Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1[edit]

Template:Rugby league positions[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 23:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused diagram and unnecessary as the mainspace has the chart as part of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2022 (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:Religions by country table South America[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 23:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Not used on any articles despite the banner on top of the page. Such content is already on both those articles listed on top. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Claims to be used but isn't anymore. Usual problem with article content being left behind in template space, when it should be in the article history. Nigej (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2022 (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:M7 Line[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 23:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route diagram template whose parent article was deleted in 2017. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2022 (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).

FBA templates 2003 to 2018[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. Primefac (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 17#Template:FBA 1927 where articles in the same series, from 1927 to 1939, were deleted. The arguments for deleting the current list are exactly the same. They fail much of WP:NAVBOX. The fellows elected in a particular year have nothing really in common, no more so than any other arbitrary grouping of the fellows. Articles for one fellow almost never mention those elected in the same year. We have a series of lists List of fellows of the British Academy elected in the 2010s etc and a detailed category structure at Category:Fellows of the British Academy which are more than adequate. Nigej (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2022 (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:Evanston branch (CTA)[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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Like the O'Hare template below, most of the elements here appear in {{Purple Line (CTA)}} (which is a little bit misaligned, if someone here has the skills to repair it), so this template's elements could probably be merged into there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2022 (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:O'Hare branch (CTA)[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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions and no main article. Almost every one of this route diagram's elements exists in {{Blue Line (CTA)}}. Those elements could be merged into that template, if I am understanding the two diagrams correctly. I wouldn't mind hearing from Mackensen or another rail-savvy editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2022 (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:Northwest Territories Speakers[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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This navbox was marked as "in progress" in its only substantive edit, and it is incomplete. The relevant articles are in Category:Speakers of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, and that appears to be working fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Relatively minor position so I think we can do without it. Importance perhaps shown by the fact that the speaker position is not even mentioned at {{Northwest Territories politics}}, although I note that the role does in appear in eg {{Nova Scotia politics}} and others. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2022 (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:West Trenton/Newark, New Jersey Line[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 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; parent article was redirected as part of a copyright investigation. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2022 (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).

Stuttgart RDT segments[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 13:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; I think the creator intended them as reusable components for route diagram templates for Stuttgart-area lines and then went in a different direction. Mackensen (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. They are not used now.--Grahame (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2022 (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).

