Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 4 January 6 >

January 5[edit]

Template:Tornadoes of 2014/Deadly[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 00:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All single-use templates and should be substituted on the respective Tornadoes of year articles. No reason for these to be on a separate space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete as these templates don't appear to be exceptionally large themselves or on exceptionally large pages where size needs constrained. NoahTalk 11:04, 7 January 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:Heraldry/tinctures[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 00:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire navbox is a duplicate of part of Template:Heraldry. Replace usages instead of redirecting to also make sure a page doesn't end up with 2 of the same navbox. Gonnym (talk) 20:15, 5 January 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:WPRR color[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 23:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Replaced with Module:Adjacent stations/Western Pacific Railroad. Gonnym (talk) 16:45, 5 January 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:Party name with colour (2)[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 23:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar template exists at Template:Party name with color. Also 2 uses as of this writing (see report). Propose to delete and either substitute the 2 uses or use the alternative. — DaxServer (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This can be merged with Template:Party name with color pretty easy. The question is, is this needed? Gonnym (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the source, it just adds a white color and shortnames of the parties in first and second param. I don't really see any practical use for this, given that there are just 2 usages. I don't think a merge is useful and bloating the Party name with color is unnecessary. I would say let's substitute and delete. — DaxServer (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then those can be replaced with {{Party name with color}} for the first party and {{Party shortname linked}} for the second. Gonnym (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me — DaxServer (talk) 10:49, 12 January 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 bus 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 13:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused transportation template. Gonnym (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Part of a complex system from 2014 that isn't used. All the sub templates need to go too. Nigej (talk) 16:37, 5 January 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:Month in rail transport[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 13:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. It would seem the articles are yearly and not monthly. Gonnym (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • safe to delete - this was created a long time ago when the rail transport timeline pages were more heavily being edited. Consensus has since reduced the timeline pages to annual rather than monthly. Slambo (Speak) 15:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused. Nigej (talk) 16:31, 5 January 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 element/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 12:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Old table-based infobox, replaced by {{Infobox}}-based {{Infobox element}} (2014, my edits). DePiep (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Gonnym (talk) 17:52, 9 January 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:Kayō Dorama[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 12:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only five of the articles featured in the template actually exist. Navboxes are not for nonexistent articles and it's unlikely that this template will be filled anytime soon with existent articles. - Xexerss (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per not TV guide. Tuesday 10 pm Drama on a particular channel? Surely not. Nigej (talk) 16:29, 5 January 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:Swiss rail color[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 12:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused except in one user's abandoned user page. Each of the services has their own Adjacent stations module. {{Zurich S-Bahn start}} is only used in the /docs of the color template. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 5 January 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:Transmilenio/color[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 12:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usages should be converted to use Module:Adjacent stations/TransMilenio templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now also unused. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 9 January 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:Taichung color[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 12:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usages should be converted to use Module:Adjacent stations/Taichung Metro templates. The module currently has only the Green value, so the other lines would need to be added. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now also unused. Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 9 January 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:HSR 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 12:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usages should be converted to use Module:Adjacent stations/Taiwan High Speed Rail templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now also unused. Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 9 January 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:Taxonomy/italics[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 12:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplates of {{taxonomy}}. I recently replaced “nobreak” with a single call to Module:String#replace and “italics” was unused anyway. User:GKFXtalk 07:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that nobreak would also normalize <br /> to <br> (etc) but I cannot see a reason why this would be necessary for the current version of {{taxonomy}} so I didn’t copy that functionality across. User:GKFXtalk 08:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, both are unused and may be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Peter. Gonnym (talk) 17:51, 9 January 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:Leaders of the Liberal Union (SA)[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 12:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a navbox for two people. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Decorative navbox that is useless for navigation, the bottom of Richard Layton Butler for instance being so cluttered with navboxes and succession boxes as to be utterly confusing to our readers. Nigej (talk) 16:22, 5 January 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:Leaders of the Liberal Federation (SA)[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 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a navbox for two people. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Useless for navigation Nigej (talk) 16:19, 5 January 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:Leaders of the Free Trade Party[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 12:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a navbox for two people. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:31, 5 January 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:Leaders of the Commonwealth Liberal Party[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 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a navbox for two people. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Just clutters up the two articles where is appears. One of those decorative navboxes that need to go. Nigej (talk) 16:16, 5 January 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:Leaders of the Protectionist Party[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 12:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a navbox for two people. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Just clutters up the two articles where is appears. One of those decorative navboxes that need to go. Nigej (talk) 16:15, 5 January 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:Schnittke symphonies[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 12:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now redundant to Template:Alfred Schnittke, which has all of these symphonies already. If Schnittke wrote over 100 symphonies like Haydn, there might be a need for a separate template, but that is not the case. Aza24 (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace per nom. Much better to use the Alfred Schnittke template and we certainly don't need both in any article. Nigej (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing to replace. Just outright delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 7 January 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:Rautavaara symphonies[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 12:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now redundant to Template:Einojuhani Rautavaara, which has all of these symphonies already. If Rautavaara wrote over 100 symphonies like Haydn, there might be a need for a separate template, but that is not the case. Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace per nom. Much better to use the Einojuhani Rautavaara template and we certainly don't need both in any article. Nigej (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing to replace. Just outright delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 7 January 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:Hans Werner Henze symphonies[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 12:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now redundant to Template:Hans Werner Henze, which has all of these symphonies already. If Henze wrote over 100 symphonies like Haydn, there might be a need for a separate template, but that is not the case. Aza24 (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace with the noted template, per nom. Nigej (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing to replace. Just outright delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 7 January 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:Bax symphonies[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 11:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now redundant to Template:Arnold Bax, which has all of these symphonies already. If Bax wrote over 100 symphonies like Haydn, there might be a need for a separate template, but that is not the case. Aza24 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace with the noted template, per nom. Nigej (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the articles already have the parent template, so nothing to replace. Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 6 January 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:EB Games Expo 2013[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 01:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This map is unused, and doesn't look like a template. Can't be substituted and deleted to EB Games Expo 2013 as it's a redirect. Therefore, don't think this map in template space is needed. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 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_January_5&oldid=1065326695"