Template:Topicwpphil
- 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) 22:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Old test page, originally intended for WikiProject philosophy in 2008 but never fully implemented. requested to take to TfD instead of CSD due to age. - car chasm (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This template appears to have been working reasonably well. It was removed by the nominator from pages it had been used in, in edits like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It was apparently intended to link Category talk pages together, part of a project of some sort abandoned by its creator in 2008, several years before they stopped editing. It was only used on two pages, and everyone in Wikiproject philosophy just uses the main project talk page, but there are plenty of other templates that link various philosophy articles together. - car chasm (talk) 07:48, 2 February 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) 14:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 1 February 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).
Template:1952 Summer Olympics men's basketball game A1
- 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) 14:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 1 February 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).
Template:Lowres
- 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) 15:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This template for use in File: space appears to be redundant to ((Non-free use rationale album cover)) or ((Non-free video cover)) or ((Non-free album cover)). I admit that I do not understand the differences among all of these fair-use rationale templates, but this one, created in 2007 and used on only four pages, does not appear to have kept up with modern usage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This template is outdated and redundant to the non-free use rationale templates noted in the nomination. Of the four files that use this template, three of the files also have a standard non-free use rationale template. I added a non-free use rationale template to the fourth file so deletion of this template will not cause any issues with a missing rationale on any of these files. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:21, 1 February 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).
Template:Election box candidate ranked choice with party link
- 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) 15:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Template is marked as obsolete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 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).
Template:Intellectualism
- 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 February 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:10, 8 February 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 no consensus. Izno (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only links four articles other than the main one, navbox is not needed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree, since there's a Disenchantment category, which is much more useful than the navbox at this point anyhow. Historyday01 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 5 valid links seems fine for a navbox. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonnym: The subject of the navbox does not count as one of the five articles recommended by NENAN. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Do you not navigate to and from it? Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonnym: That's a question I guess you'd have to pose at the WP:NENAN talk page, as in its current state it does read (emphasis added),
A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five": are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used? (For instance, five books or films in a series; five singles or albums for a music article; five products by a common company; five members of a common group such as a band, comedy troupe, etc.) If not, then you probably don't need a navbox just yet.
Of course, things like WP:IAR work fine for justifying an opposing viewpoint. But if someone's choosing to apply the WP:NENAN metric, then the essay says what it says. FeRDNYC (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Fails the WP:NENAN rule of five. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep, connects 5 articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 1 February 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).
Template:MBTA Commuter Rail map
- 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) 00:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from the mainspace per the edit description "RDT not needed - far too complicated and twisted to be useful." Otherwise, delete if not applicable to another article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the removal justification seems fair. The actual system map is already shown on the page, and it's this: File:MBTA_Commuter_Rail_Map.svg — rendering that mess as an RDT, basically squeezing a two-dimensional star pattern into a tight bundle of vertical lines, seems counterproductive to me. FeRDNYC (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that a few users went on a tear creating these for every possible state and some localities, and while I applaud the dedication, I really question the utility of things like the nom'd template, or Template:California rail network, for example.
- My understanding of "route diagrams" is that they map a single route through a system, showing other lines only as connection offshoots. For example, the NYC MTA displays a route diagram onboard each subway car, showing only the stops along that individual train's number/letter-designated "line". (Amusingly, the Wikipedia articles on those service lines don't feature RDTs.) Similarly, each bus stop has route diagrams for each bus that stops there. But for anything covering more than a single line, they use at least semi-geographical maps.
- Unfortunately,
((Routemap)) may have been made too powerful, as the fact that it can be used to create overcomplicated monstrosities doesn't mean it should, but definitely means it will. FeRDNYC (talk) 11:55, 6 February 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).
Template:MAX Light Rail RDT
- 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 February 8. Izno (talk) 00:36, 8 February 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).
