Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< December 16 December 18 >

December 17

edit

Template:Load user script

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 2021 December 28. Izno (talk) 00:15, 28 December 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:Ref RFC

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. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't have this template for the same reason we deprecated Template:Cite doi and Template:Cite pmid * Pppery * it has begun... 02:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I politely disagree. The reason I have built this template is because the references to RFCs are on many pages, and the quality of them varies (a lot). There are a maximum of 100 subpages with this template, but this number does not grow. These pages hold up to 100 references each, and the template selects them from these pages by transcluding the right reference. No bots are needed and no unlimited growth of pages. Note also that a lot of work has gone into it already. —— Dandor iD (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If possible the move to Wikidata sounds like a good option. Gonnym (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went down the rabbit hole and this consensus appears to be the most relevant reference point: The central point of the entire discussion seems to boil down to whether citation data is properly article data or not. The claim that many of these are used only once or not at all seems to indicate that this is indeed article specific content. An arguable difference between RFCs and DOIs is that RFCs are often used in multiple articles. We certainly could impose a requirement that {{Ref RFC}} only be used for RFCs used in x or more articles. As for the proposal to move the database to Wikidata, that seems to be another rabbit hole and I was not able to find the bottom of that one. ~Kvng (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that there currently are more references in the pages than actually used is because I am preparing the references first before actually applying them. It is certainly not my intention to create a reference for each and every RFC; that would serve no one. The requirement by Kvng of adding only references to RFCs that are used in an article goes without saying. Then, the move to WikiData is okay by me, but seems not to change much in this discussion. I would rather leave in in Template space, which is directly editable by other Wikipedians, so they be able to add references to RFCs they want to use, to the benefit of all future editors that would like to do the same. —— Dandor iD (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per the nomination and the enforcement of a particular citation style (which happens to be {{rp}}) as well as the use of the <ref> tag embedded in the template. Once you strip out those two qualities, you are reduced to {{cite IETF}}. --Izno (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that a template is built using others must not come as a surprise. And the <ref> tag is the whole point of the template. The issue here is whether or not you want to have such a template at all. References to RFCs can be perfectly created with {{cite IETF}}, but the work is tedious and repetitive, which leads to poor quality references, inconsistent style, and sometimes no proper reference at all (just a 'RFC9999' link). The purpose of this template is to do the work once, get it done right, and lift the burden off all editors using them. The encyclopedia benefits from it. The implementation of this template is hardly relevant, in my opinion, and can be improved over time. Wikidata has entries for each and every RFC, and that may be put to good use. Still, the {{Ref RFC}} template could be considered a database and therefore deemed improper (regardless of implementation). I for one think that in this case the template is just a writing tool, simplifying the editor's work. The fact that it contains data of itself should not matter. —— Dandor iD (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not criticizing that it is built of other templates, I am criticizing specifically that you did so in the context of citations and for the specific templates/choices made. Izno (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As an example of why having {{Ref RFC}} can be beneficial to overall quality, see List of IP version numbers, created by me a while ago. A quick glance at the references shows how difficult it is to maintain consistency (even when trying): references with or without status, with or without updates, with or without a link to RFC, and finally with a working link to the actual RFC, or not. Regardless of what would be considered a 'good' reference, it should have one style, not five. —— Dandor iD (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - Izno suggests that the same effect can be achieved just by using {{cite IETF}} and {{rp}}. This ignores the benefit of the database that includes titles, dates, authors and updates. The nom argues that centralizing this information is undesirable citing previous discussions. I've read those discussions and I don't see the same problems with an RFC database as others saw with DOIs and PMIDs. RFCs are all from the same publisher and are frequently used in multiple articles. For now let's be productive and try to improve what Dandorid has started and see where it goes. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can perhaps sell me personally on the utility of having a template that contains all the titles, dates, and so on. Maybe. You cannot sell me on the use of {{rp}} forcing a certain citation style on an article in such a template, nor on the use of <ref> in what is otherwise a nominal citation template. Accordingly you should integrate the quantities into {{cite IETF}} instead and remove the ref, at which point this is a duplicate template. Izno (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment {{Ref RFC}} is no replacement of any other template. Any reference style, especially where quotes, or detailed page and section are involved can still be used with {{Cite IETF}}, with or without {{rp}}. The bulk of RFC references, however, are casual; just mentioning the RFC. In those cases, {{Ref RFC}} is helpful in that no further lookup is necessary to generate a high quality, consistent reference. But nobody is forced to use this template at any time, so no citation style is forced upon anyone.