Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16[edit]

Template:GoToRandom[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be redundant to {{Random page in category}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a wrapper of {{Random page in category}} that includes a few small additional elements. They're not much, but they're enough that it made sense to create a template when designing WP:TASKS rather than writing everything out multiple times. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Joe (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per above reasons, clearly if it was as redundant as claimed, it wouldn't have been written in the first place. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 13:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amadeus1999 What a daft comment, it literally doesn't make sense. People make redundant templates all the time, whether it be because they don't realise that templates that do what they want already exist, because they makes stuff then decide not to use it, or all manner of other reasons. The fact that someone created this doesn't mean it can't be redundant. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a daft display of reading skills, I clearly also included 'per above reasons' for the reason you mention... Learn to read before commenting. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 17:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amadeus1999 I was criticising the "it's not redundant because somebody made it" part of your comment, not the "I agree with everyone else" part. "Somebody wrote it" applies to every template in existence and is not a sensible criteria to judge templates by, and is also completely unrelated to "it isn't redundant" - one does not lead to the other. If simply being written was sufficient to ensure that a template isn't redundant then logically no template could ever become redundant. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sdkb, in use on the task centre, appears to have a few dozen transclusions. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very important to keeping some pages running smooth casualdejekyll 13:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally used in 4 places. Delete after replacement. We don't need specialist wrappers for 4 transclusions. I would have no issue with making it a subpage of Wikipedia:Task Center also, since that is its primary and only non-user-space use. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally try to avoid storing templates on subpages, as it makes it much harder to do things like add TemplateData; it's just not their natural environment. This template is also usable beyond the Task Center, as has already happened in userspace. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually use it on my own user page, and it's very convenient to have it just the way it is. :3 As before, I'm still very much in favor of keeping. Joe (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sdkb. The Task Center would break a significant amount without it. XavierGaming53 (talk) 18:25, 25 May 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:Get Austria location code[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. Izno (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions except in a VPT discussion thread. It appears that the templates and other pages necessary for this template to function have been deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 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:FC Gandzasar Kapan[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. Izno (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only two links to articles. The stadiums the team plays in. Everything else is either a link to a redirected category or the main article about the football/soccer team. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:13, 16 May 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:Garda rank insignia (1922)[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. Izno (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 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:Gandzasar F.C. squad[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. Izno (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and out of date football squad navbox. There is a roster at FC Gandzasar Kapan with no links to articles. Until there is significant interest in creating and maintaining articles about current players on this second-tier team, this navbox is not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not usable now, no sign it'll be usable in the future. -fuzzy510 (talk) 05:32, 17 May 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:Game row[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) 20:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions in article space. Proposed and rejected in 2007. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • These kinds of lists tend to hit the transclusion limit with template versions, which is probably why this is unused. Delete. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 17 May 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:GameTrailers[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. Izno (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions of this external link template created in 2007. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the points made by the nom the website this was used to link to was shut down in 2016 [1], following which IGN bought the domain and redirected all links to a YouTube channel so all the links this template makes are dead. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:38, 18 May 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:GWTblock[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. Izno (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Appears to have been used one time. Presumably, this template's function is served by a different template, or it is out of date and no longer applicable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should be careful deleting this as unused. This is a template that is intended to be used in block log messages so that it displays to blocked editors when they attempt to edit. Such uses do not show up as transclusions in the "what links here" special page. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I suspected it was used in some very long term block log messages (e.g. [2]), but they all expired years ago and the service it refers to seems to be either inactive or renamed - there doesn't seem to be any mention of it from the last decade. If the service still exists {{proxyblock}} would work well enough in block messages. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 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:GSKsidebar[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. Izno (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar with no transclusions in article space. Proposed and quickly rejected in 2013. Not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 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:GR A ref[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. Izno (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is kept it's going to need a documentation re-write at the minimum, because it generates signs for the Greek national roads system, not the Greek motorway system. That being said, Delete as unused. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 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:GHBH[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. Izno (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant warning template with hard-coded editor name and inscrutable page name. