Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7[edit]

Template:Lynching in India[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with all articles covered by the category that's linked in the title. Better to navigate through the category as there is no mainspace article for such a subject. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lynching is an issue in India and there had been many incidents, so I have created this template. Still, the choice of Wikipedia editors is respectted. Nadiallah (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A navbox has significant advantages that make it distinctly more useful than a category. a nav box is highly useful in its own right for some purposes, such as, for example, topics that are highly relevant to social concerns and to public policy, such as this one, which is indeed highly relevant to major societal issues. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your claim that navboxes have a significant advantage over categories when it comes to navigation, after all, they are called navboxes for a reason. But this basically copies all the articles in the category. The major social issue is not of concern with this nomination. Completely irrelevant. Template:Lynching in the United States is a far more useful navbox for one reason, it provides easier navigation you can't get from its relevant categories. The U.S. navbox is far more useful than this one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep, seems no worse than other navboxes that duplicate categories. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 15 March 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:The edit-summary field/old[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Izno (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub-templates of Template:The edit-summary field. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 7 March 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:Clips of tics[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template just contains a link to a now deleted YouTube video; I don't really see the point. Endwise (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, Delete; all three clips are now gone, and a video has replaced them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably note that I was the creator of the template, in 2006, when there were three clips and the template was used in many articles. Now there are none, and I have removed it from all articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 9 March 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:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1812–1823[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused completely or used only in a talk page. The rest of the set was deleted here. This style of templates was not wanted. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before doing mass deletes of a large number of templates, especially those related to a high-popularity page or pages relating to a subject like the Supreme Court of the United States and cases decided there, might break who knows how many pages. May I suggest the following: There is a "feature" - I'm not sure what it's called - where someone can receive a notification when someone refers to them on their own talk page. Now I may be completely wrong, but, if it does do that, put these flags on those pages, there's only what, about 10, 20 of them and see over some period, a week or 30 days, some reasonable number dependent on traffic, and if no notifications occur then you've proven your case and I'd have no objections. My concern is that dozens or potentially hundreds of pages are broken because these are removed. Sure, there are no direct references on articles, but as someone who has edited hundreds of templates, especially to add a feature or correct something, I am aware that some templates indirectly invoke others through macro substitution, meaning one template references another as a parameter rather than a link, and the linkage is programmatically created at page rendering time, not when the page was composed, built, or published, and thus no database references are present. That is what worries me; you make one otherwise innocuous change, and it cascades to break hundreds of pages.
As I see it, this many pages on a related subject must have been created because someone (or multiple people) felt they needed something to be inserted or calculated, to put on an article page. If it can be reasonably shown doing this doesn't break something else, then I say fine, round them up and put them against the wall to be shot, err I mean deleted. It is possible it could be that these were used for some purpose, then deprecated in favor of replacing them with something else, but never bothered to delete it or ask for it to be deleted; that's also a case where it will not cause a problem.
Let's not find out through excessive zeal that we break things.
I have another suggestion. Copy the text of these to the same page in the Drafts namespace. Then blank out the template except for having it put a huge jarring message block telling the reader this page uses something that was thought to be unused, and they should contact you immediately so this can be fixed. If nobody at all complains after a month or whatever is reasonable, then yank these pages.
