Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 7 January 9 >

January 8 edit

Template:Central Coast Mariners FC/colour 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 delete. (Author requests deletion.) Daniel (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template was removed from use in its parent template in 2011 (at its previous template name), and that parent template has been fine for ten years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 8 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:Miss Universe Cambodia 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 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Navbox with no main article and only one other link to an existing article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:34, 8 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:Alpha Prime Racing (version 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 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The more comprehensive and better-named template at {{Alpha Prime Racing}} appears to be preferred. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly we don't need two template for exactly the same thing. {{Alpha Prime Racing}} is the better name, whatever the current content. Nigej (talk) 21:47, 8 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:CSM București sections 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 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. Four blue links, five red links, and there is a simple list at the main article, CSM București. It appears that Category:CSM București is doing the job of this sidebar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Just 4 sections in 3 different sports. Realistically the only likely navigation is between the two handball teams, and that's already provided by a hatnote in those 2 articles. So no need for the template. Nigej (talk) 21:25, 8 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:IFIS 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:FIAV. ✗plicit 00:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:IFIS with Template:FIAV.
They are nearly similar and noone understand why there are both of them. W like wiki good to know 20:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It appears that {{FIAV}} was created in 2007 with the images, and the six-part grid was added later. In 2010, {{IFIS}} was created, even though it appears to duplicate the functionality of FIAV. I do not see any discussions about this apparent redundancy. FIAV has 419 transclusions and appears to be more complete; IFIS has 75 transclusions and should probably be converted into a redirect. Some tweaks may have to be made to the 75 transclusions of IFIS, and case-sensitivity of the parameter values may be an issue during the conversion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: yes, I also realised that the problem was maybe just different file names of the symbols, some start with IFIS some with FIAV (see: commons:Category:Vexillological symbols). So renaming these files would be reasonable. Or is it better to upload copies with new names? Maybe not, this would create new redundancy in commons!? But actually there are allready "redundancies" like File:FIAV reconstructed.svg and File:IFIS Reconstruction.svg. --W like wiki good to know 21:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to merge, all of those details can be worked out. They should be pretty easy; I don't see any technical issues that would block a merge. Redundant files can be deleted once they are no longer needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The files are used in other wikies, so one should leave redirects not to break the articles. Wikisaurus (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be "reconstructed" or "reconstruction", and so on? It can not find official names, although there is Unicode proposal and it says "reconstruction"... Wikisaurus (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer as above. If there is consensus to merge, we'll figure it out. No big deal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:50, 9 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:CF Reus Deportiu squad 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 00:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No updates to this roster navbox since 2019, and the team has been dissolved, so there is no possible place for a "current roster" template to live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Clearly intended to be the current squad Nigej (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - club dissolved so no need for 'current squad' template. GiantSnowman 16:43, 9 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).

"Rut X" 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 00:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a procedural nomination for the templates listed here; following this discussion (permalink), in which the {{Rut X}} templates were replaced by {{Rut|X}}, mainly to avoid the necessity of having a template for every team. This replacement has been performed, so all that's left is to rubber-stamp the deletion of the individual team templates. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Procedural deletion following template replacement thanks to the great work by Primefac. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Excellent work. Nigej (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See Template talk:Rut for details on the migration process, which I believe is complete at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simple cleanup. The templates are now permanently unused so serve no more use. Category:Rus templates by country should probably also receive the same treatment. Gonnym (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rus templates are different to Rut templates (Rut templates are for teams, Rus templates are for stadia) so I wouldn't delete at this stage as they haven't been updated yet and are all still in use in their original form, but Primefac is aware and will likely do the same changes for this when he has the time to do so. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However Category:Rut templates and it's subcategories can be nominated if the result of this discussion is delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; should this TFD be closed as delete, the category and its subcategories can be deleted via WP:G8. