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) 23:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Imagemap American conservatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template and it's subjective to say that these nine specific individuals are the most prominent leaders of conservatism. Wow (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. You didn't say that it's only unused because you removed the use [1] right before the nomination. Somebody added the image to ((Conservatism US footer)) in 2019 [2] and I later made an imagemap for it (view with imagemap). The nine people are listed in the navbox with many others. The selection can be debated but I don't think it says that they are the most prominent. I'm neutral on the nomination but don't think this was the best way to discuss an imagemap which for four years had been in a navbox used on around 70 articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the imagemap in the navbox [3] while it's under discussion. That's how we usually treat templates during deletion nominations. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point about the removal prior to the nomination. But in the end, this image in template space is not needed. Even transcluding through a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we generally don't need images in navigation boxes, and definitely don't need arbitrarily selected image arrays. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reminds me of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY which says that "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members". Maybe the grouping here is smaller but still seems likes an arbitrary list. There's a similar gallrey at ((Imagemap American liberals)) which is used in ((Modern liberalism in the United States)) and presumably ought to be treated in a similar way. Nigej (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The unused argument fails per PrimeHunter. This was also formerly used in ((Conservatism US)), although it was removed at some point and replaced with an American flag, and it might be worth looking into whether that removal had consensus. I think there's space to debate where it is appropriate or not, but I don't think its very existence is objectionable, which is what would be required to delete it. Choosing images in any circumstance always requires some subjective judgement, and I don't see anything that would make this a special circumstance (it's certainly different from MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (While we're talking about it, it seems a bit heavy on contemporary Supreme Court justices. I'd support adding Trump, and it might also be worth considering Ayn Rand to represent libertarianism and so it's not entirely men. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  Given the number of people who voted for Donald Trump I'm thinking that there might be a 100 million American conservatives, larger than many ethnic groups and covered by the "similarly large human populations" phrase of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY. Why not 9 random American conservatives off the street. Something like "American conservative presidents" clearly would be a small group and not covered by that phrase. Nigej (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's only used in ((Conservatism US footer)) and previously ((Conservatism US)). The nine people are among the currently 119 in ((Conservatism US footer)). 119 is in no way comparable to an ethnic group or 100 million Americans. And the point of an imagemap is to make links with hover text. Random Americans wouldn't have articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still struggling to see how the ability to be able to click on the minute images of an arbitrary selection of 9 notable American conservatives, really aids navigation. Are these 9 in some sense the "most notable" of the 119? The 9 people are presumably already linked in the navbox and many readers will have no idea who these 9 people are anyway without hovering, which seems to be contrary to the MOS:NOHOVER principle. The suspicion is that this image map is just being used to decorate the navbox. Nigej (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2023 (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; deleted as G8 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ya/lite/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused CSS template for Template:Ya/lite --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 16:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2023 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Former non-metropolitan districts of England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is primarily an unnecessary duplication of Category:Former non-metropolitan districts and a subset of the data in Category:District council elections in England that can be reached by clicking any entry in the first category. Given that these are all former boroughs I wonder if anyone actually cares - if in fact this is a navbox whose only purpose is to highlight topics that few if any people would now click on? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it seems useful to have a navigation template for all former non-metropolitan districts as well as the category which is subdivided by county of which the template isn't and thus allows people to find all at a quick glance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The idea that people are going to want to jump between "former non-metropolitan districts of England" seems unlikely to me. WP:NAVBOX suggest that "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject." The districts here are not just districts of England, or even non-metropolitan districts of England but former non-metropolitan districts of England. It not a "defining" characteristic of these districts, a category is much more suitable. Nigej (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2023 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Commandos-style video games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar to Category:Commandos clone (cc NinjaRobotPirate), this is a navbox arbitrarily put together based upon gameplay. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with that? Kurzon (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NAVBOX:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.

There is no "single, coherent subject" on "Commandos-style video games"

1. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.

Same as No. 1, "Commandos-style video game" is not a thing

1. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

The subgroups of Commandos and Desperados do, but the others do not.

1. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

See No. 1 and No. 2

1. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

It's similar gameplay with differing settings (Wild West, feudal Japan, Star Trek, Robin Hood) and created by different developers

There's no such thing as "Commandos-style video game" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And when I look up that term in the custom WP:VG/RS search engine I don't get any relevant results. This isn't the case of Doom clone or Grand Theft Auto clone. And even if it was, we simply do not make navboxes based upon a similar gameplay experience. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw this, but I wasn't sure whether to nominate it for deletion or try to salvage it. If it were renamed to something like "commandos series" (like ((Doom series))), and the scope were limited to just the Commandos games, it would be a legit navbox, right? It's something to consider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi NinjaRobotPirate, there's already ((Pyro Studios Games)), a navbox on the studio. They've developed all the Commandos games, so having a navbox solely on the series (or changing this one to one) is redundant due to the overlap. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, in that case, it probably should be deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted above we seem to have no content related to "Commandos-style video games", so the grouping doesn't seem to be a "single, coherent subject", rather an arbitrary "list of x that are also y" type of categorisation. Nigej (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2023 (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).