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete badly made warning template for a situation that does not occur often enough to require a standardised warning. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 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:Future year[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. Izno (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be redundant to {{NEXTYEAR}}. Replace with that template and delete or redirect this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 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:Future citation 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. Izno (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2011. Does not appear to meet any need. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redundant to {{citation needed}} and {{needs update}}. If an article contains unsourced speculations they should be tagged as needing a citation or deleted. If an article contains outdated information it should be tagged as needing an update. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant as stated by IP user — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:42, 19 May 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:Full Brown Cabinet[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. Izno (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Appears to be redundant to {{Brown Cabinet}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 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:Ft in to cm[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) 02:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. This template's function is probably provided by {{convert}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 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:Forever Neverland World Tour[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. Izno (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion in a draft article. Copy this infobox code directly into that article, then delete this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 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:For Public Good 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. Izno (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Replaced in articles such as List of political parties in Taiwan with {{party color}} and associated modules (e.g. Module:Political party/F). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 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:For Aluka website[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. Izno (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used only in one editor's sandbox. Appears to be an experimental fork of a welcome template. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 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:Fnote3[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. Izno (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have apparently been deprecated for a long time (see this discussion and Wikipedia:Footnote3), and diligent editors went through a few years ago and replaced them with appropriate templates. It's time to finish the job and delete these templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 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:Floatquote[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. Izno (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used only in one talk page. Subst and delete. Other quote boxes work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Basically unused, decorative quotation boxes haven't been used in articles for years per the manual of style, uses tables for layout which is bad for accessibility, many alternate templates available etc. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 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:Fighter[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. Izno (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used only in one editor's sandbox. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and Strong delete this is badly named and has nothing to do with fighter aircraft, or warriors -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 22:47, 16 May 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:Ficha de país[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. Izno (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used only in one editor's sandbox. No documentation, template name is not in English. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete as a single use template containing article content (that hasn't been translated). 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 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:Feminizmo ir lygybės asociacija (FILA)[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. Izno (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used only in one editor's sandbox. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 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:Fb in3 header[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. Izno (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used only in one editor's sandbox. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 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:Fbbicon and related football flag+link 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 relisted on 2022 May 24. Izno (talk) 20:15, 24 May 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:Falsifiability[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, except in one editor's sandbox from 2006. No documentation or categories. Subst and delete, I think. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it. In fact it will be easiest if I do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poof!  Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:39, 16 May 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:Fake dubious[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 May 24. Izno (talk) 00:54, 24 May 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:FIL-Luge name[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. Izno (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions of this external link template created in 2009. Appears to not be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 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:FF4npcbox[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. Izno (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 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:CT 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. Izno (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Module:Adjacent stations/Casablanca Tramway will do the job if it is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 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:LNER 2018 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. Izno (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All transclusions have been updated to use Module:Adjacent stations/London North Eastern Railway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 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:Userbox/Actor-NetworkTheory[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. Izno (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Unused soft redirect. The only incoming link is a notice that the page has been moved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 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:F/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; deleted as G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These subpages contain proposed changes to their parent template, discussed in 2008. These test subpages are no longer needed and should be substed and deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created these. They are long-abandoned drafts exploring ideas related to a long, long discussion at Template talk:f/. They have not been needed for years.