The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:12TeamBracket-NFC-NFL
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused sport bracket. Gonnym (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. The original ((12TeamBracket-NFL)) seems to be preferred, so there's no point keeping it. Nigej (talk) 19:50, 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).
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. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above templates hold parallel lists to what is held in Module:Political party. This is something that should be avoided as the links will eventually (if not already) be out of sync with different short names and colors, or with names appearing in one list but not in the other.
Most usages come from a small number of templates, which makes the conversion relatively easy once the missing data is added to the module. The remaining usages can be handled by AWB or bot depending on the amount left.
Delete and replace per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Has there been some sort of discussion somewhere around merging all national party colour templates into a single one? What is the benefit of such a thing? At the moment, as a user, the main change I can see is that people would need to enter the full name of a political party at every instance rather than something shorter. As such, and subject to a fuller discussion (which may already have taken place), I would say keep for now. Frickeg (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the original discussion, and you can find many other follow up discussions with other country-specific templates folded in. As it stands there are only 2 templates yet to be merged and not because they are special, but because they needed to be untangled first. What is the benefit? I'm pretty sure I wrote that in the first two sentences. Re-read that. Also, your understanding of how the above templates work is flawed - At the moment, as a user, the main change I can see is that people would need to enter the full name of a political party at every instance rather than something shorter just isn't correct. Take for example "australian conservatives":
The same amount of characters for the party (the standard template name is even shorter). Some will probably be using longer names as they conflict with other names, but most of the entries in the template aren't using short names at all. Gonnym (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this detailed response. I apologise for not being clearer about my issue with shorter naming - I was thinking primarily in the very frequently used election result boxes, where I can currently enter "party = Labor" and would need to enter "party = Australian Labor Party" under this proposal. The vast majority of significant parties currently use substantially shorter names that would become much longer here. (If this proposal is successful, there may need to be some further discussion around implementation here, as there are some fiddly issues with some party names to be aware of.) My other concern is that it is currently quite useful to be able to refer to a list of Australian political parties covered by the template (as at Template:Australian party style), which is not remotely practical when the list is instead a list of all international parties, which are so enormous as to be largely useless. (Idea: might it be possible to change the lists at Module:Political party to be broken down by country rather than alphabetically?) Admittedly these are small concerns, but essentially I see this change as one where the key benefit is standardisation and the key downside is a marginally less useful system, and I see the latter as more significant here. I believe the only templates that would need to use the standardised template (i.e. could not use the Australian ones instead) are infoboxes, and the number of parties required by that template is substantially lower than the full list. Frickeg (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Module:Political party cannot be broken down by country instead of by letters as that is change is pretty significant and would require sub-templates to always need a country parameter which more often than not, is not needed. And even if it could, then you would need to use "Australia" and also "Labor" which would then be exactly the same here. Regarding your labor example, looking at Template:Australian politics/party colours, the amount of parties that have "labor" in their names is pretty significant. It would actually be better to use a longer name in this situation so other editors aren't confused. Gonnym (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing, which will take some effort. changing to the new system will result in more characters in many cases, and fewer in others, but overall, there is a benefit to having one system. we could create some slightly shorter names for "party color" using redirects if that's important. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
retain the proposal appears to replace one issue with more issues. The benefit is said to be a single system, reducing maintenance effort. The Australian lists have good visibility and any erroneous edits are quickly & easily corrected. The Australian list however is already lengthy. Dumping them into a single list for every country will significantly reduce that visibility. Further it imposes a barrier to an editor interested in commencing work with Australian politics - to find the correct party from a list that is already so long that it has to be broken up alphabetically will only become harder. One of the reasons the Monty Python "people's front of Judea" joke works is because it reflects life with numerous similarly named parties.