— Dandor iD (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think making {{Cite IETF}} smarter is a good idea. Maybe it is a better idea than {{Ref RFC}} but {{Ref RFC}} is better than the current {{Cite RFC}}. Whose going to do the work to make things perfect? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. If you don't like the {{rp}} citation style supported by {{Ref RFC}}, how about stepping up and improving {{Ref RFC}} to support other styles? ~Kvng (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A close of 'delete with some merging' will list the template accordingly at WP:TFDH. We do not make decisions based on who might do the work. That's even if I favor such a result (which I don't, but the closer can decide what and how to weight things). --Izno (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are mixing purpose and implementation here, and focusing on the latter. Is there anything against having a template containing data? Specifically in the case that without the template the same information will be in the final page (and references) rendering. If so, I have not seen this objection, other than a reference to 'Wikipedia is not a database'. I am perfectly happy to start over and implement it in such a way that everybody is happy, but I would object to simply dismissing the initiative, as seems to be happening now.— Dandor iD (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that I assume the WP:AFD principles apply to this discussion. We should not delete an imperfect implementation of a good idea. We should improve the implementation. If you think the idea is a bad one, please explain why. The delete rationales presented so far are not strong in this context. ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Templates are migrated to the consensus-preferred implementation (as in this discussion) by efforts coordinated by TFDH. Is that confusing?
    I have already laid out why this template is a bad template and have not so far been answered on the point meaningfully for my bare minimum change in how this template or its replacement should be used. The use of {{rp}} forces a citation style which means WP:CITEVAR can/will be violated for arbitrary articles. That's bad, categorically. "Just don't use it" when it is basically a duplicate anyway is not how we use templates (see WP:TG last bullet).
    As I have said, I can live half way with a change to {{Cite IETF}} that allows arbitrary data lookup, but you so far have not convinced arbitrary other users on that point, who do have sufficient previous precedent to delete similar templates. It's on you to show those precedents do not apply. Izno (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already explained why I don't think the precedents apply: RFCs are all from the same publisher and are frequently used in multiple articles. If that is not compelling, so be it. I am not very familiar with template policies so I'm trying to apply my AfD experience to this discussion. If that is wrong, fine but that's the best I can do for now. ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete, same situation as Template:Cite doi and Template:Cite pmid. A wikidata solution would be far better, but this isn't it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has gone in many directions. The main issue seems to be 'forcing style' and the notion of being a duplicate template. There are several ways forward from here.
Izno suggests that {{Ref RFC}} forces style. This is true, but only up to a point. {{Cite IETF}} also forces style up to a point, as {{Citation}} itself does. {{Ref RFC}} can be implemented the way {{Cite IETF}} is implemented (exposing most of the arguments of {{Citation}} and passing them along). Implemented this way (while hiding title=|author=|publisher= etcetera arguments) {{Ref RFC}} would be close to a duplicate template of {{Cite IETF}} (with benefits, obviously), and could certainly be seen as its final replacement. Editors would have the full benefit of all that {{Cite IETF}} has to offer, and we would get rid of the {{rp}}. Although possible, this is not what I had in mind.
Moving the inner workings of {{Ref RFC}} to {{Cite IETF}} would seem possible of itself, but would have disruptive qualities. Should we ignore the supplied title=|author=|publisher= values? Adding a reference entry into the repository would change references across an unknown number of pages, which is hard to check if everything is still okay.
A 'move to WikiData' has been suggested, but, as per {{Wikidata}} documentation, requesting data from sources not bound to a Wikipedia page is an expensive operation. Doing so would cause this template to be a CO2 generator, due to its potential use in many pages. This would not be the case if we had a Wikipedia page for each individual RFC, but that has been deemed inappropriate and the reason for the deletion of {{Cite doi}} and {{Cite pmid}}. If this could somehow be avoided, implementing (part of) this template using Wikidata might still be an improvement later on.
Then, finally and as proposed by Kvng, I propose to improve {{Ref RFC}} into a {{Cite IETF}} 'light', which was always my intention in a way. Implementing it like {{Cite IETF}} itself, but only offering arguments section=|p= and the like would give editors some flexibility and do away with {{rp}}. The ultimate benefit of having a {{Cite IETF}} 'light' is vast improvement of the bulk of all RFC references, due to its ease of use. Existing references that use the more intricate options of {{Cite IETF}} can and should remain as they are, so no reference quality (or style) is lost. Most existing references to an RFC (...as described in RFC 1234... (inline), <ref>RFC 1234</ref> (plain ref, all too common), {{Cite web|url=https://tools.ietf.org...}} (cite as a URL), and {{Cite IETF|rfc=1234....}} (without further options, which is most common)) could benefit from {{Ref RFC}}, lifting quality and consistency, in line with Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Variation_in_citation_methods under heading Generally considered helpful. — Dandor iD (talk) 09:56, 3 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:Cambrian Series 2 graphical timeline