--Srleffler (talk) 03:47, 18 May 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:ExtendedComment[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) 02:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template fork does not appear to have been adopted more than a year after its creation, even by its creator. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just delete with replacement. --Izno (talk) 18:27, 16 May 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:Experimental template[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 but please feel free to discuss adding additional parameters to {{Template rating}} at Template talk:Template rating Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The community appears to have standardized on the more flexible {{Template rating}} for this purpose. I propose redirecting this template to that one, with appropriate replacements of the handful of transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with an experimental rating at template rating, that's between beta and release. Something could be experimental but working fine, since it is the purpose of the template that is experimental and not the code. -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per what 65.92.247.17 said. -Chazpelo (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a need for a new category. Either of alpha or pre-alpha reasonably describe the expectations for an experimental template. Plain/simple delete. --Izno (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On top of that, it certainly should not be used on template sandbox pages, which by their nature are experimental. This template is actually totally unused meaningfully as a result. --Izno (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Izno makes sense by having the template redirect to the template rating template. Having to be used in just sandboxes is redundant as sandboxes by nature are experimental. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:51, 26 May 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:EuroFXStart[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. Izno (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created over a year ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 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:Ethernet parameters[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. Izno (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently created for use in a user draft that has not been edited since 2008. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had plans to expand on it and use it elsewhere, but my life took a different course. OK to delete. itpastorn (talk) 12:14, 17 May 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:Essex-Orleans Vermont Senate District, 2002-2012[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. Izno (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template that appears to be article content, but is not used in any articles. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 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:Eprint reference[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. Izno (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or categories. Appears to have been replaced by the much more functional {{Cite arXiv}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 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:EpTab[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 Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used in a single user sandbox that has not been edited for two years. Subst and delete this straightforward table header. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead Great Mercian (talk) 17:29, 16 May 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:DGRC[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. Izno (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions of this single-source citation template. Created in 2010. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused wrapper of {{Cite DGRC}} that just sets the vb parameter. Just add a line to the documentation of Cite DGRC to explain that the vb parameter adds the "text incorporated from" line. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:26, 19 May 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:DESA[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. Izno (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions in article space. The only transclusion is in a list of example templates on a WikiProject page. Created in 2008, appears to have been abandoned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 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:Cyrillic[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 convert to Template:Cyrillic script needed Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this talk page template does not appear to have motivated actual edits, as over the past decade since it was added to some 3 dozen talk pages, I just removed about 2 dozen (leaving some dozen with it). Either this should be made a main page template in the vein of {{Arabic script needed}} (preferably without loss of the specificity of this template) or it should be removed. Izno (talk) 16:52, 16 May 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:Rhett and Link[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 May 23. Izno (talk) 18:53, 23 May 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:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos[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. Izno (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be replaced with the base version (Template:WikiProject Nigeria) as it doesn't allow usage of any other banner value (and modifying it to support them is just an exerise in maintenance burden). As a consequence it also causes pages to use the same banner more than once (see Talk:Ronke Odusanya) Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The banner template Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos survived a speedy deletion in 2017 and aids the categorization of uncategorised new or existing Nigerian articles to the Nigerian WikiProject while simultaneously including them to their related sister WikiProjects of the remaining states of country. To the best of my knowledge, at the time of this discussion, there are at least two Nigerian states with these sister templates, i.e. Rivers State and Lagos State. Your observations are based on this article Talk:Ronke Odusanya and others affected and I agree that it is unnecessary to use the two templates at the same time. However, I opine that this issue does not warrant a nomination for deletion as it can be corrected by removing the repetitive templates from the affected articles' talk pages. However, you also need to be aware that I have been involved in the categorizations of numerous articles using only these sister/state banner templates of Lagos State:Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos or
WikiProject iconNigeria: Lagos NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles
NAThis article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lagos.
and Rivers State:
WikiProject iconNigeria: Rivers State NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles
NAThis article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Rivers State work group.