Is it possible to use a different approach to achieve a single system, either modifying these templates so that they populate the module, or alternatively take the values from the module? --Find bruce (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further it imposes a barrier to an editor interested in commencing work with Australian politics - to find the correct party from a list that is already so long that it has to be broken up alphabetically will only become harder. How will it create a barrier for someone? Currently an editor wishing to add a party in this system needs to edit two different pages and make sure they use the same name or things won't work correctly. In the module system they edit one single page. What does it matter to the editor that there are other sub-modules? If they want to add "New party" they go to /N and add it with a single line. It can't be anymore simple than that. If they find that difficult, they can post on the talk page and others do it for them. If they want to find the party, then do a ctrl+F and just search for it in the list. the proposal appears to replace one issue with more issues - You haven't actually found any issues with the module system. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've refrained from commenting so far in the hope that I could be convinced of the merits of the proposal, but I remain very much unconvinced. What is the problem that the module system is solving? It seems from the response to a question about its advantages, is that a duplicate system will eventually diverge, so deleting the originals will prevent this divergence? Is that really it or am I missing something here? As others have stated, the two Australian lists (colours and names) were watchlisted by several knowledgable editors, who could monitor for vandalism or unintentional errors. Now the alternative is to watch around 20 data pages which contain thousands more parties from all over the world – how is that an improvement? The rebuttal about the ease of finding and adding new parties to the list makes it sounds like a simple Ctrl+F, but splitting the lists alphabetically means that finding alternatives can involve searching several lists, particularly where a party has changed name over its history, or starts with "The". The short name issue raised above is slightly more inconvenient (to use the full name) for future templates, but this will still require tens of thousands of exisiting transclusions in 6,000 election result tables (of "Labor", "Liberal", "National", "Greens" and dozens of others) to be edited to replace the short name with the full name to allow this Module to do its work. Who is going to update all these? Yes, it could be done by a bot or AWB but why make thousands of edits to use a new system which seems more difficult to monitor and maintain, and where questions about the performance of this one-size-fits-all solution remain. By all means add all the Australian parties to the module, and if the system is as good as the proposers suggest then we'll all start using it, but at the moment all I'm seeing above is "one system = good" and there are no issues, or any suggested are ignored or dismissed. Deleting the old templates seems a very risky proposition when so much work needs to be done to shoehorn the module system over a existing system which works fine, even given the risk of eventual divergence. --Canley (talk) 06:19, 27 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: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 delete. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each titleholders' template fails NENAN as the maximum number of links some of these have are four, but the rest have three. The footer is useless because all it does gives each titleholder more transclusions than it needs. The organization template is pointless in comparison to Template:Puteri Indonesia which has the same links already and passes NEAN from what I can tell so far. Also, one person who has since been blocked for sockpuppetry created all these templates under two accounts, both blocked. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did you mean to write WP:NENAN? Is this a nomination for a merge, or do you want to delete all of these? The annual templates contain links to BLP articles about the winners; the generic template does not. Deleting the annual templates would delete useful links among articles. I agree that ((Puteri Indonesia Organization)) is redundant to ((Puteri Indonesia)), and the former should be deleted. I recommend either keep or a merge to ((Puteri Indonesia)) for the rest of the templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As noted, there only 3 or 4 genuine links, although padded out with many more (other years, places, etc.). WP:NAVBOX says that "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." However the winners are not really connected and rarely (if ever) mention the other winners in the same year. The truth is that this sort of navbox is only created to be a decorative award banner. The articles generally have succession boxes too. eg Vania Fitryanti. All this clutters up the bottom of the articles and actually making navigation more difficult, users being completely bewildered by the sight of all these banners. Nigej (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Pointless clutter which does not serve a useful purpose, as it links what are mostly unrelated articles together (thus not really achieving the purpose of WP:NAVBOX). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Recent State Legislative Assembly elections in India
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. Primefac (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant template that duplicates existing templates ((Indian elections)) and ((Next Indian elections)). Template:Recent State Legislative Assembly elections in India, should be merged or deleted. Venkat TL (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This Template consolidates Election pages from different states and lists irrespective of the month or year. Hence it is required. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with duplication. The main article linked List of Indian state legislative assembly elections doesn't need this template as the article already lists the latest. The articles in the template doesn't add navigational value either. (What's the value of navigating from say, Punjab state assembly to Tamil Nadu state election?) Petscan shows this being one of a kind template — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 12:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for its temporality and low value in linking arbitrary elections in one time and place to another. --Izno (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Would we have an article called Recent State Legislative Assembly elections in India? No, so the corresponding navbox shouldn't exist either. Nigej (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:League memberships schalke
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, incoming links, categories, or documentation. It appears to be single-article content that matches the intent of an image that is used at FC Schalke 04. The image conveys the information better (at least for sighted readers). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 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:Lorenzo the Elder to Giovanni de' Medici il Popolano
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, incoming links, categories, or documentation. It is unclear how this was or could be used. This family tree information exists in a more comprehensive form at House of Medici. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sort of family tree from 2009. Seems pretty slim so perhaps unfinished. Either way it's not worth keeping. Nigej (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, unnecessary, out of scope and an exact duplicate of the previously deleted Template:Lorenzo Medici the Elder to Giovanni de' Medici il Popolano. DrKay (talk) 20:08, 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:League Table - North One 2008-2009
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Labeltag
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, incoming links, categories, or documentation. Appears to be an abandoned experiment from May 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 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:Kingston clan
