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) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Canadian federal election, 1925 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Canadian federal election, 1926 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Canadian federal election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Canadian federal election, 1979 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Canadian federal election, 1997 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Canadian federal election, 2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Canadian federal election, 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates. Results should be in a table in their corresponding articles Yilku1 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again? This just got defeated last year. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Single-use. Subst on respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: While I agree that these templates are (or were) article content that should be substed into the articles, the nominator did the substing before nominating them, which seems out of process. I recommend that the substing be reverted while this discussion is in progress. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: The nominator took it upon himself to not only paste the information from the template directly into at least two of the articles but to also undo another editor's revert of his pasting. I will undo this tonight. If my work is reverted without this discussion having closed, I shall Oppose the template deletion. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does Canada have to be special? Every time I try to edit the articles to the standards of other election articles it is reverted. What is the problem? This is the same thing that was done with the hundreds of other election templates: copy the template to the article and nominate for deletion. --Yilku1 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not wait for the discussion to close? Maybe pay attention to the established editors of the series of Canadian election articles? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not generally appropriate to subst templates before discussion at TFD concludes. Izno (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all Single-use tables should not be on standalone templates. Number 57 18:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete these single-use templates containing article content, with a trout for Yilku1 for circumventing the normal TFD process. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. In general there is no reason to have these tables as templates. Most of the time they are single use and I'd argue (as I've previously did in other TfD discussions), that often when they are used in more than one article, that usage is just incorrect. Gonnym (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete after substituting into the parent articles. There is no need to keep these single-use tables in template-space. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 speedy delete under the G5 criterion, now that it has been unlinked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:WatchMojo's Best Film of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Award has no independent article, no section within WatchMojo, nor is anyhow sourced. Do not believe it would meet independent notability other than being a list developed by the organization. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What?!, I was just trying to create a simple template. Not do something bad. I'm a normal person creating something normal. Gprice1999 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Gprice1999 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]

No one is accusing you of anything. As the nom pointed out, WatchMojo's Best Film of the Year is not a notable award and as such, should not be included in articles. Gonnym (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But i've read on their articles on their websites pointing out the best film of the year according to their website. Gprice1999 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check it out for yourselves, please! I'm not a bad person though i'm a good person. Gprice1999 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to do my job. Gprice1999 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The award is not notable and tagging articles with it is inappropriate. Gonnym (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No! Gprice1999 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gprice was just found to be a sockpuppet, so I think the template should be deleted and this discussion closed. I don't see what can happen further. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It can (and should) be a speedy delete if it was created by a sock. I'll tag it and other templates they've created. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as G5 and serving as undue weight. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Transcluded templates and categories are not eligible for CSD G5 speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure they are, if they've only been added/transcluded by the sock and you clean up the mess.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I read so at WP:REVERTBAN but now I can't find the passage that refers to templates, only categories. I hate when you can't find the particular policy reference that you know you've seen and read before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I keep a little cheat sheet in my subpages with a bunch of links to policy/guideline bits I can never find otherwise. I get the reasoning behind excluding cats and templates in most situations (the potential of creating a sea of redlinks across multiple articles when the category/template is deleted) but if one removes everything sock-related before deleting, any potential mess is mitigated. Plus WP:IAR comes into play at some point; leaving a bunch of inappropriate categories or templates in articles when removal or deletion would be an easy fix is bureaucracy at its finest. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems all the transclusions have been nuked. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Calvin and Hobbes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, only navigates four articles Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep — The fifth article is Bill Watterson. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title links don't count when invovking NENAN. It's about the links in the body of the template. Moving Bill Watterson into the body won't make sense as for works of literatue or other art forms, the creator or whoever is included in the title of the template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, sufficient navigation, connects six articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This template appears never to have been used, and certainly not recently. There are currently replacements for the relevant processes, listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and elsewhere. Izno (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as completely useless. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 June 18. Izno (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Hawkeye_(2021_TV_series) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).