Maybe I've gone on too long, but I just don't want to see something unexpected get broken.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by people — who read my comments — like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've already deleted a huge chunk of these already, so I'd expect that if there was a major issue, we'd have found it by now. Nigej (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above templates are used, either directly or indirectly, other than 1 or two talk pages. This does not break anything and no research is needed. As I've stated in the previous batch, most of the templates were used in a single article which was deleted via AfD with editors specifically opting not to use this style of templates. Gonnym (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I wasn't able to parse any valid concern from the above wall of text. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:04, 11 March 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:WIKISOO/Round 4[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and since the Education Program was removed, the notice at the top is not relevant anymore. Gonnym (talk) 06:46, 7 March 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:WIKISOO self-paced[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link navbox. Gonnym (talk) 06:47, 7 March 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:Visible short description[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 11:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not likely to be used either. If a user wants to see the short description, they can always add .shortdescription { display:block !important; } to their css page. Gonnym (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I'm understanding this properly, you should be able tu use it thusly {{about|{{Visible short description|place description here}}|other uses|example (disambiguation)}} -- thus this should be documented into the hatnote system -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not used and difficult to understand why it would be used. Anybody interested in short descriptions will have the gadget enabled anyway — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is used in my suggested way, it would not work if you set the gadget, since it wouldn't tell anyone who didn't set the gadget why the disambiguation hatnote was missing an about term -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better explanation arises as to its purpose. 65.92.246.142's suggestion above does not seem particularly sound semantically. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:13, 11 March 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:Chris Evert start boxes[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 March 14. ✗plicit 11:21, 14 March 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:Christian navboxes[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 11:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 4#Template:Judeo-Christian navboxes there was no consensus to split Template:Judeo-Christian navboxes. Delete without redirect. Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 7 March 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:Jewish navboxes[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 11:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used, however at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 4#Template:Judeo-Christian navboxes there was no consensus to split Template:Judeo-Christian navboxes. Replace usages and delete without redirect so we won't end up at a situation like this again. Gonnym (talk) 07:13, 7 March 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:Branch[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 11:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both created in December, a few days a part. As evidenced by the delete results of Stink bomb, OverdoneStinkBomb, and Elephant there is no need for new templates like these. Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or userfy at creators' request. Proliferation of these isn't going to help communication, though there's nothing wrong with retaining them for personal use. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:08, 11 March 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:Gibraltar Second Division[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 March 14. ✗plicit 11:37, 14 March 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:Major non-NATO ally[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) 01:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriate topic for a Navbox, as it only concerns each country's relationship to the United States, not with each other, failing WP:NAVBOX. Previous TfD in 2013 had three delete and three merge suggestions, but was closed as no consensus since it was part of a huge mass nomination. I suggest deletion, since it's unclear how linking directly to these countries would be appropriate for Template:Foreign relations of the United States, and their US relation articles are already part of the template. Paul_012 (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging still-active previous participants Nick-D, Dimadick, Orlady and Chrism. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My previous Merge !vote still stands, for the same reasoning as it did back then. - Chrism would like to hear from you 10:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chrism, how would you suggest the merge be carried out? It wouldn't be appropriate to include individual countries in the US foreign relations template per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I guess one thing that could be done instead would be to add an asterisk to each of these countries' entries in that template, plus a link to Major non-NATO ally (which is missing and should be added anyway). This wouldn't merge any content from this template, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the actual effect is listing these countries' US relations twice, then it is simply redundant. Dimadick (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted it fundamentally a poor topic for a Navbox. A navbox is there to aid navigation. Are readers of the Japan article really going to want to jump to another country article because they're both non-NATO allies of the United States? Also gives a very US-centred view of the world. Why not templates with lists of allies of France or the UK or China, etc. We'd end up with country articles containing countless navboxes of this type. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite into a Cold-War-era Western bloc template that doesn't need to repeat the NATO countries by just including "NATO" as an entry -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite see how that would work, seeing as major non-NATO ally is an element of US foreign policy and not a description of the Cold-War Western blocs. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 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).

Module:Adjacent stations/Transport in Bus Driver[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 11:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bus lines for a video game, which are listed here and are pretty much trivia which should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 7 March 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:DPCLEANUP category 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. ✗plicit 11:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that all sub-categories were deleted, this template is only used on one category. Should be subst there directly and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I am the creator). Subst'ed in 1 page as proposed. No further use. Speedy=OK. DePiep (talk) 11:44, 7 March 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:ICC Women's Associate player of the 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. ✗plicit 14:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Navboxes with only one entry. Really no use for navigation. Nigej (talk) 14:06, 7 March 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:India Squad 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup[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) 01:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally consensus is that these sort of "squad" Navboxes for a particular event should be restricted to those teams that have done particularly well (winner or medalist). Producing these before the event finishes seem to go against that principle. Nigej (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all There was a previous discussion with the consensus to keep them all for the men's tournament, so the same should apply to the women's tournament too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per the previous TfD for the men's equivalent templates. There's only 8 teams in this competition, and so being selected for this competition is a noteworthy event, and the templates connecting these players are relevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all in line with Men's CWC and Women's and Men's FIFA World Cup: this is the top level of competition and happens every 4 years. Selection to these squads is significant and these templates are a useful form of navigation. Spike 'em (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These navboxes fail the criteria of WP:NAVBOX. 