Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 9

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) 14:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sidebar is redundant with the normal templates at the bottom of JS-related articles. It's also an eyesore with a questionable selection of entries. Pmffl (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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 moved to userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific to be useful to anyone except the user who created it. The content should be directly incorporated on the user page User:General electric p30ch, not added to Template: space Laplorfill (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice template but unused. Generally constants are just written out on their article page directly. User:GKFXtalk 21:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 16:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{8TeamBracket|seeds=no|RD1-RD2-path=0}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 16:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{8TeamBracket|legs=2/2/1|aggregate=score}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{8TeamBracket|legs=3/5/5/3}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to the standard 8TeamBracket template with the byes= option. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to the standard 32TeamBracket template with the legs= option Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 16:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to the standard 16TeamBracket template with the legs= option Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 16:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to the standard 64TeamBracket template with the legs= option Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 00:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from Cabra de Mora where it was breaking the mobile view of the page; otherwise unused. The origin=left option is redundant to {{Block indent}}. User:GKFXtalk 17:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 16:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by the standard 4TeamBracket template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be a template - the template could only ever be used on one article Draft:List of Thomas & Friends Characters in real life. It should just be content on that page, there is no purpose in having this in template space. Laplorfill (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unlikely to be used as the same info is now presented in the Riksdag article in a coloured wikitable and a SVG. 15 years out of date, it still contains the 2002 election results and was last updated in 2006. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 16:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused clean-up template with no obvious use, and is essentially redundant to the clean-up templates for specific issues. Content that is a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation is fundamentally unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia as it runs afoul of WP:What Wikipedia is not. The clean-up actions suggested by the template do not address the issue that it is supposed to be used to tag, no amount of rewriting for a NPOV or searching for reliable sources is going to turn Bob's CV or Timmy's fortnight fan page into something suitable for the encyclopaedia. The vast majority of web host material would fall under a speedy deletion criteria (G11, A7, A9, A10, A11, U5) or should be nominated at an appropriate deletion venue, for content that is not a blatant violation or that may be salvageable it would be better to tag the article with specific clean-up templates for the issues found. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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 redirect to Template:Transclusionless. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no obvious use, seems to have been an attempt to make a template equivalent of {{Possibly empty category}}. Templates are not deleted automatically when unused (unlike categories, which would qualify for C1 deletion) so there is no point tagging clean-up templates and the like with this. Furthermore a template being unused and having little likelihood of being used is a valid reason to nominate it for deletion. Created by an editor who has since been CIR/DE blocked. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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 merge to Template:Astrology sidebar. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ast box with Template:Astrology sidebar.
Only used on two pages and covers the same material. Izno (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Izno (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused attempt at a sidebar infobox thing that isn't used where you would expect and has a full on table in it. Izno (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little used navigation box. Gets over the 'five' hump but just barely. The topics aren't very well correlated either per WP:NAVBOX. Izno (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that's largely overlapping with our standard sister sites boxes. We also don't need to handhold the reader. Izno (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. I don't think we should have a reader-facing template for this either. Izno (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar. Izno (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar that I'm pretty sure there's an analog somewhere of, but given its disuse I don't see a reason to dig that up. Izno (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little-used 'infobox' template that already has two links directly in the UI. Should be deleted without substing. (relevant infobox possibly is Template:infobox user). Izno (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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 merge to Template:Infobox court case. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:SCOJCase with Template:Infobox court case.
Little-used, has a generic version available. Izno (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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) 14:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template that's standing in for an infobox but really isn't on Fault zone hydrogeology. Suggest deletion, no substing. Izno (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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