Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 23

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. If someone wants this to use on a different wiki/location, they are welcome to request it be sent to them. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15 months after my prior TfD nomination, the speculation about the future that lead it to be kept has not borne out. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This module is used by several templates. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Wordify shows no such use, only an ancient experiment. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone broke another module and locked it. A temporary workaround was put in place until that is fixed. Trigenibinion (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trigenibinion: Can you provide an example of one of those modules? —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is Module:Formatnum. It cannot be #invoke'd (originally conditionally called with Wordify in Template:FXConvert). The FXConvert sandbox has been tested with the Formatnum sandbox which has the proper fix. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the user who locked Formatnum abandoned Wikipedia after being sanctioned. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 23 July 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two links. Fails NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is still two links short to pass the rule of thumb. Two articles don't exist yet, 2012 and 2014. The title page does not factor in the rule of thumb for five links minimum necessary for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please state a rationale along with your vote. Nobody knows if you're arguing to keep because you're the creator of the template or if you're arguing since articles exist for the subject, that it merits keeping and even though at the moment, there aren't five articles minimum. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:27, 27 July 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).

Domino 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 2022 August 1. Izno (talk) 03:29, 1 August 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).
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) 20:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originally split from Template:The Legend of Heroes by myself but I now believe all the content here can belong there again without issue. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 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).