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) 05:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused graph timelines for geological timelines. All have been sitting around for at least a year. And the respective articles already have a graph used on their infoboxes as part of the article and not on a separate template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:20, 17 December 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:Hot Place graphical timeline

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) 06:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused graph. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:19, 17 December 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:CDU/CSU presidential candidates

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per NEAN. We don't need templates for every political party in Germany that ran each and every candidate for President. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 17 December 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:Anatomy infobox 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 relisted on 2021 December 24. ✗plicit 23:57, 24 December 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:New list of largest stars row

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both unused and were probably created as test templates. The edit history for the radius calculator template has been only been its creation with the edit summary of "test". --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:58, 17 December 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:Chennai-Mysuru HSR corridor

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redudant template as Chennai–Mysuru high-speed rail corridor already features the route map as part of the infobox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:58, 17 December 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:USpatentsources

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 userfy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused patent attribution template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per creator. Gonnym (talk) 23:48, 19 December 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:Flower Hill NY subdivisions

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused maps and unlikely to be used anywhere. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:41, 17 December 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:Latn in Unicode

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 2021 December 25. Izno (talk) 06:43, 25 December 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:Tropical cyclones by decade/1980–1989

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 userfy. Izno (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filled with redirects. No navigational benefit. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noting the creator (who is banned from the project namespace)'s comment on User talk:WikiCleanerMan:

    On Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 17#Template:Tropical cyclones by decade/1980–1989, you nominated it for deletion. These redirects will be turned into articles in the future, as I am doing right now with Tropical cyclones in 1980. I just thought you may want to know. (I am banned from projectspace, and therefore cannot participate in the discussion.) 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

    . I see no good reason for TfD to impede this work, so suggest that this template be kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have gone for deletion since there is no progress on Tropical cyclones in xxxx series for over a year now, but since there is finally some work made recently, I'll go with Keep for now. MarioJump83! 01:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think userfication is the best way to go until the articles are ready. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. There are no articles that can be navigate to or from this and the only article that was worked on was converted into a redirect. Gonnym (talk) 23:43, 19 December 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:Rp

