Template:Major League Baseball Umpire Crew Chiefs 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 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:Active Geological Survey of Ireland vessels
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:Active Commissioners of Irish Lights vessels
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:MLB Detailed 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Used only on 3 articles. Too much detail plus redundant to "Record vs. opponents" section on articles. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 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:Color block
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 23:37, 11 October 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:Request for mediation statement
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. LizRead!Talk! 19:36, 11 October 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:Dot underline
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 23:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was a simple wrapper for ((Hover title)), which is being replaced by ((tooltip)), per this TFD. Since that TFD is already closed, I am replacing instances of this template (there were about 10 total page transclusions), so by the time this TFD is processed, it will have no transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 4 October 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:2TeamBracket-3legs
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. LizRead!Talk! 19:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes Well, by replaced you mean, they are going to. They are not yet deleted.
Qwerty284651, by replaced, I mean they have been replaced, you can check the transclusions for each template. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, a bot can take care of the replacements. Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am no longer opposing this nomination, just to make it clear. If the bot can take care of the replacements i.e. redirects, then I am fine with this. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep each of these charts served a different purpose, and I don't think those purposes are gone, so I'm team more options for wikipedia editors to create. Edwyth (talk) 08:55, 10 October 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:Grayscale
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 12:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no ban on single-use templates, and you should not invent one based on a tortured reading of the guideline“Templates should not normally be used to store article text” (notice this template does not contain anything remotely describable as "article text": it is a graphical image created using HTML/CSS, whose content entirely consists of organized color swatches). There is no community consensus that single-use templates should be systematically deleted, and no good reason for roaming around Wikipedia deleting piles of 10+ year old templates that have been serving their purpose for years without any issue. If you have an issue with a specific template such as this one, there is additionally no reason to use the bureaucratic TFD process (cf. WP:NOTBURO) for this instead of bringing it up on talk:Grayscale and building local consensus for your change there. If you can convince editors on specific pages to substitute a template into those pages, and then the template subsequently sits unused for an extended time (say a few months) without complaint, then go ahead and delete at that point. But this behavior by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ and others is a gross abuse of Wikipedia process, an attempt to circumvent basic community norms and guidelines, and impose their personal preferences on broad swaths of Wikipedia that they otherwise have no interest in or interaction with. –jacobolus(t) 18:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This template at just 829 bytes has only a simple table that is better to have directly in the artcile. There is no gross abuse of Wikipedia process here. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of question that direct editing of grayscale and discussion on talk:grayscale is entirely capable of handling. This template has been there for well over a decade, and nobody has ever had a problem with it (like the other templates you are wasting your time hunting for with some automated tool and then running around deleting). The only reason to list this at WP:TFD under an invented fake “policy” is to prevent ordinary Wikipedia community activity and process. It’s self-appointed TFD bureaucrats gone mad. But to answer your question: no, this is better as a template than inline content because it is a big distracting blob of markup that editors/readers of the prose do not need to care about. Moving it out of the source makes both the page and the graphic more maintainable. –jacobolus(t) 15:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason this can't be an image, which would then allow it to have an alt attribute, and a caption? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be just fine to make an image for this. But note: there’s also no particular reason it should be an image; a graphic made this way from HTML elements can also include captions and alternate text for accessibility, or whatever else you like. This is not being listed here because anyone is trying to figure out the best way to improve the article grayscale. It is being listed here because ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ ran some automated tool flagging all of the single-use templates on Wikipedia, and is trying to systematically delete them based on some personal preference. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ is unlikely to create an image or add material to an article, or even start a discussion proposing the same; their only interest/ability is finding and deleting templates. –jacobolus(t) 15:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and Delete per nom and the longstanding consensus to substitute single use templates. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a “longstanding consensus” except perhaps among the wikivogons here at TFD. If you want to make up a policy, you should poll a wide swath of Wikipedians and then write it down clearly among the pages describing Wikipedia policies. It is gross abuse for a trivially small cabal of editors in one tiny corner of the project who agree with each-other to swarm across the encyclopedia vandalizing random pages and enforcing their preferences, then hiding behind bureaucratic process defenses when anyone disagrees. –jacobolus(t) 02:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and subst. Single-use, non-intricate, small, and would be easier to edit, if needed, directly in the article. – Pbrks(t • c) 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Easier for who to edit? Nobody else commenting here ever has or ever will edit this template (or the article it is on). This template is well over a decade old, so is clearly not causing any acute maintenance burden. –jacobolus(t) 01:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is in response to what you said: Moving it out of the source makes both the page and the graphic more