Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 20 October 22 >

October 21[edit]

Template:Jumping Monks[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 G8 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navigational template for a non-notable band (see AfD). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Band is not-notable and certainly no need for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Nepal Rajya[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 23:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, seems like {{Infobox settlement}} is sufficient for whatever this was intended for. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Lebanese MP[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 23:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused/unnecessary infobox, current articles use {{Infobox officeholder}} which is sufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not necessary and redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, no reason why one country needs its own infobox. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Unused Campaignbox Templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All five are unused. A breakdown of each follows. The 2019 Bolivian crisis was not a military conflict just a political one. Agar Maqnat is an unused fork of Template:Campaignbox Menelik's Expansions or 'Agar Maqnat'. The American Revolutionary War: Nova Scotia is an unused fork of Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Nova Scotia theatre. Loa Line and Altiplano already have the articles and red-linked articles in Template:Campaignbox War of the Pacific. The last campaignbox, Nukapu Conflict wasn't really a military conflict. Has one redirect and one article link. Not enough for a sidebar. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this nomination for deletion is a mistake. The Campaignbox is used on numerous articles on battles that made up the American campaign against the British in Nova Scotia. Save the campaign box.--Hantsheroes (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hantsheroes This says it's used once. Which "multiple articles" do you think it's used on? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually used anywhere. The transclusion link is on a user's subpage keeping track of Tfd's. So no usage on any articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh sorry, I was getting the two templates confused. Yes, delete the one in question.--Hantsheroes (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all are transcluded once according to the transclusion tool, if that one instance is useful then subst it (but it's probably just the user subpage mentioned above). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Adoption backlog/count[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 23:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subpage that does a simple calculation. It was changed to unused with this edit in 2008. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unused, and subtracting one from a number is not complex enough functionality to require a subtemplate. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Armagh disturbances map[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Zanzibar Government of National Unity 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not sure where this could be substituted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Bids for the 1998 Winter Olympics[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 23:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not enough blue links to make them useful. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Beuthen Rural District[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:AFC Dacia Unirea Brăila[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) 20:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first template links to two categories, an article for the team and the stadium. Really two articles. No navigational benefit. The seasons template is nothing but red and has been since its creation since 2018. It's been sitting around for no good reason. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The team may be important but the template does not fulfill the basic requirements needed for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for the 'main' template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The way the categories are linked is never how it should be done. The navbox has only 2 page links which makes it completely unnecessary. Gonnym (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 2 value links (the links to categories aren't valid blue links), which is not enough to justify a template. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:ABOUT THE COLLEGE[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 G6 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used and clearly not a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Deferrsn[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) 14:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears unused, and I'm struggling to find a context in which it is useful. Excluding transclusions as part of a "list of all inline icon/discussion templates", as far as I can tell this isn't used anywhere in any discussions, and an insource: search of Wikipedia namespace also showed a lack of substitution. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:ARGint[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) 20:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both unused. Not sure what the first template is to be for. But both templates don't have any informational value. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Jcttop template for Argentina. If you want to get rid of it, fine by me. Just don't salt it. I'll make it back later when I make ARGbtm and use it in some Argentina road pages. Feel free to discuss it on the Latin American Highways Task Force, they might be willing to finish it. I also might have misunderstood what was needed. Somebody on there might see that too. I am not available, as I am busy for personal and educational reasons. Feel free to delete while I'm gone within 5 hours of this post. Mr. Holup (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rschen7754. This is a work-in-progress, and it would be daft to delete it now only to have it re-created later. It is a pity that @WikiCleanerMan did not withdraw the nomination promptly after @Mr. Holup's comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Wikibase[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 11:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (except on 1 talk page) module. Documentation says it is replaced with by other modules. Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Commonwealth English editnotice[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 11:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Commonwealth English" is not the same as British English AFreshStart (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: As this is a template, this should be listed at TfD, not MfD. Curbon7 (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Commonwealth English editnotice * Pppery * it has begun... 02:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the result at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 14#Template:Commonwealth English and Template:Use Commonwealth English. I wish I had known this template existed, as I would've tagged it back then. Its accompanying templates have been deleted, and for good reason, so there is no justification for keeping this around. RGloucester — ☎ 12:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not used anywhere. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice toward later re-creation. Several times we've had discussions about this. There's clearly a problem of proliferation of "ENVAR" templates, that either all come down to effectively the same dialect in a formal register, or which do not even exist in a formal register, and consolidating these would be wise. But we don't seem to have a clear consensus to get it done, even after those discussions. So, this template doesn't presently serve a purpose. PS: This template was never supposed to say "British English". It was later changed to say that, because of the disappearance of the parent template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as we already have Template:British English editnotice for actual British English articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Notice: "Unused Templates Task Force" of interest to TfD watchers[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).
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

TfD regulars are likely to be interested in participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates/Unused Templates Task Force.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21&oldid=1052484874"