Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17[edit]

Oceania culture 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. Izno (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part of set of these sidebars, these 10 being unused. There are no transclusions and the only links are from the other sidebars. Really no point in creating these since there isn't enough content to talk about a "series" of articles. {{Culture of Oceania}} covers the area. Nigej (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Except Samoa and Tokelau. These two have enough articles for sidebars and are not majority redirects to the main article sections. Six articles in the Tokelau and eight articles in the Samoa sidebars. Nigej, thoughts? Unless these two fall under the rest and maybe the topic navbox is enough in terms of navigating to these articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you're right. There's actually quite a lot articles at Category:Tokelauan culture, it's just that the creator didn't add them to the sidebar and didn't add the sidebar to any articles. Nigej (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same is true in terms of articles for the respective Oceania countries and territories categories under the Culture category. Perhaps these need to include those articles instead of outright deletion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the purposes of discussion regarding Samoa and Tokelau. The others are being deleted (this can I suppose be considered a soft delete with REFUND available).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After digging through the culture categories for the templates that were deleted, only Samoa and Tokelau have enough mainspace articles for a specific cultural topic that warrant enough links for a sidebar. These two should stay and be added to the relevant articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, seems largely redundant to the links in the main footer navboxes (e.g., Template:Samoa topics). the advantage of the footer templates is that they don't crowd other right-floating content like images and infoboxes. The Tokelau sidebar could be repurposed as {{Tokelau topics}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like templates were deleted without a closure of this case. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • see the relisting comment directly above. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the navbox topics templates are better in cases like this where there aren't so many links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:45, 26 February 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:2019 Overwatch League Stage 2 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 02:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; substituted in appropriate article. – Pbrks (t • c) 02:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article content. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 17 February 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/201903 timeline large European state interventions[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coloured diagram of the March 2020 interventions by 5 European states. Was at COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, now unused. Personally I find it quite confusing. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 17 February 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Baltic states medical cases[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table of the number of cases/deaths/etc in the three Baltic states. Up to Dec 2020. Probably a composite of the 3 countries is not useful. Nigej (talk) 06:48, 17 February 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada/Quebec medical cases map[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map of the number of Covid cases in Quebec. Unused and not updated since Jan 2021. COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec now uses a different approach, based on cases per 100,000. Nigej (talk) 06:55, 17 February 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada/Nova Scotia medical cases chart[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Covid cases charts for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Unused and not updated since August 2020. Nigej (talk) 07:06, 17 February 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Central America medical cases chart[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused composite chart for Central America to Aug 2020. Probably a composite daily chart is not useful. Nigej (talk) 07:00, 17 February 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Paraguay medical cases[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table of the number of Covid cases by department. Only covers a couple of months. Overly detailed for us. Nigej (talk) 07:04, 17 February 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Czech Republic daily deaths chart[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chart of the number of daily death, surplus to graphs in COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic. Nigej (talk) 07:05, 17 February 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:Sclass/core2[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub-template of Template:Sclass. Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedy. I created this one. Not used since 2018; leftover of a greater Ships-templates set redesign I remember. -DePiep (talk) 08:08, 17 February 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:F1 Non Championship Races (1970-1979)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox of F1 Non Championship Races (1970-1979), intended to be one of a series. If they really are important they could be added to the main template {{F1GP 1970–1979}}, otherwise it just seems like a "list of x that are not in y", i.e. a fairly arbitrary list. Nigej (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the other race template, double up each year with a championship list and a nonchampionship list row -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion and Strongly oppose merger – Non-championship races are distinct from championship races. This is not at all an arbitrary list, and it would not be appropriate to combine the two. As for it being unused, that is easily remedied as it should be included on all non-championship race reports for the relevant time period. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it could exist merged together as a subnav child group in the same template, where one childsubnav is for championship races and one for non-championship, or each year could have two rows, one for championship and one for non-championship races. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These days, terms like "Formula One race"; "Drivers' Championship race", and "Grand Prix" are pretty much synonymous. But it wasn't always the case: not all races counting towards the Drivers' Championship were Grands Prix, and not all were run to Formula One rules; similarly, not all Grands Prix counted towards the Drivers' Championship, and nor did all Formula One races. Each year, a number of races would be run to Formula One rules, or which were designated a "Grand Prix" race, but which didn't count towards the Drivers' Championship. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add to the relevant articles. Until 1983, many non championship Formula One races were run, and this is a relevant grouping of events for a template. Merging would be the worst option, as it conflates championship and non championship events, which would make the template a confusing mess. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and add to articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:46, 24 February 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:Footer Olympic Champions - Figure Skating - Team/Year[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems surplus to {{NavigationOlympicChampionsFigureSkatingTeam}}. Unused and no obvious purpose. Nigej (talk) 08:55, 17 February 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:Formula E race report[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template for adding succession boxes. Seems that the code is added directly eg 2022 Mexico City ePrix#References. Nigej (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Implement replace all that repetitive coding with this template. Seems like it should be rolled out instead of keep copying code over and over again; then articles would maintain consistency in their navigational succession boxes. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Succession boxes, manual or hardcoded, are a very outdated design model. Template:FE ePrix Season 1-10 handles this much better with a much smaller footprint. Gonnym (talk) 21:03, 17 February 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:Formula One drivers from the Netherlands[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. There are 5 other used ones in the series, Germany, Russia, etc. Generally not a good topic for a navbox since they're not really "related", better handled by categories ie Category:Dutch Formula One drivers. Nigej (talk) 09:04, 17 February 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:GMA Network Franchised Formats[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 12:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of series acquired by a TV network. Poor topic for a navbox since the series are basically unrelated. Nigej (talk) 09:06, 17 February 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:Godwin family tree[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 12:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree, no transclusions but appears in a few "see also" sections. Harold Godwinson#Family tree has a more compact version inline. Nigej (talk) 09:16, 17 February 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).