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 speedy keep. I have little love for this template, but between CITEVAR and suggested improvements best discussed on the relevant template's talk page (hitting both notes in the OP), I am closing this discussion given the 10 keeps so far. As Epicgenius suggests, an RFC would be an appropriate venue for further discussion on whether this template should exist, given the CITEVAR interest. Izno (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to provide a page reference outside the standard reference templates. If this is useful, then it should be integrated within the reference templates - it shouldn't be a separate template. Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this nomination is damaging numerous articles; it should be suppressed from display on articles. Mindmatrix 21:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have <noinclude/>'d the TFD notice. —howcheng {chat} 21:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howcheng: There's now a space appearing between the citation and the page number, causing some unwanted line breaks. Is this because the noincluded notice is on a separate line? Dan from A.P. (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed with commenting out the line break. –Fredddie™ 22:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is used to add page numbers for citations to references, not the reference itself. I've come across far too many articles for which page numbers are not included and am forced to hunt for the required information by guessing the relevant terms. Mindmatrix 21:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely useful template which is widely used. —howcheng {chat} 21:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a widely used template (46,000 transclusions) and an established method of indicating pagination. The fact that it's outside the ref tags is irrelevant - that's not visible to the reader. If you strongly feel that this should be integrated somehow into the templates, then the place to do that is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates, not TfD. @Mike Peel: please wrap the TfD notice in noinclude tags - it's now causing major formatting issues on all articles that the template is used. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless viable alternatives: The pages I contribute to are full of "the template below is being considered for deletion" graffiti as I regularly use the {rp} template when citing material. And yet I don't see a viable replacement on the table. Can we please remove this graffiti unless and until there are some clear alternatives to discuss and evaluate? The {rp} template is used on 46 000 articles so that is a lot of defacement for normal readers. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is very useful; it enables an editor to cite multiple pages from one source (such as a book) without filling the references list with multiple repetitive citations (ie. for each individual page). MaryMO (AR) (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mindmatrix above. It is useful when an editor wants to cite the same book or article several times but with different page numbers, without bloating the article and the sources section with multiple, redundant full citations. Plus it is used on many pages and would require quite a bit of busywork to undo the damage that deleting this template would cause.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MaryMO. It's convenient for inline page numbers by allowing named references, and subsequent usage with Template:R. That being said, I also lean towards a possible alternative that'd do this said operation. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 22:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but agree in principle. I agree that RP should be merged into the citation templates, but deletion would cause more harm than good. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CITEVAR. While I also agree in principle that citations should generally be in citation templates or as shortened footnotes, the {{rp}} template is useful for its own purposes, the main one being that it doesn't require an extra click by clicking on a reference number. However, this should really be put to an RFC at the template's talk page, or better, at the village pump. As it is, there was much controversy over last year's deprecation of the inline parenthetical referencing style, and that was used on many fewer pages. For a change this much larger, it can't be discussed only at TFD, so I suggest closing this and reopening the matter in an RFC. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 17 December 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:Zamindars of Kamsaar

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates with no links to any relevant articles. Fails navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 17 December 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:F2 Teams Standings

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused standings templates. Hard to tell for what year, season, or tournament this is for, but should be substituted on there. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:24, 17 December 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:FranceFlagNote

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) 05:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was going to use it. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:49, 17 December 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:Map of special national sites in Vietnam

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map with no information as to what sites the map is supposed to present. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:20, 17 December 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:Kertalaya railbus

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail template with no mainspace for transclusion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:19, 17 December 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:If any

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used and no major edits since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:14, 17 December 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:Citra Awards

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 do not merge but fix the duplicates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Citra Awards with Template:Citra Award for Best Picture, Template:Citra Award for Best Leading Actor, Template:Citra Award for Best Supporting Actress, Template:Citra Award for Best Director, Template:Citra Award for Best Leading Actress, Template:Citra Award for Best Supporting Actor, and Template:Citra Award for Best Actress. There shouldn't be a template for each of the awards per NEAN. It's better to have them in one template with easier navigation. Currently, the main template has mostly text instead of links to related articles. Also, if merged, then all non-article link text needs to be removed. The Best Film and Actress are currently unused and should be added to the respective articles once fully merged. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:57, 17 December 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:Femicide in the United Kingdom

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that links articles irrelevant to the main subject to Femicide. No mainspace about femicide in the United Kingdom exists. The template is largely synth. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:24, 17 December 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:Cycling data Carlos

