Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

Template:1996 New Zealand general election by electorate

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) 00:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1996 New Zealand general election by electorate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

should be merged with 1996 New Zealand general election (no reason to have it separated from the article) Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subst onto the article then delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete Unnecessary single-use template. Number 5 7 19:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Translation WIP

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:Being translated. Picked the final merge target as being generally preferential from an implementation standpoint. Izno (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Translation WIP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Being translated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:In translation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Being translated and Template:In translation with Template:Translation WIP.
same concept fgnievinski (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination. Three templates with one purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination, and per WikiCleanerMan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:BreakTudo Awards

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BreakTudo Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use. The main article, BreakTudo Awards, was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BreakTudo Awards (2nd nomination). The articles in the template were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 BreakTudo Awards. Narky Blert (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but red links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially a G8. The articles this template was designed for have all been deleted. Hog Farm _Talk 15:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Brandywine Hundred, Delaware

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:New Castle County, Delaware. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brandywine Hundred, Delaware (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hundreds in Delaware are archaic geographic subdivisions which are meaningless today. This one appears to be a duplicate of Template:New Castle County, Delaware with some entries removed. I have to guess that membership in this template is a matter of WP:OR anyway since nobody actually cares any longer. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no benefit over the county list. Reywas92^Talk 14:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the entries that aren't in the New Castle template to that one (from a quick look, ones like Claymont Addition, Delaware, Rock Manor, Delaware, and Naamans Manor, Delaware aren't in the NCC one.) There is no good reason to have one by archaic subdivision rather than handle it all at the county level. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge what isn't included on the New Castle Template then delete this template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Hoorn - Heerhugowaard railway line

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 13:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hoorn - Heerhugowaard railway line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; the parent article (Heerhugowaard–Hoorn railway [nl]) hasn't been created. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Kilwinning Rangers F.C. squad

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 10:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kilwinning Rangers F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very few blue links; unlikely to have many in the near future as the club plays in the sixth level of Scottish football. We only normally use templates for clubs in the top four levels. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few to justify a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What harm is it doing? Salty1984 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, it doesn't help fulfill the purpose of navigation. There aren't many links that can help lead a reader to navigate between articles linked in the template. Currently only has three. And only used on those three articles. This is too small for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too low-level a club to have a squad template – only one current player is notable. WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument. Number 5 7 19:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, navbox without navigational purpose. Geschichte (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:High Speed 2 Phase One

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. Despite two weeks of discussion, the template has remained unused. ✗plicit 10:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:High Speed 2 Phase One (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; was replaced by {{High Speed 2 RDT}}. Mackensen (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a High Speed 2 Phase Two article and thus makes sense to have separate diagrams for the different phases, especially if anyone decided to create a Phase One article. This template offers more information than the (crowded, IMO) all-phases template, so I feel there is a place for both. These route diagram templates are not easy to make, so I feel keeping this one around is beneficial as it may be used in an article in the future, and may still be of interest today. NemesisAT (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NemesisAT, sure, but it hasn't been linked from anywhere in about eight years. There's no obvious place to use it on High Speed 2#Phase 1: London to Birmingham, where there's already a sizable raster map and a link out to an OpenStreetMap diagram. I also can't speak to whether it's still accurate inasmuch as it hasn't been updated (save for routine maintenance) in all that time. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen:Thanks, I've created a few pages on bridges as tunnels for HS2. I'm not very good with these templates but I'll have a go updating it. NemesisAT (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if still unused. After 11 years since being created, if there is no place for it to be used, it is unneeded or unwanted by the community. --Gonnym (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gonnym. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Siorac-en-Périgord-Cazoulès railway diagram

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 06:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Siorac-en-Périgord-Cazoulès railway diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; the parent article (Siorac-en-Périgord–Cazoulès railway [fr]) hasn't been created. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:LGV Perpignan-Figueres

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 06:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LGV Perpignan-Figueres (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; the parent article LGV Perpignan–Figueres was moved to Perpignan–Barcelona high-speed rail line and has a different (expanded) route diagram template. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Sulmona-Isernia railway diagram

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 06:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sulmona-Isernia railway diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; the parent article (Sulmona-Isernia railway [it]) hasn't been created. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 19 August 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).