Template:Marika Hackman
- 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) 13:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only 3 articles which all link to and from one another without the template, providing no additional navigational benefit. WP:NENAN. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:14, 24 April 2023 (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).
Template:Correspondence chart between Pinyin and Xiao'erjing
- 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 after substituting into the article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Single-article template with no template parameters. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I, as the creator of the template, don't disagree with you. Maybe it's better for this template to be moved to "Wiktionary" as an Appendix. BasilLeaf (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete Subst or migrate to Wiktionary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep There are other language articles with correspondence charts on Wikipedia. The chart is informative in matching the various syllables in Xiao'erjing to their Hanyu Pinyin equivalents. -- Abstrakt (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep as User:Abstrakt stated, this is seen elsewhere on Wikipeda. The idea for creating such table came from the already existing table in the Russian language version of the Article. Pages such as Dungan_language#phonology, Katakana#Table of katakana, Hiragana#Table of hiragana, Hentaigana#Standardized hentaigana, Old_Persian_cuneiform#Signs, Hangul#Unicode include correspondence charts with a similar sort of message being conveyed.
- If any of these other tables serve as an inspiration for an idea to improve the legibilitty of the table, please share. I did consider doing it like it's done on Katakana, but that would've meant as many as 20 something columns being needed for Chinese phonology. BasilLeaf (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Abstrakt, to be clear, I am not proposing to delete the template's content entirely. I am proposing, per guidelines, that it be moved to the only article that uses it. The Template page can then be deleted, since it will not be needed anymore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- yeah that's fair. We can definitely do that immediately. Only reason I did it as a separate template was to keep the html code on the original page Xiao'erjing less crowded and overwhelming. As you know, the page already contains two large and important tables. BasilLeaf (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Subst per nom. No one's arguing whether it's useful or not. The point is that it is single-use article content and should therefore be in that article, not here. Nigej (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- yeah that's fair. We can definitely do that immediately. Only reason I did it as a separate template was to keep the html code on the original page Xiao'erjing less crowded and overwhelming. As you know, the page already contains two large and important tables. BasilLeaf (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2023 (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).
Template:Garrison JFK investigation
- 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) 23:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This material is somewhat redundant with Template:Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Almost every person, place, or thing associated with Jim Garrison's investigation was also discussed in the investigations by the Warren Commission and the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (which do not have similar templates). Given that the purpose of Garrison's work was to find evidence of what he believed was a conspiracy, I am also concerned that the prominent placement of this template on certain pages as a sidebar draws undue attention to fringe theories. -Location (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep it. American history 38.125.224.201 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Do not delete historical information. 162.217.53.51 (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Jim Garrison’s involvement is separate to that of the Warren commission and in fact calls into question the validity of the Warren commission. The only court case which ever took place as a result of the Kennedy Assassination, is that which Jim Garrison brought to trial. It is distinct, separate and counter to the Warren commission. It is not redundant. It deserves its own template and warrants avoiding deletion. Do not delete historical events. 162.217.53.51 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- We are not attempting to remove historical information. Articles on Jim Garrison, Clay Shaw, and Trial of Clay Shaw exist and they are not going anywhere. -Location (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment All these IP's first edits have been for this Tfd. They are not voting based on the nomination. Guess is they are here to be disruptive. There votes do not count as legitimate keep votes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2023 (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).
2012 Summer Olympics basketball convenience 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 14:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
current convention for Olympics and Paralympics is to place these in the main article and transclude using WP:LST to avoid creating/watching 40 templates per competition. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2023 (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).
2016 Summer Olympics basketball convenience 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 14:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
current convention for Olympics and Paralympics is to place these in the main article and transclude using WP:LST to avoid creating/watching 40 templates per competition. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2023 (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).
Template:MasterChef Celebrity (Spain)
- 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 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consists of celebrity performances on a TV show, thus fails WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 14:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep: This navigation box is not about the performances on a TV show. It is about a talent show, and it lists the contestants on its different seasons, that in this case, yes, they are celebrities. Ferclopedio (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete Unlike other MasterChef templates, there aren't articles for seasons for this version of the show. So this may fit the argument of the performance navbox since it just lists the more notable celebrities who have appeared on the show, which could just be found on their articles under the filmography section and on the main article for the show. Yet, there isn't enough other than just a simple listing. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per above. The only navigation (apart from the parent article) is to participants which are all clearly listed in the parent article. Per WP:NAVBOX "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." which is not the case here. Nigej (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2023 (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).
Template:American Song Contest
- 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 14:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As this is a list of performances in a TV show, this fails WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 12:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep – While the American Song Contest isn't as long-standing as the Eurovision Song Contest, the Eurovision Song Contest has a template, and so does American Idol, and so does The Voice, etc. This is similar to each of those instances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintspot (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete There is just one winner after the first season. We should be listing winners. But this lists every contestant which is not needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete. There was only one season of this show and it is unclear if there will be another. This is better as a category for the entrants rather than a navbox. Individual participants were also not particularly notable outside of the show and many are unlikely to ever have articles to navigate between. Delete per WP:PERFNAV. Grk1011 (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete. per above. A navbox for contestants is not required. Nigej (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete as per above, navbox is not required at this stage. There has only been one edition, it's unclear when another may be held, and the same functionality can be achieved with a category. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2023 (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).
Template:Longford Lecturers
- 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 14:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we really need a navbox for this? I think the spirit of WP:UNDUE and WP:PERFNAV apply here. --woodensuperman 10:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete The article for the subject does the list better. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete Being in the list is not "defining". Also the lecturer articles rarely refer to the others. List in parent article is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2023 (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).
Template:Sõmeru Parish
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these templates. ✗plicit 14:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both no longer needed as these are former parishes in Estonia and all links are now in the current parish navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2023 (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 2023 May 1. ✗plicit 14:21, 1 May 2023 (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).