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 9 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:Discussed in Discord 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 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation. Created in mid-2020, and does not appear to have been used after almost two years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it seems like this should exist, if we are using Discord for official/administrative/technical Wikipedia conversations, like IRC did, since the description at WP:DISCORD mentions, this seems to be occurring, even if not WMF sanctioned -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doc added; fixed an error in the box (the option for "small"=no was incorrect, it shouldn't exist as an option) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one is using, not even the creator. I don't think any of the Discord users are aware of its existence. I'm not aware of an IRC equivalent. -- ferret (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ferret. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Something we can do without. Nigej (talk) 17:02, 9 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:Development regions of Romania 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 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Has been replaced by the more comprehensive {{NUTS-RO}} in the articles that it links to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. As noted there is a preferred alternative. Nigej (talk) 18:52, 8 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:Derbyshire districts 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Was apparently used at Derbyshire for a while, but this article content has been replaced with actual in-article content instead of a template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Whilst admitting I wasn't aware of this template until it appeared in Article Alerts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Derbyshire, I can see that it is very well-constructed, accurate and informative and does have potential uses, especially as it enables interactive zooming in. For example, now I know it exists, I'm minded to use it in the upper part of that project page, which I try to keep up-to-date, and feel it could be more helpful than the current map at List of civil parishes in Derbyshire. Because of its quality, I feel this is a good example of not deleting something that would be difficult to replace and could still be used in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now made small modifications and utilised this interactive template in the introduction at WP:Derbyshire. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nick Moyes, whose arguments I find very persuasive. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. I am happy for this to be kept as long as it is transcluded somewhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 15 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:Defacto rulers of Japan 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 00:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. This content appears to be formatted better in articles like Sesshō and Kampaku. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unused. Minute overlapping text makes it pretty unintelligible. If something is required in the future I don't think this would form the basis of it. Nigej (talk) 19:01, 8 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:Hexafluorides 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. There seems to be some indication that splitting, merging, or otherwise modifying the existing templates is necessary, but no one seems keen on outright deletion or straight merging through any of the proposed suggestions. There's no prejudice against any of the above (merging, splitting, etc) but it might take a bit more discussion on the related template's talk page(s) and/or involving the Chemistry WikiProject for their opinion(s). If one or more of these templates ends up disused or otherwise a consensus forms from subsequent discussions, there is no prejudice against renomination here. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Propose merging Template:Hexafluorides with Template:Fluorine compounds.
Propose merging Template:Fluorides with Template:Fluorine compounds.
Looks like the first is already covered by the second and the second is covered by the third. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would recommend splitting Fluorine compounds and fluorides templates more so that there is less overlap as there are a very large number of fluorine compounds. Fluorides template can concentrate on simple inorganic and ionic compounds. But I agree with merging hexafluorides with fluorides template, as it is just a subcollection. Fluorine compounds can stick with complex molecular compounds, and fluoroanions. Drop the periodic table from it.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Template:tetrafluoroborates also overlaps Template:Fluorine compounds. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:54, 24 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:Calphotos/url 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 00:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate of calphotos. User:GKFXtalk 09:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's too inflexible to use, as it takes the pagename directly without parameter input options, so if the page is disambiguated, it could go off kilter -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:04, 10 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:Flush left 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 00:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template to apply an (arbitrary?) negative left margin. User:GKFXtalk 09:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suspect this template depends on the skin you are using on Wikipedia. It should display incorrectly if the skin doesn't use an offset of 1.8em padding to the left bar margin. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:04, 10 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:Infobox Buddha 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. ✗plicit 00:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Buddha with Template:Infobox deity.