Northern Trains route templates[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 13:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no obvious use in Northern Trains; see also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 9#Template:Northern (train operating company) route 26 where a previous batch deletion occurred. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2022 (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 Winter Street Concourse[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 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; removed from the parent article Winter Street Concourse in 2017 and wasn't re-added. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2022 (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:Heredia–San José Railway[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 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no clear parent article. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2022 (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:Isle of Man steam railway[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 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; superseded by {{Isle of Man Railway RDT}}. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2022 (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:Brazil FIFA World Cup record[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 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused. It was single-use content at Brazil at the FIFA World Cup but was replaced some time ago. It either needs to be added back there and then deleted, or just deleted. Nigej (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2022 (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:Infobox winter storm current[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 keep. Primefac (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have a "current" template when Template:Infobox storm can handle storms. If a parameter is needed, it should be brought up at that talk page. Gonnym (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just crazy for us to be having an infobox on anything "current". Clearly not an encyclopedic concept. Nigej (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This infobox is switched out with an infobox containing no current information after the storm has dissipated, mimicking {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}}, which is used for the same reason and follows a more attention-grabbing style. Aside from that, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There's many templates on current events because of this. Current information can easily be updated and removed when the page or the information is no longer current. We're not bound by printing regulations and the passage of time. Chlod (say hi!) 00:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep@Nigej and Gonnym: This has been done for tropical cyclones for years with two separate infoboxes (the normal one hidden while the current infobox is used). This is about communicating details from the appropriate meteorological agencies to readers regarding a storm in progress such as movement, warnings, time the infobox was last updated, and current intensity status (which often differs from peak status). If we can save some lives by directing people to seek current information from met agencies then that is a plus. If you want to delete this then you should include the infobox for current tropical cyclones as well. Otherwise, this is a malformed nom just targeting winter storms in particular. NoahTalk 13:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a news source where people should go if their lives are in danger. See WP:NOTNEWS. Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly the widespread use of the tropical cyclone current template for several years during numerous severe storms shows this is acceptable. There isn't anything explicitly forbidding the addition of current information. NOTNEWS has to do with original reporting, gossip, non-notable individuals, and the lasting notability of events.... recent developments such as current storm information are appropriate to add to articles (see the part about news reports). Also, Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. NoahTalk 13:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I definitely can't speak for other basins as I don't edit in those fields much, in the Western Pacific basin, Wikipedia articles have been a go-to place for current storm information, especially with most of East Asia slowly being more integrated with the internet. Typhoon Surigae reached 16,000 pageviews in one day as it neared the Philippine coast. Typhoon Rai had over 11,000 pageviews in one day prior to landfall, and up to 30,000 as it traversed the South China Sea heading for Vietnam (granted, some of those pageviews can be attributed to impact research). Wikipedia is not a news source, yes, but current storm information isn't original reporting. It's simply collecting the information provided by official reports and consolidating it for reading, which is exactly what you'd expect from a digital encyclopedia. It's reputation as an easily-available source of information is widely known to readers, and we shouldn't get rid of current storm information entirely for this reason. And if we're not providing up to date official (and non-original) information, we always provide links to those in the related section. Chlod (say hi!) 00:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Might have been done for years, but it's still a bad idea. People shouldn't be relying on a bunch of amateurs like us for critical information. Nigej (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet people do rely on us... Many people go to Wikipedia to either find current information or links to the current information for storms. We simply show the information as of X time/date where agencies have provided bulletins (emphasis is to get people to go to the met sites for additional details). NoahTalk 13:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Hurricane Noah above. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 15:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above. I've been working on WP:WPWX templates for a while and template is still useful to WP:WPNTS editors while we still haven't finished standardizing all weather infoboxes. Chlod (say hi!) 00:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is all this just US-based or is it a worldwide feature. Nigej (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deletion rationale here seems misguided: the template is useful and removing its features would not improve things. While we aren't a news source, we do cover current events, and should aim to do so as accurately as possible. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:20, 4 February 2022 (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:Awkward[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 redirect to Template:Copy edit inline. Primefac (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Awkward with Template:Copy edit inline.
I know this was recently at TfD but a suggestion there made near the ends seems correct to redirect this to Template:Copy edit inline.

