Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 3 November 5 >

November 4[edit]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Republic of Ireland[edit]

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 23:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant in comparison to Template:Diplomatic missions of the Republic of Ireland. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's redundant. Thanks! Davekern (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2021 (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:Localities in Dals-Ed Municipality[edit]

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 14:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 link, superfluous: both the municipality and town refer to each other already. P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:12, 4 November 2021 (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:Uw-attack1-rand[edit]

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 11:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purposeless, as there is only one of two templates used that exist. Having this adds pointless and more confusing options, and contributes to maintenance burden. I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
I think that's the whole list. There may be one or two more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 02:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A vast majority of these templates have not been tagged for deletion, which I will do shortly. Additionally, some have been discussed in the past and kept (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Template:Uw-test1-rand, for example), so additional discussion would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Including my individal nominated Template:Uw-attack1-short. Not a single one is being used nor is needed to message users about their edits or behavior. Other widespread substittued messages are used more often. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the -rand templates - There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have alternate texts (one user may prefer the -short text over the -default text) and those alternate versions should be considered separately on their merits. But having a template randomly selected is pointless and silly. --B (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The test was done in 2012 and is documented on meta. If they wish to keep the associated templates, they are welcome to import them, but there is no reason to keep unused tests here "just because". Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These template remains of a decade old test are not needed on Wikipedia, as they are unused and serve no purpose. We also don't need another horde of stuff kept "just because". Newshunter12 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2021 (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:US income/old[edit]

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 11:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to use this template anymore because the GFDL is no longer used as a copyright license. Did Q28 make a mess today? 09:46, 4 November 2021 (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:SPIcase/old[edit]

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 11:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is obsolete and no longer to use it again, so it should be deleted. Did Q28 make a mess today? 09:44, 4 November 2021 (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:Article for deletion/old[edit]

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 11:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is obsolete and no longer to use it again, so it should be deleted. Did Q28 make a mess today? 09:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It says it's kept for historical record, but I found no evidence of depreciation other than what's stated on the page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2021 (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:Protection needed[edit]

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 11:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template will not be effective, as requests for protection have to be posted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. John of Reading (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! TylerMagee (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2021 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_4&oldid=1054763688"