Kashmir Premier League team 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 12:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary templates, as we don't need templates for every cricket team in existence (and every season of that tournament too, which looks like what the creator wants to do, as they've added 2021 to the templates). Has been briefly discussed at the Cricket WikiProject. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator and Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Cricket. Fade258 (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete General consensus for "squad templates" (not just Cricket) seems to be (1) For international championships - only the 3 medalists (2) For major team events - the winning team (3) For the "current" squad a more relaxed approach is taken, covering a wider range of international/domestic teams. (I know you can find countless examples that don't follow these "rules") I wouldn't put this in the "major team event" category, so on that basis a current squad navbox might be ok but not an annual one. The issue is that if you go for the annual style, player articles fill up with these and navigation becomes more difficult, not easier. Nigej (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the thread at WT:CRIC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Does not meet enough of WP:NAVBOX. Also, for many (most) players they also give WP:UNDUE significance to this minor competition above other much more significant teams they play/played for; to balance them with similar navboxes for all teams/competitions would be extremely cluttered and unhelpful to navigation. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:27, 20 February 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:Honda 2-/3-/5-cylinder automotive gasoline engines[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 12:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table of Honda engines. {{Honda automotive engine timeline (1971-1999)}} and {{Honda automotive engine timeline (2000-present)}} cover some of this. The rest is probably too detailed. Nigej (talk) 09:22, 17 February 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:SCOTM[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 12:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the month hasn't been active in 9 years. {{SCOTM}} should be removed from talk pages, {{SCOTMcontributor}} should be subst, and all 3 deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 17 February 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:SOTD default[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 12:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that won't be used as Wikipedia:Sound of the day hasn't been around over 10 years. Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 17 February 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:SOTD[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 12:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only 3 user talk pages but produces nothing as this project hasn't been active in over 10 years. Nothing to subst, just removal. Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 17 February 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:Slovene Wikipedians' notice board navigation[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 withdrawn. ✗plicit 12:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was used at Wikipedia:Slovene Wikipedians' notice board before it was WP:BLARed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovenia in 2020. Nigej (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've restored the Noticeboard since it is useful for the WikiProject, so is the navigation template. --TadejM my talk 07:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per new usage noted. Nigej (talk) 11:52, 24 February 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:Survey comparison limits information 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 12:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was used at Comparison of survey software until 2015. {{Survey comparison general information row}} still used there but not this one. Nigej (talk) 11:39, 17 February 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:Top 25 Report Exclusions[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 12:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of the text at Wikipedia:Top 25 Report#Exclusions. No transclusions. Nigej (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete template not needed for this, as the text is used once (without the template). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 17 February 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:National Premier Leagues Victoria 2 East[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 13:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navboxes for the National Premier Leagues Victoria 2 East and West divisions (to 2019). The two leagues are now NPL 2 and NPL 3 and are covered by {{Football Federation Victoria}}. The team articles have been changed to use this new system, although because of Covid I'm not sure they've played any games yet. Nigej (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the templates stay up, then yeah definitely change it to just "National Premier Leagues Victoria 2". Although I'm not sure if non-league football (which is the state leagues in Australia) templates are allowed after a discussion of it here. FastCube (talk) 04:41, 18 February 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:Paramilitary punishment attacks in Northern Ireland[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 February 24. ✗plicit 13:37, 24 February 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:Politics of Glasgow[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 13:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar from 2017. Looks unfinished since it doesn't have much of a range of topics compared to Category:Politics of Glasgow. Nigej (talk) 13:49, 17 February 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:Coin specification table 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 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. I don't know if this template (created in 2008, no edits since that year) was ever used, but articles linked from the instructions use wikitables that appear to work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers/COTW[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused collaboration of the week template, dated 2007, for an inactive WikiProject whose main page has not seen any non-technical edits since 2008. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject Mexico/Add[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. No edits since 2009. The entire content appears to be a link wrapper that adds "edit" to the end of a link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 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:Ubxrand/table[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This is a subpage that was intended for use with {{Ubxrand}} when it was temporarily a live template instead of a redirect. The creator of that live template decided to revert their edits and convert it back to a redirect, leaving this orphaned subpage behind. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to deletion. —Zach425 talk/contribs 14:53, 17 February 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:NCAA Season 96 Chess Semis and Finals[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⚡ 06:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bracket for Philippine chess competition already inline at NCAA Season 96#Chess. Nigej (talk) 15:26, 17 February 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:AFRICAvoter[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 00:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as inactive since 2007 and its related templates ({{AFRICOLL}}) and {{NomACOTM}} were previously deleted. Subst talk page usages and delete. Gonnym (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst/delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:39, 17 February 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:Strategy games to-do list[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused to-do list from 2008 for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Strategy games, now merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. No prospect of reuse. Nigej (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WikiProject Tasmania/SimilarWikiProjects[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 23:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template consisting of two links. Gonnym (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

