- 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being removed by User:Pelmeen10 Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What? It is used. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- my mistake, it was listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates for some strange reason. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 6 March 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) 13:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
mostly redlinks and hence redundant to Template:Football at the 2000 Summer Olympics Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all the articles are redlinks, and I wouldn't expect any of those articles to be created. We only create those group/knockout stage articles for major competitions like the Euros/AFCON and the FIFA World Cups, not for the Olympics, which is a minor tournament in comparison (especially for men, where it's an under-23s tournament). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 19:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Alalch E. 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Irecorsan (talk) 12:11, 13 March 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).
2014 Winter Olympics ice hockey group standings 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article content is best placed in the parent article, not obfuscated behind templates Spike 'em (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Frietjes and Spike 'em. —Alalch E. 15:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 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).
2014 Winter Olympics ice hockey game reference 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article content is best placed in the parent article, not obfuscated behind templates Spike 'em (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Frietjes and Spike 'em. It is an improper use of templates to store article content. Whatever the opinions about LST and the level of understanding thereof may be, these templates should not exist. —Alalch E. 15:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 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:ACW Barnstar 2
- 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) 13:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
never used[1][2][3] and of questionable utility per this discussion Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 6 March 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).
Sri Lanka cricket records by opponent
- 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) 13:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Templates not in use having being substituted back where the content was originally taken from without attribution. See below. Spike 'em (talk) 15:32, 6 March 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).
Afghanistan cricket records by opponent
- 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, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Templates have been substituted back into the article they were split out from last September. They are / were article content hiding in a template and have no other transclusions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:15, 6 March 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:Sydney mayor progress
- 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) 13:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Table created and used in a single project page in 2004. This has little to no potential for use in multiple pages, so subst and delete. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:47, 6 March 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 merge to Template:Compact TOC. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Auto compact TOC with Template:Compact TOC.
Should we implement the idea of this little-used template into the standard Compact TOC? ((Compact TOC)) currently allows for the omission of letters by requiring each letter to be removed individually with parameters, which will inevitably lead to a TOC in an article becoming outdated as the article is altered but the template is not. Automatically omitting unused letters could make navigation clearer, while still allowing for alterations and overide through ((Compact TOC))'s other functions. MClay1 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 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).