Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 11 January 13 >

January 12[edit]

Template:Yes3[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have {{Yes}} and {{Yes2}} in unified table cell templates. Yes3 differs only by using a different colour. It was being used in articles that did not use {{Yes}} or {{Yes2}}, so its use was determined only by colour, not by meaning. This can surely lead to Yes4, Yes5, Yes6, etc. which differ only by colour, which will almost certainly lead to a big mess over time. Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Surely the phrase "unified table cell templates" tells editors that they should be using one of the existing templates so that we have a unified style. Also: Why does {{InUse}} redirect to Yes3. Likely to cause confusion with {{In Use}}. Nigej (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From the InUse history, it seems that was the original name of {{Yes3}}; it's the residual redirect from a page move. I agree it's likely to only cause confusion. Obviously if its target is going away (seems so), it needs to as well... and probably should even if {{Yes3}} survives. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. But InUse is not in use (no pun intended :P). It should probably be deleted along with Yes3 according to the G8 criterion in WP:CSD. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:General links to subpage[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. Only substantive edits were in 2006. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment doc added, though I don't see how this is all that useful -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused after 15 years. Relates to Portals only. Nigej (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Full Background 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 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, or categories. It appears that people have chosen other means than this awkward, underdeveloped template to add borders and color to their user and user talk pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused after 10 years. Nigej (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Freeways and Expressways in the Republic of China[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 after history merge. ✗plicit 01:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. {{Freeways and Expressways in Taiwan}} appears to be preferred (31 transclusions). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment a cut-and-paste move occurred in 2005. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Histmerge the 2005 edit history of the ROC template into the Taiwan template -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unused duplicate. Nigej (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Formulae table 1[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, or categories. This template makes a table from three parameters, but it is not that much different from just making a wikitable, and less configurable. The only substantive edits were creation in 2011, after which it appears to have been abandoned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WPF query[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently being used as a banner for an obsolete task force but I think it would be best if simply removed since it likely invites comments not focused on the mission (or is just banner cruft otherwise). Only used on ~10 pages. Prefer full deletion to substing. Izno (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WikiProject Philosophy/announce[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not obviously used, and even if it was, it's no longer pertinent in general. Izno (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Motd nomclosing[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{closing}}. Izno (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. One minute I'm making up a "pun of the week" award and the next I find we've actually had a "WP:MOTD". Life is strange. Nigej (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:NYC topics[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both redundant and unused in comparison to New York City and Vancouver which already are doing the same job these two templates intend to do. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PolishCoA structure[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template formatted as an article. Tragically, the creator has since passed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:World economy infobox footer[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused footer template. Subject is better served by sidebar Template:World economy. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ancient unused "infobox footer". The sidebar noted is indeed much better. Nigej (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Anapana[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categorized as a typing-aid template, but doesn't follow the format of the other typing-aid templates. Just has the text "ānāpāna". --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not used. Type in Anapana and you'll get there. Cut and paste from there if you need to. Nigej (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:PoolGuy[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with standard {{sockpuppet}}. Izno (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One of those you wonder why it was created in the first place. Nigej (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was customary many years ago to have custom sock templates for the most prolific sockpuppeteers. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Sealioning[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use, unnecessarily passive for its supposed purpose, probably doesn't need calling out with a tag. Izno (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to discuss this with you further. Could you tell me exactly why you think this template might not be useful? Every template has a first use and it might eventually prove useful to gently remind editors not to take the bait. Maybe we should give it more time and discussion. Thank you, though, for taking notice. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "not to take the bait" Congratulations, you get the pun of the week award. :) Nigej (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell if your comment is ironic, Jehochman ;). If it is, well done. If it's not:
    • Individual comments of sealioning should be called out where identified.
    • Individuals who persist in it should be left a note on their talk page.
    • Multiple users over multiple comments probably deserves an ANI filing.
    • This template doesn't actually identify who it is, and I'd honestly see it as bad behavior to stamp this on a whole discussion just for a single user or whatever.