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused data template. The mainspace is a stub article and the team was around from 1975 to 1979. The template is redundant due to very little information existing about the team. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The basis of having cycling team data templates is to have a standard of the team's name per each season to be used when linking to the team from other articles, which allows for consistency and convenience. It is a standard on here to have one for most every cycling team; you would find one for the majority of teams on here. I am also unsure as to why you are nominating it due to the article being a "stub", as this has no effect on the use of the cycling data templates. The template is not redundant as the team underwent various name changes, whcih can make it quite useful. I also do not know why you think the time period that the team existed for matters, because basically every cycling team of all time periods have a team data template, and just because a team is not recent doesn't make it less important. Seacactus 13 (talk)
    And as of yet, there is no place for transcluding this template anywhere on Wikipedia, so your keep argument is on the basis that it will. Will is not that the same thing as it is. The article being a stub and the seasons has relevance because the only article about the team is the main article. If this was used on that page, then it would have been an unnecessary single-use template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added it to several articles that should have been using it, so it is used in multiple places now, so there are indeed plenty of places to use it if you would have looked. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was unused before today. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now used on multiple articles. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I might support deleting the entire cycling data template system, but there's no reason to delete this one separately. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 18 December 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:Pre-Reformation Bishops of Ardfert and Aghadoe

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one link with the rest to non-existent articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:17, 17 December 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:Roman Catholic bishops of Cloyne and Ross

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 merge to Template:Roman Catholic bishops of Cloyne , as a valid WP:ATD. Izno (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unused navbox with only three links to articles. Other links are to disambiguation pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Facebook Gaming streamer

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) 15:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unnecessary infobox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:13, 17 December 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:Aonach Mòr weatherbox

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) 15:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused duplicate of Aonach Mòr#Climate, Ashover#Climate, Barnaul#Climate, Batam#Climate, Bealach na Bà#Climate, ... Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 17 December 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:Leaders of dependent territories by 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary navbox whose articles I've PRODDED for failing notability and redundant to the main article List of leaders of dependent territories. A navbox for articles about leaders for dependent territories for each and every year doesn't provide any navigational benefit. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion proposal of lists of leaders of dependent territoriesin by year is totally subjective and indefensible. List of leaders of dependent territories presents the situation at a certain moment while Lists of leaders of dependent territoriesin by year presents the evolution of the holders of the functions during a year. It is exactly the same relationship that appears between List of current heads of state and government and Lists of state leaders by year and between List of current foreign ministers and Lists of foreign ministers by year, which does not create problems of notability or lack of necessity some in relation to others. So nomination for deletion of Template is totally subjective and indefensible, too Bogdan Uleia (talk) 18:39, 18 December 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:TransMilenio 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unused template that comes off a blank page due to the formatting. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:48, 17 December 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:New Jersey State Senate Districts

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) 15:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Template:New Jersey legislative districts. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:42, 17 December 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:St. Thomas (Minnesota)

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) 15:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox for St. Thomas University, but it's not deserving of one even if it passes the minimum amount of links at the moment. But navigation is pretty bare-bones due to a little number of articles about the school itself. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:37, 17 December 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:Country data RBU

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely a test as it only contains the text "RBU". --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 17 December 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:Juworld.net

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just links to a website covering news about the Italian Juventus football team. Unlikely to be used anywhere. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:14, 17 December 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:Defence Ministers of the European Union member states

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) 15:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why there needs to be a template such as this one. The individuals linked in the template are Defense Ministers for the member states of the EU, not the organization as a whole. The template would just add more clutter and is not needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unused. Also fails WP:NAVBOX #4 since there doesn't seem to be an article about Defence Ministers of the European Union member states.
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:IPAc-sh

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) 15:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused IPA templates with no major edits outside of creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:02, 17 December 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:UAE Pro managers

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 redirect to Template:UAE Pro League managers. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and outdated to Template:UAE Pro League managers. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:49, 17 December 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:CSX Blue Island Subdivision

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) 15:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A rail route template with no mainspace article for it to be used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:47, 17 December 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:Bogue class aircraft facilities

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) 15:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused text format template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in use now.Pennsy22 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 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:ITN user icon

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) 15:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused In the News icon template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 17 December 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:Feminism and Folklore 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused talk message banners. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:37, 17 December 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:Backlog progress bar small

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) 15:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused progress template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:28, 17 December 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:Userbox/TFiOS and similar