The name of this template does not help to understand its usage. What is "Awkward?" The first line of the doc says because it is unclear, yet in the previous TfD the suggestion to use Template:Clarify was opposed. The doc also gives an example reason of Very ambiguous but we also have Template:Ambiguous. So no matter what way you look at this, this template is attempting to duplicate other templates. Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here's a link to the previous TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Seems to me that, although "awkward" is a pretty vague term while "copy edit inline" seems more precise, in reality an editor will use one or the other simply based on the one that's familiar to them. It's difficult to imagine anyone spending time deciding whether the particular instance was "awkward" or simply needs "copy edit inline". Worth maintaining a redirect from "Awkward" as some users may be familiar with that name and not the other. Nigej (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{Copy edit inline}} per Jonesey95 in the previous (linked) TfD. We don't need two tags to do the job of one, and I agree that {{clarify}} has a slightly different meaning. Miniapolis 21:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with a redirect. I am not confused by the tag, but I am far too close to the subject as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. If non-GOCE editors find the tag confusing, by all means let's redirect it to something clearer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep it simple. Tdslk (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – As I understand it, "awkward" templates show up on the backlog that GOCE works through. However, with an implicit "copy edit" tag, it is sometimes hard to determine, even for an experienced editor such as myself, which template is triggering the need for copy editing. So, "copy edit inline" would make that clearer for guild copy editors. In the old discussion, the reasons given for keeping "awkward" were to have an inline template that didn't refer to a section or entire article. So, redirect to "copy edit inline", which is what I assume people who say "merge" are suggesting as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: I checked the parameters, and there is no need to put this in the holding cell as a merge candidate. This can be closed as a simple Redirect if you are willing to trust my work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2022 (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:LibertyRDT[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 03:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no obvious place to use it. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2022 (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:Greenbush (MBTA station)[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 03:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to be used on Greenbush station. Mackensen (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia. We don't need detailed track layouts for railway stations. Nigej (talk)
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:MacArthur station (BART)[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 13:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and per the discussion at Talk:MacArthur station (BART) unlikely to be used. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Pi.1415926535 is making groundless statements by saying "I don't think we need a full track diagram for the station" and "too spread-out for article".--Johnson.Xia (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia. We don't need detailed track layouts for railway stations. Nigej (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bottom line is that the template is unused and the editors of that article don't want to add it to it. Gonnym (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2022 (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:West Coast Main Line Route[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 03:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; there's already {{West Coast Main Line}} and West Coast Main Line diagram. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2022 (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:Passaic-Bergen Rail Line[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 03:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, apparently superseded by {{Passaic-Bergen-Hudson Transit}}. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Why the existing one wasn't just expanded and retitled instead of creating a whole separate one is a question that I don't have the answer to, but only one is needed. oknazevad (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2022 (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:Chelsea-Hackney Line[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 userfy. ✗plicit 03:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; plenty of other route diagram templates on Crossrail 2. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical interest given it was a tube-sized pre-cursor to current CR2 plans. Does no harm to retain for researchers. --AlisonW (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind either way, but since I created it way back in 2008 I feel some fondness for it, so kindly userfy it for me if the conclusion is a negative one.  — Scott • talk 22:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as requested, otherwise delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2022 (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:Banqiao Line (Taipei Metro) RDT[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 03:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, apparently replaced by the more detailed {{Bannan line RDT}}. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2022 (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:SpongeBob Squarepants-Stub[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 03:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, unused, no category. Her Pegship (?) 01:37, 1 February 2022 (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:Uncategorized progress[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation. This template simply transcludes {{Categorization progress}}, so it's a duplicate template, as far as I can tell. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2022 (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 Orange and related color templates[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 00:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. This functionality appears to be provided adequately by {{TMTC bullet}}, which is used in multiple articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to {{TMTC bullet}}, which itself should really be replaced with Template:Rail color box (after adding the circle variant option). Gonnym (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: if some enterprising soul draws them as SVGs (I might) we can just use {{rail icon}}. Mackensen (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2022 (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:FZM RDT[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 00:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, categories, or documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2022 (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:Motorway service stations in 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 00:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Navbox with no main article and no blue links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2022 (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:Milan Metro location[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 00:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation. This template is essentially just a call to an image file, with a second image overlaid in the corner for no apparent reason. It is straightforward to put an image in an article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2022 (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:Transperth line colourbox[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 00:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Articles using this rail color template (example: Cockburn Central railway station) appear to have been updated to use {{Adjacent stations}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2022 (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:Tehran Metro Line 6 route[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 relisted on 2022 February 9. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2022 (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:Swindon railway map/map[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 00:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template was originally transcluded into its parent, but it was copied into the parent template shortly after creation in 2009. Since then, there have been a dozen edits to tidy up this template instead of just deleting it. Let's get it right this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2022 (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:Subdivision OSM map[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links, no documentation that explains what it is or what it is for or how to use it. No edits since creation in March 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2022 (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:Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway Extension Map[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. Appears to be an abandoned effort from 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2022 (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:Railway stations in 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; deleted as G7 by MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. It appears that this template was added briefly to {{Infobox station}}, then removed a week later, never to return (I think). There was a ton of discussion about it at Template talk:Infobox station/Archive 2, during a time in 2015 when {{Infobox Ireland station}} was being merged into {{Infobox station}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2022 (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:Rail-interchange/Air[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Duplicates the functionality of {{rint|air}} , which does not use this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2022 (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:Railway construction timeline for Central Australia Railway[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This content is provided nicely in prose in the only article it could be transcluded in. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't tell you anything that prose or a table couldn't do better. Nigej (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2022 (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/2022_February_1&oldid=1070799394"