    --Izno (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am always earnest. In fact, my middle name is Ernest. You might prefer {{trolling}}, if you don't like {{sealioning}}. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure this will be used as a warning to editors. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to deleting, as creator. Sometimes templates catch on (e.g. {{collapse top}}) and sometimes they don't. Jehochman Talk 23:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uncivil. Accusations of sealioning are a personal attack, and should generally be avoided. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Approved revision[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not how Wikipedia works these days, one use only on its demonstration page. Izno (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ancient history. Nigej (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm getting major déjà vu here and am almost certain I nominated an essentially identical template a couple months ago. Unused and not useful. --Trialpears (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, I nominated a template in the past week that's almost exactly this template. Izno (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed process, only active in 2006; should probably MfD the project pages as well. Seems either to fall afoul of WP:NODISCLAIMERS or the processes for WP:0.5/WP:1.0/etc -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I also have to ask, Izno: (emphasis mine) Not how Wikipedia works these days... were there ever days when it worked like that? FeRDNYC (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FeRDNYC: Wikipedia was started to make approved articles for Nupedia, so, kinda'. That's aside from the {{Academic peer reviewed}} template lying around being stamped on arbitrary articles. Izno (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: Heh, that peer review template is diabolically clever. By extracting the Approved Revision™ as a PDF, they ensure it's protected from the inevitable changes that will lead to the wrong version of the live article. FeRDNYC (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject U.S. Congress/archive[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Izno (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in 2009 someone moved an old copy of Template:WikiProject U.S. Congress here, before replacing it with a new version. Seems utterly pointless because the old one is even now accessible via the history. Nigej (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Halt[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a diverse set of user warnings that are actually documented and used appropriately. This duplicates those. Izno (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. User:GKFXtalk 21:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Hasdraft[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be generically replaced with {{to do}} where used. Obviously never caught on in a meaningful fashion (note this is not specific to draft space drafts). Izno (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this template is specific to talk namespace workpages, per the existing instructions in the box, It isn't compatible with draft namespace pages. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Country data Pashalik of Yanina[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) 18:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that this design, which is based on a medallion attributed to Ali Pasha, was somehow representative of his state, let alone as a flag as depicted here. This is WP:OR pure and simple. Constantine ✍ 15:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Australian party style[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 January 25. Izno (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Dates for Easter[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 after ensuring that a subsection of its content is in some form kept in the List of dates for Easter, similar to Hanukkah#Dates, which can be dynamic yet still stored in the article (and without the need for it to be "absurdly long"). Primefac (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template messes up pages like Easter controversy with very little value. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a "delete" closure, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 1 decided that this TfD should be relisted. The problem is apparently that List of dates for Easter depends on this template. Perhaps substing could be a solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding to my original comment. The table itself is a single used template, which would mean that at the most basic argument, there is no need for it to be a template and it can be subst into the article. However, I'm arguing that the whole concept of the table is flawed so this should go straight to deletion. Design wise, the list itself is many times longer than the whole article, making the article extremely bad. Hiding the table is not an option per MOS:DONTHIDE. More importantly than my two previous arguments is that we just don't have list of dates for moveable holidays, as that falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We don't have List of dates for Hanukkah nor is the list at Hanukkah#Dates more than a few entries in the future. In the same manner Ramadan (calendar month) has only a few dates in the future. With all the above issues and MoS violations, I can't see how this template or table is salvageable. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the whole list is unsuitable in any form. However I'm thinking that readers might expect an article called List of dates for Easter to actually have some dates in it. I'd be happy to subst say 20 years there, 2012-2032 say. Perhaps the article ought to go, but that's not the discussion here. Nigej (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some dates are valid, not 20. Look no further than the Hebrew and Isalmic holidays which all work similar to moveable holidays. Hanukkah has 8 years - 3 in the past and 5 in the future. There really is no need for anymore. Any person that wants to know when Easter will be in 2222 or was at 1654 can just google it ("When was Easter yyyy" returns the first result). Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in a sensible version (I know hardly anything about templates and !voted "relist" at the DRV). The version until 21 November 2021 produced a somewhat lengthy table[1] producing a List of dates for Easter article looking like this. Then the template was edited to make the table absurdly long.[2] and after that it was sent to TFD and deleted. Hence, ludicrously, List of dates for Easter no longer had a list of dates for Easter. At least the template should be restored to its earlier version or parameters included to control the length. Substing would only be effective in the short term because it would not adapt to the years passing. Also, the deletion of this template led to the automatic deletion of {{Dates for Easter/row}}[3] so the means of calculation was also lost. Thincat (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that the current system did automatically add the dates for 2042 when the year clicked round a couple of weeks ago, and will continue to add new years each January 1st. I suppose the question is whether all this complicated stuff is really worth the effort. Nigej (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete In the end this is nothing more than a single-use Wikitable; such things do not need a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm impeded by my ignorance of templates. This template calls {{Dates for Easter/row}} in a loop and previously this subtemplate was speedy deleted as a subtemplate of the deleted template. Do these sort of matters get automatically sorted out by whoever does any deletion? BTW this wasn't single use (but perhaps it should have been). Thincat (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in a sensible version per Thincat. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason this is a template is that it can automatically be updated to show dates for 10 or 20 or whatever years into the future and it can be used in different articles limited to the timespan relevant. The template currently has a {{{from}}} parameter for specifying the start year, defaulting to 1583, i.e. the year the Gregorian reforms took effect. For the end year, one can either supply a static year number in the {{{to}}} parameter or a number of years in the {{{advance}}} parameter, which currently defaults to 20. Whether or not there is merit in having the article List of dates for Easter or what exactly it should encompass, is not really the topic of this discussion. — Christoph Päper 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is arguing for or against the article, and that Straw man argument needs to stop. The argument is weather a table that is clearly a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation should be kept. Having a few years in the future or past, which other articles do such as Hanukkah#Dates and Ramadan (calendar month) is fine and works much better than this. Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially a single-use template. We do not need any sort of automatic template for what is trivially identified in external sources, clearly indicated by the articles of similar type referenced by Gonnym. --Izno (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Chemical formula[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 after migration. After the migration has been completed, the user who has done so may request deletion by adding {{Db-g6|rationale=Per [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Template:Chemical formula]]}} to the template page. Sandstein 10:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry template that automatically links each element. This is not always desirable, but where it is appropriate (e.g. it is common at the top of articles about specific chemicals) it is redundant to the easier and more widely used {{chem2|CH3CH2OH|auto=1}} → CH3CH2OH, which is smart enough to only link each element once and so follow MOS:DUPLINK. 80 transclusions vs 1400 on {{chem2}}. User:GKFXtalk 20:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT: Since you mentioned {{chem2}} as this template's natural successor, GKFX (and that seems entirely correct to me, on the face of it), I did a little experiment to see how {{chem2}} handled the {{Chemical formula}} syntax. Sadly, the answer is "it does not, at all". Which is a bummer, as it would've made the decision really easy: Redirect transclusions to {{chem2}} and call it a day.
Unfortunately, since that can't be done, there are 80 transclusions out there that will have to be dealt with if this deletion goes through, no? Any thoughts on how to approach that? FeRDNYC (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JWB is how I approached Template:Hydrogen etc. (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#Template:Hypochlorite). User:GKFXtalk 07:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Csimq[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 13:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox with no documentation which seems to have been a copy of Template:Infobox journal at some point. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Dragon Ball character 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 13:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created and still unused, but more importantly, should not be used as {{Infobox character}} should be used instead. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There would need to be an extremely strong case to create a new infobox so similar to an existing one, and that seems highly unlikely to be case. Nigej (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No need to replicate the main Infobox character template. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject Human rights Collaboration[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be a parameter in the WikiProject template, but it's not meaningfully used at all. Izno (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Criterion8tag[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Izno (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WorldwideBoxOfficeLeader[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Izno (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dates from 2007. Some plan to keep a week-by-week Worldwide Box Office Leader. Never got off the ground. Nigej (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Personal document[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template, recommend subst and delete. Izno (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Fishingassessment[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One time use for an assessment drive that really probably should have just been a parameter in the relevant WikiProject template. Recommend subst and delete. Izno (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst/delete per nom. Even if WP:FISHING had another assessment drive (unlikely after 15 years) this approach of adding assessment boxes in the middle of talk pages (eg Talk:Fishing reel) is not suitable IMO. Nigej (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. Please make sure that the subst does not leave parser functions, parameters or templated-table syntax (as that is much harder to read in wikitext and causes the table highlighting not to appear). Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Subtitle[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 and redirect to Template:Subtitles. ✗plicit 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creates a <p> with a useless id probably originating from French Wikipedia. One use that can easily be replaced. Template should probably be redirected to {{Subtitles}} instead of deletion. --Trialpears (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:HexColorToLum[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 03:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No longer needed after {{RGBColorToLum}} was converted to Lua in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Geological era and three sibling 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 02:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, except in one or two sandboxes. These all appear to have been superseded by {{Infobox geologic timespan}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:GaelicGamesByYear[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 02:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Appears to have been replaced by {{GaelicGamesYearCat}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Florence Nightingale Medal[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 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. Content is just a file. Pages like Sylvia Trent-Adams get along just fine by calling the file directly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:FindDPLA multi[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. The page author, who is an administrator, can userfy the template if they desire. ✗plicit 02:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. Only edit was creation in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Party shading/American Solidarity[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 02:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above are all unused United States political party shading templates. Some are only used at Template:United States political party shading, which itself is unused. Gonnym (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Lists in the 2019 European Parliament elections in France[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 02:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template and all of its sub-templates are only used at 2019 European Parliament election in France (a few are just unused). These tables should be subst into the article and the templates deleted. Gonnym (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst/Delete 20 single-use "templates", most of which are used at 2019 European Parliament election in France and the others are unused. They're all article content and need to go in the parent article. OK, that makes the parent article very large but that's not the issue here. If it's too large then either it's a bloated article (which is probably the case here) or it needs splitting. Hiding stuff away is not the solution. Nigej (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly my thoughts here. Editors create tables then hide them. As MOS:DONTHIDE points out, if you feel the need to hide the content, then maybe the content does not belong there. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_12&oldid=1069433807"