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 nomination opposed. Nearly unanimous opposition to deleting these purely because they are storing article text, indicating instead that at the very least the templates should be nominated in similar groups. Thus there is no prejudice against renomination of any given template (or group of templates) provided it is done sensibly. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm uncomfortable with putting this entire list up for TfD at once. I believe that, for many or most of them, the correct action is to subst to the parent article and delete, but think that some of them will need more care. In particular, ((2021 Canadian federal election synopsis)) is in urgent need of code improvement – it's currently over 100 KiB long and (unlike most of these templates) would make the article very difficult to edit if subst'ed in that form. (I still remember when there was a 32 KB "soft limit" which editors were recommended not to exceed on any given page.) I think the correct action will be to subst-and-delete that template eventually, but it would first need to be rewritten (perhaps in terms of a Lua module to format the rows – the template is very repetitive) so that it doesn't completely dominate the rest of the article. There might well be other special cases like that, and so I'm uncomfortable making a blanket "subst and delete" recommendation in case we end up missing a special case where some other sort of cleanup is desired; in particular, although these need fixing, a single mass TfD is probably the wrong way to fix them. --ais523 23:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Why do you say ((2021 Canadian federal election synopsis))would make the article very difficult to edit if subst'ed in that form, ais523? I just had a look at it, and didn't see anything so ominous or complex; it's just a long table. It's actually pretty well formatted (in comparison to other data tables here). I don't see what first needs to be rewritten, and if it's the case that it's very repetitive—well, it's a data table, after all—then it's the prototypical use of templates, not of a Lua module (which is genrally required for subroutines, not to format rows). I don't see how this table would completely dominate the rest of the article, given that the article already is a collection tables and maps, with very little prose, already. In any case, if it's indeed the case of splitting the table into a separate page, then it's the case of putting it into another article, not another template, and transcluding it back to Results breakdown of the 2021 Canadian federal election, as are Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House_of_Representatives) and Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (Senate) transcluded into 2022 Brazilian general election (this, btw, sort of solves the concern some here have expressed of tables overwhelming article prose). — Guarapiranga☎ 23:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The basic issue is that much of the code behind the template is repeated on every row. Excessively repetitive wikimarkup is hard to edit because a) it obscures the actual information – most of the information onscreen is irrelevant, and b) you have to repeat the repetitive information when adding new information, and the exact way in which to do that isn't always clear (e.g. it's easy to confuse parts of the table which repeat for all rows with parts of the table which repeat for most rows but not all of them). The table would be much easier to use if written in terms of a template like ((aligned table)) (but probably not that one exactly – it can't handle the full range of formatting required), rather than having all the markup written out manually. (Note that such a table-formatting template would probably be useful on more than one article, rather than being single-purpose like the templates nominated here.) --ais523 23:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Break it down into reasonable chunks that relate to each other naturally. This is mind-numbing. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An overly large list that combines templates related to different topics that cannot be discussed together coherently. It is necessary to break the list down into chunks that relate to each other. Nimrodbr (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absolutely ridiculous to nominate this much in one discussion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 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:Import-blanktable
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:NK Krka 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. Izno (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Empty since September 2019. No longer needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:32, 20 June 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 keep. Izno (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four links. Fails NENAN. Same massive list already on director's article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - All films of this director are notable. Some has own wikipedia article. "No need for navbox when navigation is provided on said article" this is a weird logic, there are thousands of film director templates who are similar. Their filmography is already provided in his biography article's filmography segment. But still a navigational box containing all those films exist. You must check ((Swapan Saha)), ((Birsa Dasgupta)), ((Srijit Mukherji)), ((Aparna Sen)) etc. for example. Abbasulu (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abbasulu: Your comment here and the next one were causing Multiline table in list lint errors leading to indent leaks to the end of page. I fixed these lint errors by indirecting the Nav templates with ((Tlx)). If you really want the nav templates to appear, they have to be on a line that doesn't begin with asterisk (*), pound (#) or colon (:). Feel free to re-edit your comments that way and remove this comment if you wish. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The navboxes you cite actually aid in navigation. This doesn't. All you did was copy the list of the films he directed and made a navbox version with little navigational purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep, removing the redlinks would fix the problem. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 24 June 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 keep. Izno (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four links. Fails NENAN. All the links of articles are already listed on the director's article. No need for navbox when navigation is provided on said article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - All films of this director are notable. Some has own wikipedia article. "No need for navbox when navigation is provided on said article" this is a weird logic, there are thousands of film director templates who are similar. Their filmography is already provided in his biography article's filmography segment. But still a navigational box containing all those films exist. You must check ((Swapan Saha)), ((Birsa Dasgupta)), ((Srijit Mukherji)), ((Aparna Sen)) etc. for example. Abbasulu (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The navboxes you cite actually aid in navigation. This doesn't. All you did was copy the list of the films he directed and made a navbox version with little navigational purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but remove the unlinked entries. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 27 June 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:Akhtaruzzaman
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 27. Izno (talk) 04:20, 27 June 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:Shameem Akhtar
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 27. Izno (talk) 00:03, 27 June 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:TMTC bullet
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) 00:05, 27 June 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:NK Krško squad
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:32, 20 June 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 relisted on 2022 June 26. ✗plicit 14:13, 26 June 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:STL color
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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:Moon cabinet infobox
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 26. ✗plicit 14:13, 26 June 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).