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, incoming links, or documentation. This template was used for a while at [[]], but it was removed from that article by one of its primary contributors in February 2021 with the edit summary "outdated source". Consensus seems to be that this template is not needed at that article. Courtesy ping to Scovington. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 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:Israel populations 2013
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:International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. All links in this sidebar redirect to the same article. Not useful for navigation among articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all the individual meetings now redirecting the parent article, it clearly has no navigational purpose. Nigej (talk) 20:00, 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:U.S. states imagemap
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:UAAP champion checker
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. The only edits were creation in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:04, 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 14:11, 30 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:Editnotices/Page/Operation Guardian of the Walls
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldnt the restriction apply to editing the redirect? nableezy - 17:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: I suppose it does, although I'm also not sure anyone's going to enforce that on like, a non-extendedconfirmed user adding ((r from subtopic)) or such. In this case and the Maarakeh massacre/bombing case, though, Aseleste blanked the sanction notice once the page became a redirect. If consensus here is to restore the sanction notices, I wouldn't object to that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Really no point at all in keeping it. Nigej (talk) 14:13, 30 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:Editnotices/Page/Moesha (season 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 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grapesoda22 BLAR'd these articles in September of 2018. The same editnotice appears on the target article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 14:11, 30 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:Editnotices/Page/Maarakeh massacre
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 14:11, 30 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:Editnotices/Page/List of terrorist incidents in April 2017
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles were merged to List of terrorist incidents in 2017 by TompaDompa a year and a half ago. If desired, one of these could be moved to become an editnotice for that page, but I don't think that's really necessary now. It's 2022[citation needed] and people are mostly done edit-warring over what was or wasn't terrorism a whole five years ago. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 14:11, 30 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:UEFA Coefficient Rankings
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:UKEU2016ResultsBar
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. The content is used here, transcluded via another template. It appears that this template was copy-pasted into ((UKEU2016Result)), so this might need a history merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It looks to me like these were independently created and thus a history merge is not needed. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:38, 26 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:Editnotices/Page/Felching
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles were BLAR'd by Dronebogus in November, and, as the content is discussed fairly comprehensively at the target article, the BLARs seem unlikely to be challenged. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 15:28, 31 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:USPE/campaign
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. The only edits to these templates were creation in 2009, followed by G6 speedy deletion templates that were removed by the pages' creator. Whatever these are or were, I do not think they have been useful for over a decade. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 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:USYCI-Crown
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Editnotices/Page/Deaths in 2012
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) 03:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Not needed for redirects. Nigej (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the pages. They serve a purpose when accessing a revision in the redirect's history by permalink or direct click. Don't assume it's a trivial matter of no consequence. Retaining the pages is the trivial matter of no consequence. And the better thing.--John Cline (talk) 04:24, 31 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:Editnotices/Page/Dandelion Program
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subject article was BLAR'd a few days ago by Firefly. Could be moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/DXC Technology to match the BLARing, but accessibility-related content takes up only a small portion of that article, so I don't think this editnotice would be justified there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I assumed that editnotice was a boilerplate one applied to accessibility-related articles in general rather than anything specific. Either way I don't think we need one just for this article, so delete. firefly ( t · c ) 15:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation I can see that it is indeed a boilerplate type notice - that'll teach me to look more closely! My !vote stands however - we don't need it for a redirect, and we don't need it at the target. firefly ( t · c ) 15:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edit notices not required for redirects. Nigej (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Editnotices/Page/Bill O'Reilly
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As implied by the edit notice, consensus was different back in 2011 when there were multiple RM proposals to make Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) a primary topic due to pageviews at the time. That apparently all changed after the events that happened to the political commentator in 2017. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:57, 26 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:Editnotices/Page/Battle of Changsha (fictional)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled another. Same story (except redirected at AfD except merged). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blank. Nigej (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Month header
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) 03:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This header template is uniquely bad in that it is placed at the top of article pages and takes the whole width of the screen for really trivial links. There is a reason we use either sidebars or bottom navboxes and not this style. No need to replace it with anything as ((Months)) exists and is used. Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ((Months)) is quite different. Can't it just be turned into a navbox? Nigej (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that this template could be fixed by editing, specifically by turning it into a sidebar, something like ((Month header/sandbox)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could, but in my opinion it's still of very little value and is already crowded by ((Calendar)), images (September) and a possible infobox that was advocated by two users here. Seems way too much. Out of all mentioned, this one has all its links in the bottom navbox. Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to deletion. I just thought I'd offer an alternative option. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it could be converted to a sidebar, since the month articles currently don't have infoboxes. Then both this and the calendar can be embedded (hook-ed in) into a new infobox when that gets rolled out -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:11, 27 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).