The template has many overlapping attributes with the deity infobox, which is more comprehensive. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment depending on how you look at it, a Buddha is a saint {{infobox saint}} or a diety or something else -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment would the merge be a subtemplate of the remaining fields, that hooks into the "mother" template using a |module#= to activate it? (similarly to how {{infobox person}} works) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Anyone who knows anything about Buddhism knows that Buddha is a title meaning "awakened one" (see Buddhahood). It refers to a person, not a deity. While it may be true that some revere Gautama Buddha as akin to a diety, other Buddhas are more like gurus or saints. Peaceray (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose As far as I know Buddha is not a god.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Buddhas are humans, not deities. Buddhas have different qualities and background than deities. They have teachers, students, and lineages, none of which are or should be in the deity template. Skyerise (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominator did not follow correct procedure: did not notify interested Wikiprojects - not WP Buddhism or WP Religion, which would obviously be interested projects, or the template's creators or maintainers. From this I am left to wonder: are they anti-Buddhist? certainly they are not knowledgeable about Buddhism if they could think this a reasonable proposal. I suggest they withdraw the nomination due to procedural omissions. Skyerise (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Buddhism is related to deities, though not a subset of them. --- FULBERT (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose If by "deity" we are referring to gods or goddesses, Buddhas does not fit the description, as has been already noted above. And so it would be a factual error to merge them into one as that would assume Buddhas are deities. If the current infobox lacks anything relevant that the deity-infobox has, just add those parameters to the Buddha-infobox? Sigvid (talk) 18:57, 11 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:Constituencies in Pays de la Loire 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 01:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. {{French National Assembly constituencies}} appears to be the preferred navbox; it is much more comprehensive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. All a bit of a mess. As noted we have {{French National Assembly constituencies}} which covers the whole of France. We have templates for some of the 18 regions like the Pays de la Loire one and {{Constituencies in Normandy}} and we have templates for some of the 100-odd departments like the Ain, Vendée, Pyrenees-Atlantiques ones but also others like {{Constituencies in Landes}} which are used. Sometimes we have articles like Loire-Atlantique's 1st constituency which have two templates, generally undesirable when they're covering the same thing. Seems to me that the regional-level ones are about the right size for useful navigation. The department-level templates are often too small and the national-level one is perhaps too large. Nigej (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nigej I'm left confused by your last statement. If the regional level should be kept, why did you vote to delete Template:Constituencies in Pays de la Loire? Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's unused. Happy to keep if that's the way the discussion goes. Nigej (talk) 14:09, 8 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:Companies trading in the La Paz Stock Exchange 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 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The main article for this navbox is poorly sourced, with no reference to companies that trade in the exchange, whatever that might mean. The companies' articles do not mention that they trade in the exchange. I don't think that the articles listed in this navbox are verifiably tied together in a way that justifies a navbox for them. A category would work just fine, if there is some characteristic that they actually have in common. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A pretty random selection of companies. As noted it's better covered by categories. Nigej (talk) 10:26, 8 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:Commonwealth realms 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 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation, no incoming links. There is an equivalent map at Commonwealth realm, which is the logical place for this article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Basically a duplicate of the file. If we need to transclude the file to multiple pages, we simply transclude the file. Unnecessary. Unused. DrKay (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. as noted, we don't need a separate template for a map. Nigej (talk) 10:27, 8 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:College wrestling national championship systems navbox 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 01:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No main article for this navbox. These links (except for the NAIA link) appear in {{National Collegiate Athletic Association}} and in Category:College wrestling championships. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. As noted, other alternatives are being used. Nigej (talk) 10:31, 8 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:Category pair/core 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 01:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No longer needed after the parent template was converted to Lua. This should be routine housekeeping. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 8 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:Cat more if exists/core 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 01:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No longer needed after the parent template was converted to use Lua. This should be routine housekeeping. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 8 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:Campaignbox Sit-in movement 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 01:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Covered much more comprehensively by {{Sit-in movement}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Basically {{Sit-in movement}} with all the red links removed and turned into a sidebar. We don't need both and I think the navbox approach is better. Nigej (talk) 17:11, 9 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:Campaignbox communist rebellion in the Philippines 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 01:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2015. Appears to have been superseded by navboxes, including {{The Marcoses}} and {{Martial EDSA}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created it while expanding the Communist rebellion in the Philippines article years ago. After a while I stopped watching that page because of constant edit warring on it and it seems like someone removed it. I think I can serve a purpose if someone includes more articles into it (or at least redlinks), otherwise just delete it.--Catlemur (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not worth expanding IMO. Nigej (talk) 10:36, 8 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:Lanlp 1 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 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While this template is tagged as transclusionless, I don't really think this is being used. The fact that it has no documentation or talk page is also a red flag. Gonnym (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it served a purpose in Help:Template until this edit 18:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC) by Kotniski.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:54, 8 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:Box/main 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate. User:GKFXtalk 00:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G7 Unused subtemplate of the box template created by me that serves no purpose.– BrandonXLF (talk) 00:13, 8 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:Box-shadow border/css 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 delete per author request. ✗plicit 14:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate, seems to have been used for applying CSS vendor prefixes to box-shadow. User:GKFXtalk 00:03, 8 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_8&oldid=1068146331"