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 09:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:MIG, plz userfy it then del the redirect. Q28 (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: When read strictly, it does not comply with WP:UBXNS, which says that for a userbox to exist in Template space, it needs to start with "User ", including the space after the word "User". If we're going to strictly enforce WP:UBXNS, I recommend moving these templates to "User:UBX/TFiOS" or similar names. I have done that with other userboxes in Template space that were very far from compliance with the naming policy, and there has been no drama so far. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what the nom suggested in the first place: migration. Where you are getting that this is merely a WP:UBXNS issue, I don't know. — voidxor 20:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright. I see no reason to bend over backwards for old userboxes, created in the wrong namespace to begin with, and with no transclusions. Even the creators of these boxes aren't using them; that doesn't speak well to our "need" for them. We have enough userboxes as is, including {{User:Mr. Unknown/UBX/JoJo Fan}}, etc. — voidxor 21:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside," per WP:TFD#NOT, which the nom should know if paying attention to the numerous parallel nominations that no doubt inspired these today, after a mere ten years of it being an issue. — voidxor 22:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 17 December 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:PLANTS/check

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 09:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer used and unused. Q28 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 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:PAS - RO

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 09:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links, no documentation. Only substantive edit was creation in 2009. Content is a simple wikilink to a redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 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:PCC fleet

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) 08:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links, no documentation, no categories. Only edits were creation in 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:53, 17 December 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:WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts/Deletion

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 02:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unused malformed subpage of the WikiProject Cricket Project template. The project like many other WikiProject's don't do this. Created by the same blocked user who made the article alerts template for the Cricket article alerts. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:35, 17 December 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:Micronesian state elections

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 2021 December 24. ✗plicit 02:16, 24 December 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:FBA 1927

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 02:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All are unused and unnecessary per NEAN. Sub articles for List of fellows of the British Academy do the job much better listing the full list of fellows. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: they are unused now, but could quite easily be added to the dozens of articles linked in each navbox. —Noswall59 (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
They aren't being used. Not sure what you mean. What are these navboxes doing that the articles can't? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I find the entire principle of adding templates to articles because they get nominated at TfD as unused to be counterproductive; if they were truly useful, that need would have been rediscovered independently of the unused templates task force. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 18 December 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:Current captains of associate national cricket teams of Americas region

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 02:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 17 December 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:LST-491 class tank landing ship draft

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) 15:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in use now.Pennsy22 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I agree with Parsecboy's edit summary in Special:Diff/1055368645: On the contrary, templates like this make it harder for others to edit the articles. This is effectively a single-use template containing article text, neither of which is permissible. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 18 December 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:WPCRIC Article alerts

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 02:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the creator is trying to do here, but this template is not used by the Cricket Project. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:03, 17 December 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:Extended periodic table (by Nefedov, 54 columns, compact cells)

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 userfy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused element template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not being currently used is not a reason for deletion. This template is correct to its cited source and could conceivably be used in some topical articles such as extended periodic table. WP:TFD#REASONS: (#3) The template is not used ... and has no likelihood of being used seems to be the line of reasoning, though it is not applicable in its entirety (because plausible uses exist). Also, there are many other templates listed in {{Periodic table templates}} of comparable status. ComplexRational (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being used is a reason for deletion. You misstated the rationale in your first sentence. And it is applicable in its entirety. Just because the possibility of it being used exists doesn't mean it's a reason for being kept. The template either has a place for it to be used or it doesn't. I'm open to the template being used somewhere otherwise it should be deleted if it doesn't have a place after all this time. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 11 months is a long time for a template not to find a place to be used. Gonnym (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(no redirect:) Template:Extended periodic table (by Nefedov, 54 columns, compact cells) (now a redirect) to be deleted. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 23 December 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:Foreign relations of Asia 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 01:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Asia topic template. Not sure it can help with it's intended navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:58, 17 December 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:CDU/CSU chairmen

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) 15:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the Christian Democratic Union of Germany template which has all the same links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:34, 17 December 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:Category 5 Pacific typhoons (2001–present)

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 2021 December 24. Izno (talk) 08:38, 24 December 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:2020 Atlantic 10 Conference women's soccer standings

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 01:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused standings template filled with red links and no mainspace for usage. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:09, 17 December 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:Campaignbox Burmese–Siamese War (1547–1549)

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 01:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both created by the same user and have the same content despite being titled for two different conflicts. Nonetheless, the only link is the template title and the other link is a redirect. No value here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:02, 17 December 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_17&oldid=1099745781"