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup squads is the only means of navigating players in relation to this tournament we need. Having decorative navigation templates for all teams for all tournaments simply generates clutter – some of these players have over a dozen squad templates! Per nom, only the members of the winning team are likely to have the tournament squad as a reason to be closely associated with each other but even then we're really just hindering navigation by having so many of them for dominant teams (Australia in this case), so I really don't see the case for them then either. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My concern with these is that I'm not convinced that they're at all useful for navigation. At Mithali Raj#External links you have to click "show" on Links to Mithali Raj-related articles, then click "show" again on India squads, scroll down, click "show" for the third time, on India squad – 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup and finally you're shown a list of names and you can then click on one of those names to get to another article. It all looks like WP:TCREEP to me. Nigej (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what it is; and it applies equally to the other stuff mentioned by others. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of all the entries in Category:Women's Cricket World Cup squad navigational boxes show that there is an implied consensus that these navboxes are useful. Spike 'em (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a completely fallacious argument. There is no logical inference to be drawn from the existence of a category. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of all the entries in Category:Women's Cricket World Cup squad navigational boxes. I'm not using the existence of a category as an argument, but the fact that its members show that every single team entering a Women's World cup has a navbox. If you want all of them deleted, create an RfC to explicitly prohibit these for all sports, as there have been many related TfDs which have consensus to keep similar content. Spike 'em (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this is a wide issue on how templates for sports competitors are used, so it would make sense to be discussed in a general setting, rather than trying to delete a few templates here (which is inconsistent with the previous discussion from a couple of years ago, which said these types of templates should be kept). It's not WP:OSE to refer to a previous TfD on almost identical templates... Joseph2302 (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are inferring usefulness from existence – to repeat, that is a completely fallacious argument. Yes, proliferation of these navboxes is such that centralised discussion is probably needed to draw clearer boundaries than currently exist. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per the previous TfD. I understand the criticisms of the navboxes, but surely that should be dealt with via a discussion about all the templates, as before? Otherwise a weird hole will be left specifically for the 2022 World Cup, when all other major men's and women's tournaments retain the squad navboxes. Mpk662 (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, however discussion would unquestionably be met with complaints that they should be discussed separately (as groups). Anyway, "other stuff" is not a reason to oppose cleaning up these first. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should wait until after the tournament. And only keep the navbox for the team that wins. And if the other teams' navboxes are still around, then they should be renominated because those templates would represent cruft since they would be non-notable in terms of having a navbox since they didn't win. And we keep navboxes for teams that win torunaments/championships. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true, we have navboxes for every men's and women's FIFA (association football) and Cricket World Cup squad in recent times. This is a wider issue that needs a proper centralised discussion/RFC about which templates should be kept/deleted, rather than randomly picking a few templates and shouting delete at them. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should have an RFC about this. Because there is some confusion about what should be kept or not kept. But a larger issue seems to not be what should be kept or be deleted, but also the issue of creation. Users who create templates for all team squads in tournaments are doing so in good faith, but there is a colossal amount for non-winning teams across all sports not just for the ones nominated here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Previous consensus was to keep these navboxes, and until there's consensus otherwise they should be kept. More than happy for a discussion to be had on this though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 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:RSIGN/Europastraßen[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 14:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. No substantive edits since creation in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 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:Puerto Princesa TV[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 14:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This navbox contains no main article and no links to articles about the stations that it lists (all links are redirects). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 7 March 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:RecentUpdates[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 14:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. This page just transcludes Special:NewPages and attempts to transclude Special:Log (which does not appear to work). This appears to be an abandoned page from 2010 that has been superseded by better options. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 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:Recent changes window[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 14:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. The only substantive content is a transclusion of "Special:Recentchanges/30", which is straightforward enough to do on a given page if someone wants to show that content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 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:Redirect more info[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 14:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. I was unable to find any incoming links to this template in template code, and I found no trace of it in, for example, {{R category with possibilities}}. The documentation links to an apparently incorrect page that does not explain how this template is used; I assume that these project pages have been reorganized, and this template is no longer part of the rcat system. If I am wrong, let me know where this template is used and I will fix the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like a hatnote rather than an RCAT template, something of a hash-up between {{redirect}} and {{further}} perhaps? (redirect Y points to page X, more information for redirect Y, see category Z) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I can't fathom a use of this, either the way I interpret it, or the way the documentation seems to indicate -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not a hatnote. This seems to have been intended as a subtemplate in an abandoned plan to restructure the rcat templates, related to this discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 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:Reforder[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 14:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. This template was apparently designed to demonstrate a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 41 in 2016, but that proposal was not accepted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 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:Request list[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 14:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. For some reason, the "under construction" tag placed on this article at its creation in 2014 was removed in 2015 instead of the template being sent to TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 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:Sandbox box[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 14:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. No substantive edits since creation in late 2017 and early 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok to delete it, it is not used.   