without solely using their base Nigerian WikiProject banners as it automatically adds them to the Nigerian WikiProjects. Deleting this banner template will cause disruption by automatically removing these numerous categorized articles from their state WikiProjects unless there's a means of solving the problem by keeping them there after deletion. Eruditescholar (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge into the WikiProject Nigeria banner template. No need for two banner project templates when one can do the job. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Evidently, one cannot do the job because these are state templates while the other is a country template. I have not ascertained which two templates you referred to because four different templates are directly or indirectly involved here. Even if one can do the job, I'm fine with merging as long as an administrator can ensure that the affected articles are not removed from their state WikiProjects.- Eruditescholar (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then just set {{Wikiproject Nigeria|Lagos=yes}}, which is identical to what we have now. What's so hard about it? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Easier said than done. I've observed the effect of merging and deletions on articles in the past. That's why I was concerned about this TFD discussion.-Eruditescholar (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. We've successfully rolled this very change out to zero problem whatsoever. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I replaced them here, merging the two banners by merging the parameters. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extremely poorly made and rather pointless wrapper template that just invokes {{WikiProject Nigeria}} with the Lagos parameter set to yes. This doesn't pass through other parameters to allow you to set any of the other template parameters like a quality rating or importance rating, which breaks several important features of wikiproject sorting, using this on talk pages creates pointless duplicate banners, all the functionality this has is already built into the parent template, and just setting a parameter to "yes" is insufficient complexity to merit a wrapper. Frietjes has just orphaned this template by merging them all into the parent templates, so this is now unused and can be deleted with no loss. The arguments above categorisation make no sense, using {{WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos}} categorises the articles into the exact same set of categories as {{WikiProject Nigeria|Lagos=yes}} because they are the same template. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I only just revisited the rationale behind your vote: I don't know your own level of standards of template quality to rate it as "poorly made". However, the template has been successfully used to categorize articles to both the Nigerian and city/state WikiProjects simultaneously with the feasibility of quality asessments in terms of importance and class of any rank without any hassles. If a banner template successfully does the job it is intended to do, what else is needed? Why did it survive a speedy deletion attempt in 2017 if it wasn't relevant? Your implication that the template is "poorly made" only weakens your rationale because it means it needs improvement, not a nomination for deletion. Eruditescholar (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It survived a speedy deletion attempt in 2017 because you deleted the speedy deletion tag from it, despite this explicitly being against the rules of speedy deletion. From WP:CSD: For most speedy deletion criteria, the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it. Do you think that you blanking deletion nominations from a page you made somehow serves as evidence that it is useful? I don't know how you classify a template as "successful" but a template that breaks most of the functionality of the template it is wrapping and results in pointless duplicate banners being generated is not successful by any measure. The base template can already classify pages into both the country and city/state wikiprojects (and can do so without breaking everything else) so I don't know why you insist on holding that up like it's an amazing feature. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the deletion tag because it was akin to vandalism in my opinion at the time (I know better now) and I counted it as a regular edit that any editor can make on pages including those created by the editor in question. From that incident till date, despite the fact that administrators have the power to delete templates without any tagging, it has survived. Regarding the template features and functionality, the wikitext was copyedited from a similar template created by another editor. After testing, I decided to use it on all relevant articles because it achieved the purpose it was meant to serve. Your own definition of successful may differ from mine but getting results with a banner template is what matters most at the end of the day. -Eruditescholar (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging a page for speedy deletion under a criteria that was completely correct is not vandalism under any definition of the word. The fact that it survived the speedy deletion in 2017 is irrelevant and does not show that the template is useful, it would have been deleted if you hadn't broken the rules and de-tagged it. It doesn't "serve the purpose it was meant to serve", it results in pages being tagged with a half broken duplicate banner who's entire functionality already exists in another template on the page. Frankly I'm done here - this discussion is just going around in circles, you do not appear to understand why this has been nominated for deletion or, more generally, how templates work, and you keep wasting my time by repeating the same ridiculous arguments that fail to address any of the reasons this has been nominated for deletion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your reiterative complaints about my past revert in 2017 is unnecessary here because I have not maintained that the speedy deletion was vandalism in my previous comments. Since the banner template was created over 6 years ago in 2015, it has been used to categorize hundreds of articles effectively and an administrator would have deleted it instantly if it was damaging Wikipedia which begs the question: Why is this issue just being raised now, after all these years?-Eruditescholar (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one that keeps trying to use the dumb argument "this page hasn't been speedy deleted yet so it is immune from deletion"! The page has been nominated for deletion because there's an ongoing cleanup project to delete all the useless, duplicate, unused and broken templates from template space. And yes, it is harmful in a small way because it breaks the functionality of the wikiproject sorting template upon which it is based. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not made any dumb argument here because my explanations are backed by facts and I have not implied that the banner template is immune from deletion. I'm not against cleaning up or sorting because regular maintenance is necessary. For all I care, this TFD discussion can go in any direction. However, there are better ways to rectify a minor fault if it may cause more problems under the guise of maintenance by significantly undoing several valid edits (which is potentially vandalism.) There's a big difference between a banner template causing extensive damage to disrupt knowledge provision for users and a minor fault that has only been detected by some editors.