2017 Netball World Youth Cup 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 14:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged a series of 3 articles and 4 templates relating to the 2017 Netball World Youth Cup into a single article. We don't have any other articles in the series but this one was excessively detailed and complex. As a result of the merge the four single-use templates here are no longer used and can be deleted. Nigej (talk) 14:10, 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:Ubon UMT United 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 13:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dissolved clubs have no 'current' squad, so no need for this template. GiantSnowman 12:53, 26 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:Pattaya United 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 13:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dissolved clubs have no 'current' squad, so no need for this template. GiantSnowman 12:53, 26 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:Osotspa 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 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dissolved clubs have no 'current' squad, so no need for this template. GiantSnowman 12:53, 26 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:Air Force Central 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 13:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dissolved clubs have no 'current' squad, so no need for this template. GiantSnowman 12:52, 26 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 California State University
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 13:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused WikiProject banner template whose functionality has been wholly subsumed into WikiProject California, of which this effort is now a subsidiary task force. — ℛogueScholar ₨🗩 13:14, 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).
Miss Earth titleholders by year
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 12:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These templates list the Miss Earth, Miss Air, Miss Water and Miss Fire for each year. These are actually the winner and 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the event, see List of Miss Earth titleholders#Runners-up. Each annual article lists these, eg Miss Earth 2001#Placements. The templates provide this information, a link to Miss Earth (the other 3 link there too) and links to the other templates in the list. So there are only a handful, at most, of actual links in these templates. These templates fail much of what makes a good WP:NAVBOX. The 4 titleholder articles rarely refer to the others and the only navigation actually required is from the titleholders to the appropriate Miss Earth article where (as noted) there is a list of the other titleholders. We already have ((Miss Earth)) and ((Miss Earth 2001 delegates)) etc. which provide useful navigation. This extra set (((Miss Earth titleholders 2001)) etc.) means that we have two navboxes for the same pageant and provides nothing extra in the way of navigation. Nigej (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that we have ((Miss Earth 2001 delegates)) and that any title holder (with a link) is listed there, means that this set is completely redundant. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added the base template to the list. --Gonnym (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too have no special affinity for these (despite having fixed them up in the past), however, I added the footer template to the list as it should be considered together with the rest of them. —Uzume (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I always thought these would be better handled by moving to the WP:SBS/T succession boxes rather than having their own set of such things. Of course the same could be said for all the year to year navboxes in Category:Beauty pageant titleholder templates. —Uzume (talk) 17:18, 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:World religious symbols
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 00:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template just links to articles for religious symbols. Not much provided in terms of navigation aside from being unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image with 9 Religious symbols which you can click on. Seems an arbitrary list. Unused. Nigej (talk) 07:26, 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:World's largest islands location 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 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This old revision contained the locator map. The template was created to show the islands locations in a world map. The current revision does not show a map at all. If this template is deemed not useful by the community, I have no complaints if it is deleted. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:48, 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:Asian Research Network
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 00:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox that meets the minimum criteria for links, there is no mainspace for use failing Wikipedia:NAVBOX. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the TFD nomination is not parseable. The template is transcluded in one article, but only one other article linked from it mentions the Asian Research Network. No main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There is no content for the Asian Research Network, so we can't judge the status of the network. Until there is, the template needs deleting. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 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).