more precisely - replaced/subsumed by the link inside the project page by Wikipedia:WikiProject Tasmania/Related projects where the similar wiki projects have been linked JarrahTree 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject Telecommunications/2[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 23:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused fork of Template:WikiProject Telecommunications. Gonnym (talk) 20:51, 17 February 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:Ca1[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 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused medal templates that are supposed to transclude the gold, silver, and bronze image templates. But the image files themselves are already used across articles. No major edits after creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Template:Aus1. Nigej (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as argued in the unfinished Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Template:Aus1 discussion:
    I've created these templates after finding the 3 Central America medal files, in order to curate them in Category:Medal icon templates and make them more accessible. The main Justification for having this kind of templates, in my eyes, is to ease uniform edit. Also, the templates have the advantage that while hovering over them with the mouse a description appears, helping with MOS:COLOR's mandate to "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information.".
    In conclusion: Keeping the {{Ca1}}, {{Ca2}}, {{Ca3}} templates are not a hill I would die on. It can help future editors access these 3 image files and goes along better with WP:COLOR than a "naked" icon file. If we look at the templates as mere redirects to the image files, we could also take into account the WP:CHEAP suggestion that "Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around.". As I see it, articles currently using the image files should use the templates instead. CLalgo (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding comment from first discussion:
WP:TFD#REASONS lists the Reasons to delete a template:

1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

1 doesn't apply, there are no better-designed templates for these images as section 2 requires, section 3 doesn't apply as other templates of this kind are being used, as well as the images these templates transclude and 4 doesn't apply as well. In conclusion, most arguments for deletion can be found as examples of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and the proposal doesn't clear the basic threshold of WP:TFD#REASONS. The matter is farther explained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in template deletion discussions#It's unused: "The fact that a template is unused is not, by itself, enough for deletion. It must be demonstrated that the template isn't likely to be used.". Hence, keep. CLalgo (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However WP:TFD also says "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here." and in reality that is the most common process. Nigej (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if after all the points I've made the motions is still to delete the templates while keep using the naked image files, it may look like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the files currently in use are kept, the templates may be used in the future. As they are templtes, it covers that side. As they work like redirects to the image files, that is another reason to keep the templates as they make finding the image files easier. The only arguments in favor of deleting the templates are actually about deletion of the image files, which is not the subject of this discussion. CLalgo (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments at the other discussion - basically there is no need for this style of medal templates, that the icons are too small for accessibility and the color choice fails even WCAG AA. Would have probably been best to wait for that one to finish so whatever consensus could then be cited. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now also per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Template:Aus1. Gonnym (talk) 06:48, 24 February 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:Handeni Urban District[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 23:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urban District is unused and pretty much the same as Handeni District. Both fail navbox requirements as they don't have the minimum five links. Largely red links and text. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of these 2 templates, there are only 2 blue links. This is not enough for a navbox. Gonnym (talk) 06:44, 23 February 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:Aerotec aircraft[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 23:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three links, two outside of the title. Fails basic navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Clearly adds nothing useful to any article it might be used in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_17&oldid=1074052253"