Before Lua is sufficient for documenting the history. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 25 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 result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, no documentation. Only substantive edit was creation in 2019. Appears to be an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Created 3 years ago and not used. There is no community need for it or any of its parameters. Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:20, 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).
- 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 redirect to Template:Chip Ganassi Racing. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. The more comprehensive ((Chip Ganassi Racing)) appears to be preferred in relevant articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is fine with me. It preserves the page history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 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 result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox month. Izno (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Hebrew month with Template:Hijri month into ((infobox month)).
These two infoboxes are extremely similar, with only two parameters different between them. While I am not necessarily saying that either one should be the primary template, I think some sort of new "Template:Non-Gregorian month" template should be made that can encapsulate these two variants (which of course can be kept as redirects to avoid disruption in the article). Primefac (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense. Merge per nom with the new name proposed. Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, indeed they are almost identical and both would benefit from the shared treatment. It may actually be used for Gregorian/Julian months, so maybe simply call it "Template:Infobox month"? I don't oppose your title either, just a thought. --Muhandes (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom; ((Infobox Month)) seems good, then we can also add it to September from the Gregorian calendar etc (and be able to turn off "Gregorian equivalent" in this case) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the name idea, thanks. Primefac (talk) 07:30, 20 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The reason I consider Template:Scrapped being merged with Template:NE 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 after being expended, 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.[reply]
Therefore, Scrapped should be merged to NE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Page Maker II (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose merge If an editor (me, in this case) wants the table entry to say "scrapped" with a color of #FFB367, then the editor can use ((scrapped)) in a table. If the editor (you) wants the table to say "not expected" with a color of #FE7, then the editor can use ((NE)). What you are doing here is a back-door way of editing an article without discussion, which you originally did by redirecting ((scrapped)) without discussion. This gives the appearance that you are acting in bad faith, even if you are acting in good faith. What you should be doing is discussing this on the article's talk page. As it happens, deliberately scrapping a test article cannot reasonably be described as "not expected". It is one of the expected results of one development methodology. Scrapping a test article is not "bad", and neither is intentionally destroying it, which is also an expected result. I want the table to say "scrapped", so I need the template. If we ultimately have no users of ((scrapped)) after we reach consensus in the article, then we can delete the template after a few weeks. -Arch dude (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the table cell NE does say "Not expected" at first, but the template is designed so that the text can be changed to anything you want, including "Scrapped", "Intentionally destroyed", etc. To add the template in source editor, type ((NE, then type |[desired text])). Thanks for understanding. The Page Maker II (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also true of all of the templates in this class, including "scrapped". Since ((scrapped)) existed before you added ((NE)), you were free to use "scrapped" instead of adding NE. To add the template in source editor, type ((scrapped, then type |[desired text])). Thanks for understanding. Since you feel these two should be merged, you should delete "NE" and merge into "scrapped" instead. More generally, by your reasoning we should eliminate all of these templates and merge them into a single set of templates, one for each cell color. I disagree. The templates are there to make it more intuitive for an editor to edit the tables. The reason I added ((scrapped)) in the first place is that another editor complained of being confused by ((Incorrect|scrapped)) in the source, because there is nothing incorrect. Same is true for NE in my opinion.-Arch dude (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know:
- Template:NE is a multi-purpose template. This means that it can be used to say a victory is not expected, a mission is failng, etc. This is the reason I renamed Scrapped to NE, to make your template more useful.
- The name of the template used doesn't really matter. Only the template's background color for the text matters. However, NE is orange, so it is compatible for slightly negative cases, like a rocket being scrapped. Also, Template:No was also used to say a rocket was destroyed.
I am currently working on a template where its colors can be changed. Doing so should should solve this conflict. The Page Maker II (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect. The name of the template and its default text do matter to me and to other editors, because the simplify the source text. This is the entire point of this class of templates. Please acknowledge that you understand my opinion on this point: I understand your opinion and I strongly disagree with it. Your opinion is that it is just as good to use a common template and extra text. I disagree.
- Do you intend to nominate all of the other cell templates for deletion or merger? They are all equivalent. Until you do that please do not single out ((scrapped)) and ((Intentionally destroyed)) for deletion or merger. -Arch dude (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to interested editors: I created ((Scrapped)) originally. A month later, The Page Maker II unilaterally moved it to create ((NE)) without discussion and without notification, and modified it, leaving "Scrapped" as a redirect. This was concurrent with nominating ((Intentionally destroyed)) and with that editor's attempts to re-write SpaceX Starship development without first achieving consensus. The Tfm and Tfd template mess up the table in which these templates are used, so another user then removed the instances of the templates. The effect, if not the intent, is for the nominator to impose a particular result without first reaching consensus. -Arch dude (talk) 05:42, 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:Politics of the Eurasian Economic Union
- 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 00:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar with only four links to articles related to the EEU. Most of which are to the EEU's article sections. Links to the articles of the leaders of the member countries, their respective legislatures, and four articles to who served as chairman of the sessions of the EEU in meetings. Not much here for a separate template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Arbitrary list of topics loosely connected with the Eurasian Economic Union. Not clear why its called "Politics of the ...". Expanding ((Eurasian Economic Union)) to cover a wider group of topics would be a better option. Currently it's just a list of countries. Nigej (talk) 10:09, 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:WikiProject category 2
- 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 00:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. It appears that this template may have been useful in the past, but that ((WikiProject category)) has been updated to perform its functions. I recommend deletion, or merge/redirection if preserving the page's history is important. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 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).