maintainable. I disagree with this. – Pbrks(t • c) 01:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you plan to edit this template or article at some point in the future? Do you ever create or edit such templates? (Do you have an example?) Or is this purely hypothetical? –jacobolus(t) 02:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the if needed part of my original comment. – Pbrks(t • c) 02:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So is purely hypothetical. –jacobolus(t) 02:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I say it is more maintainable to leave it out is because this kind of template (not just this specific case, but any similar one, which come up regularly on Wikipedia) is entirely separate from the body copy of the article. Essentially every article content edit can safely ignore the content of this kind of floating graphical element, with the (vanishingly infrequent) exception of edits where the table causes some kind of layout conflict, in which case editing takes marginally more care. Conversely, anyone trying to edit this template per se doesn’t in any ordinary circumstance need to care, while they are editing, about the rest of the content of the article, unless there is some kind of layout conflict. There is literally never any reason to edit both the floating graphic and the article body copy in the same single edit. Having the two separate makes it easier to make markup changes not affecting the article body without cluttering the main history, makes it easier for anyone to examine their separate page histories, provides a potential place to discuss technical minutiae without distracting folks who care about the body copy, etc. In the 15-year history of this template, no article editor/author/reader has ever had any problem with this template, and most probably never noticed it at all, so it is clearly causing neither a technical nor social problem. The only people who care are those at WP:TFD who are running some kind of automated tool across all of Wikipedia hunting for templates which violate their personally invented rules nowhere reflected in any policy and with no basis in any site-wide consensus, as part of some time-wasting crusade. –jacobolus(t) 02:12, 10 October 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:AuEdNewbie
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 12:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This template is a transclusion of ((AuEduNewbie)) (note the additional "u" in the name) specific to tutor User:Drinion00. It has three transclusions. It should be substituted and deleted. For reference, template ((AuEduNewbie)) has over 2000 transclusions. —andrybak (talk) 09:19, 4 October 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).
Rugby league runners-up squads
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 12:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion at WP:RL, these kinds of navboxes are considered excessive due to template creep. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, losing a final does not justify a navbox, regardless of the number of transcluded articles.Fleets (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, no need for navboxes for second place teams. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, along with every other runner-up template (Leeds 1970 to York 1930) - also some only duplicate the links of winning team template of previous/following seasons, others have few blue links and are therefore not much use for navigation. EdwardUK (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Runner-up teams are not a championship team. They are not notable enough in any regard. There's no need to create navboxes for them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:06, 5 October 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:NBCUniversal franchises
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 06:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with no transclusions and no main article. These shows are not tightly connected enough for a navbox; a category works fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:46, 4 October 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:Football at the 2022 Maccabiah Games
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 06:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar with no main article and no links to articles in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 16:45, 4 October 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:NM Poets Laureate
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 06:48, 11 October 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:Populated place
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 06:48, 11 October 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:People's Championships
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 06:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with no main article and no transclusions. The one linked article in the navbox is at AFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:40, 4 October 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:1998 Sweden WRWC
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 06:48, 11 October 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:Tennis grand slam big three.svg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 06:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:17, 6 October 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:Ukrainian Premier Second top scorers
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 06:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with no main article and no transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - navbox navigates between a number of articles; it just needs to be added to them. Lazy nomination. GiantSnowman 16:48, 4 October 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:Time-UTC-tag
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 06:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. It appears that other, similar templates may have been developed to include the function provided by this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator - Something I hacked away at many, many years ago that's evidently not being used. Go for it. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 4 October 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:Rashadat Farzaliyev
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 06:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No main article for this navbox. No links to relevant en.WP articles in the navbox body. No transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Navbox that doesn't navigate anywhere. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 22:18, 8 October 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:Isbn 1492680478
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 06:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. We don't do ISBN templates. There is a very old TFD about this somewhere. I'll find it if this nomination is controversial. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These stopped being used when ((Cite isbn)) was deleted. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 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).