ManosHacker talk 19:29, 7 March 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:Snooker season points/2020/2021[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 March 15. ✗plicit 03:37, 15 March 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:South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network[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 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This is a map of the reserves listed here, and each individual reserve has a nice map, but there is no main article for this region/network of reserves, so there is no place for this template to be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 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:WWAcourse banner Round 5[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 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. Created in 2017. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 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:Welcomelaws-rand[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 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These three templates were part of a 2011 experiment. It looks like we missed this set of templates in this November 2021 discussion, which resulted in a mass delete of these templates. I propose deleting this set as well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems these are also part of that group: [list removed by Jonesey95] Gonnym (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find. I have nominated them above and remove the duplicate list from Gonnym's comment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete all per previous TfD. Gonnym (talk) 20:53, 7 March 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 Abandoned Drafts/potential[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 14:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. The parent template does not appear to use this subpage and has no documentation to provide a clue as to how it might be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 7 March 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:Val/sandboxlua[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 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nominating per creator's note. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 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:DLRexits2012[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 14:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are no longer used by {{Infobox London station}}, where only the most recent five years of data are shown. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 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:Versiontracker[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 14:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No longer useful, per VersionTracker. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 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:Tubeexits2010[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 14:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Removed from the {{Infobox London station}} template in January; the template shows only the most recent five years of data. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 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:Typo (software) version[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 14:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The main article for this template, Publify, was deleted, and neither Typo nor Publify are listed on the List of CMS page. Not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 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:Shin Japan Heroes Universe[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 02:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely reliant on WP:SYN. Fico Puricelli is jumping the gun. It’s only been recently confirmed that “Shin Japan Heroes Universe” is a collaborative project. It has not been confirmed whether this is an ongoing film series or a shared cinematic universe. The only source I come across that reported neutrally on this project without jumping to conclusions is Crunchyroll (1).

The only thing that has been confirmed is that the project will focus on “merchandise, special events and tie-ins” (2). Thus far, details are scant but will be revealed later this year (3). Therefore, this nav-temp should be deleted until more details emerge as to what this collaborative project is.

Keep in mind, Toho and Kahara launched collaborative projects in the past, such as GODZILLA X EVANGELION (3), a line of merchandise, and GODZILLA VS. EVANGELION (4), a 4-D ride at Universal Studios Japan. For all we know so far, this could be something similar rather than suddenly making these unrelated films (owned by separate studios) cinematically canon. Again, which the announcement did not confirm. Armegon (talk) 18:16, 7 March 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:Welcomeanon2[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 01:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These variations of Template:Welcome-anon haven't received updates in years while the main one is consistently being updated and tweaked. We should not keep these forks around and should instead focus updates to a single template. Gonnym (talk) 21:00, 7 March 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:Current CSB COTW[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 02:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive collaboration since around 2005. Remove single example usage and delete templates. Gonnym (talk) 21:08, 7 March 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:Crowded House Collab[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 01:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive since 2007 as with the others, should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 21:12, 7 March 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:Hendrick Motorsports Car No. 5 in the NASCAR Cup series[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) 22:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used in only one page. Izno (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back into Hendrick Motorsports. I originally created this template in an effort to reduce the size of the article, but now that it's small enough, I'm not opposed to merging back. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete only used once, so template not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 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:2017 NASL fall season results[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 03:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template Izno (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Maria forced Puerto Rico FC to move its remaining home games to neutral sites. That's why the table is different than the usual. Also, results tables appear on all NASL season wikipedia pages. If this one get deleted, than all of them must deleted in order to remain consistent. GrouchoPython (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is to delete the template, not to delete the content on the template page. It will be kept on the article of interest. Izno (talk) 05:15, 8 March 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_March_7&oldid=1077383489"