-Eruditescholar (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is conclusive to say that no one will miss this template. If you even bothered to check the transclusion count, you'll find there are zero mainspace transclusions and the only one at all is just a sandbox page showing a list of pages with noinclude TFD tags. At this point your constant objections are approaching bludgeoning territory and claiming that the deletion will cause massive problems when that is clearly not the case is completely ridiculous. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion is wrong because I have not objected to every participant in this discussion. Every participant is entitled to their opinion or judgement.-Eruditescholar (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that you were already there; just that you were dangerously close to it. Have you addressed the crux of the matter; that there are zero transclusions of merit and therefore your own arguments are wrong because no collateral damage will be caused by the deletion of this template? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've contradicted your previous statement. What did you imply by the phrase "constant objections"? This is supposed to be a voluntary discussion, not an argument. My concerns about the outcome were simply laid out here, nothing more. -Eruditescholar (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your indent-long pressing of the matter on this very thread is evidence. And nothing in the above reply contradicts what I said before if you can actually read. Still, I'm not interested in pressing the matter further; what is important is that your arguments are wrong. Deleting this template will generate absolutely zero side effects because it is completely unused. I don't know where you get the guise that it will cause us to undo massive good edits but that is just fantasy. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the goal of this discussion is to find a lasting solution regarding the banner template's usefulness. If this banner template is really unused like you've stated, then why was a discussion initiated about it in the first instant? Why wasn't it deleted instantly by an administrator(I've seen this scenario a number of times)?? I know this TFD is Wikipedia editing protocol to notify me, the creator but it would have saved me from unnecessary worries because I would have seen the outcome and it's zero impact on the articles I presumed affected. As editors, we all have different levels of knowledge and related skills applicable to contribute to Wikipedia. When it comes to banner templates, I"m not very deep into it's advanced features or functionalities, just the basic knowledge of how to create and apply to articles sufficed. That's probably why some of your terminologies were not easily absorbed and I couldn't verify the extent of the template's usage. Besides, there must have been some sort of confusion with the alternative version intended for merging. -Eruditescholar (talk)
  • Because this fact was not true when the TFD began; there were a few edgecases where the template was used. Only from this comment onwards, I replaced them here, merging the two banners by merging the parameters. by Frietjes, was this true. So do you object to this template being deleted now that you've seen the transclusion count yourself? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. As earlier stated; I'll confirm that I concurr with the deletion or merging process on the condition that all affected articles maintain their assessments with the state WikiProjects. Thanks for clarifying.-Eruditescholar (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 192.76.8.94: Poorly made wrapper template that is more difficult to use since parameters cannot be used at all and saves little typing (the most important part of a wrapper). Now, if it set multiple parameters at once, that would be something worth pursuing. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete/merge - don't need two templates. Just need to change the specific times this is used so that the parameter is true on the main template. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 May 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:WikiProject Pharmacology/Popular pages/Total[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 May 23. Izno (talk) 18:57, 23 May 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:WikiProject Philosophy/Popular pages/Total[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 May 23. Izno (talk) 18:57, 23 May 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:WikiProject Philosophy/Nav/template[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 May 23. Izno (talk) 18:57, 23 May 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:WikiProject Cell Signaling[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. Izno (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of these WikiProjects were converted into task forces of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology and are supported in Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology (except for RNA). These templates usages should be replaced with the main WikiProject one and when completed, delete these templates. Gonnym (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I can see why these templates have been nominated for deletion, however AFAIK any article assessment information from these templates has not yet been transferred to Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology (and indeed users still use the former WikiProject templates on new articles, despite the switch some years back). I know that WP:COMPBIO has a number of academic projects based on this article assessment information and using other tools which summarise this information (eg the 1.0 server, or Quarry), so I'd like to suggest that: (a) we ensure this (former) WikiProject-level data is not lost during the transfer Gonnym suggests, and (b) it is still 'mine-able' in the same way following the transfer, for all task forces of WP:MOLBIOL (eg, can we extract the same sort of data for a task force of a WikiProject? It's not clear to me that this is the case, but I'd be happy to be corrected :) ) Happy to discuss. Thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amkilpatrick I've tested the following: {{WikiProject Molecular Biology|class=C|importance=mid|COMPBIO=y|COMPBIO-imp=mid}} and the page was placed in the following categories:
C-Class Molecular Biology articles, Mid-importance Molecular Biology articles, C-Class Computational Biology articles, Mid-importance Computational Biology articles, WikiProject Computational Biology, All WikiProject Molecular Biology articles. Is something missing? Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks ok to me, I think. I expect if the WP:MOLBIOL template puts articles in separate categories as above, eg C-Class Computational Biology articles, this should be picked up by other tools with no noticeable difference (I apologise I'm a little ignorant to how these things work 'under the hood'!) Thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Asking questions is exactly the point of this TfD to make sure everything works as expected. I'm not sure how this tool works but it displays User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Computational Biology, which gets its data from the categories. Since the categories aren't changing, I don't think that the tool will need updating. Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping for further visibility @Evolution and evolvability:, @Seppi333:, @Alexbateman: Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while the parameters are already set in Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology, I personally would advocate for clean up and standardization of the parameter names before migration. I had to look inside the code to find |COMPBIO-imp= since the example in the documentation uses |MCB-importance= and there isn't a |COMPBIO-importance= while there are 3 other parameter names. There really isn't a reason to have 4 variations for the same parameter. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems logical to me too, but I'm not so familiar with template coding; maybe something Evo&Evo or Seppi can comment on? Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger of the templates, strong object to any deletion until all data is transfered (effectivley until the templates are not used anymore). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to worry about deletion before done. The templates will be listed at WP:TFD/H until the migration is done. Gonnym (talk) 21:32, 18 May 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:WikiProject Sociology editing[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. Izno (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently unused with no indication if it was ever used. However, even if it were used, Template:In use should be used instead of having a template like this for each WikiProject. Gonnym (talk) 14:48, 16 May 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:Wikipedia-Book selected for publishing[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. Izno (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and won't be used as there are no longer any Wikipedia books. Gonnym (talk) 14:44, 16 May 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:Quick infobox[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 13:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:02, 16 May 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:Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh[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 13:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This navbox appears to be a copy of {{Lok Sabha}} at a name that does not match the contents. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:01, 16 May 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:2022–23 Southern Conference basketball standings[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 13:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Appears to be unusable, since {{2022–23 Southern Conference men's basketball standings}} and {{2022–23 Southern Conference women's basketball standings}} both exist and are used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:55, 16 May 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:Country table[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 13:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template was created in 2006 and TFD'd as keep in 2007 because it might be useful. Fifteen years later, it appears that nobody has adopted it for use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect — Reinyday, 13:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
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:Welcome-suboptimal-nosign[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 Userfied and delete redirect. As I created this template, and this was primarily for my own use, and there are issues with it remaining in the Template namespace, I have moved it to userspace and had the redirect tagged for speedy deletion per G6/G7. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to fork Template:Welcome-suboptimal. If the template creator thinks something is missing from the template, they can suggest improvements on the talk page. Having numerous welcome templates makes it so improvements to these get lost and is a step backwards. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy: Move to my userspace then. Done. Thanks. Cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonnym: You clearly know more of how TfD rolls than I do, so I'm wondering; would it be acceptable for me to go ahead and userfy this myself (removing any cats as well), then tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you can do that. Gonnym (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:13, 17 May 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:Sofia Metro 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 02:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Sofia Metro. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 16 May 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:Coord/doc/internals and other unused subpages of Template:Coord[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 02:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Subpages, and documentation for template subpages, that no longer exist or are no longer used, now that the template has been converted to Lua. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:38, 16 May 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:ConvertStringToNumeric[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. Izno (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created as an experiment and linked from this discussion. The idea behind it was eventually incorporated into a different template. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the originator of the template/module, I agree. It was an experiment and it was successfully copied into {{currency}}.  Stepho  talk  04:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:18, 16 May 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:Wikipedia ad exists[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) 16:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on about 70 pages. I don't think a template is needed to display this information at the top of a (WikiProject) talk page. There are multiple other ways to display this kind of information.

It almost definitely shouldn't be used on namespace 1 (Talk:) pages. Izno (talk) 02:19, 16 May 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 judo competition event[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. Izno (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely redundant to Template:Infobox sports competition event. Can be merged into that template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: The template has many functionalities that it's ancestor doesn't, that includes providing support of more types of games, supporting display of mixed team competition winner, improved wikilinks and enabling use of official DB links in the template — among others. The nomination looks like the nominator hasn't read the template's source code, nor looked at it's application in more than 400 articles. CLalgo (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Games related articles should use their respective Infoboxes, not sport particular ones. Also, DB links should be in the external links of an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all games have specific templates. More over, some templates such as {{Infobox martial artist}} do link to external DBs, so that point is mute as well. Thirdly,not all pages using the template are part of "games". This nomination should be withdrawn. CLalgo (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Distinct event deserving of its own infobox, apart from Infobox sports competition event. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 16 May 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 Pan American Games[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 May 23. Izno (talk) 18:56, 23 May 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_May_16&oldid=1090458322"