Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 8 January 10 >

January 9 edit

Template:Nichiyō Gekijō 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 01:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too many nonexistent articles. Also, we're not a TV guide. - Xexerss (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NAVBOX items 2, 3, and 4. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per not a TV guide. Apart from being broadcast by the same channel at the same time, there's nothing obviously connecting them. Nigej (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 12 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:Triassic epoch nav 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 01:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. The rest of this set was recently deleted. Gonnym (talk) 22:26, 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:Shindot 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 01:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More unused leftover Hebrew niqqud templates. Gonnym (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No contest. And I wish I'd stop getting notifications for this set of templates, because my response is not going to change. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:01, 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:UNC DTV 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 01:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links, no documentation, no categories, inscrutable template name. All of the same criteria apply to this template's only subpage. Appears to be a two-year-old abandoned half-built template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:52, 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:Australia National American Football Team roster 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 01:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The current squad roster is displayed at the parent article, which is the only reasonable place for this article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't need this template, as the full roster in that template will only be shown on the parent article (where it's actually more up to date). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 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:Wind farm 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 01:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation. This template appears to be an abandoned experiment from 2010. One of the reasons that it has not been used may be that it has a terrible design, using a dozen unnamed parameters, which is certain to cause errors in implementation, and which makes it practically unusable. If a template like this is to be created, it needs to be recreated from scratch using named parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:41, 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:Philadelphia Fury 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 01:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The only reasonable place for a "current squad" template is in the parent article, so at best, this template would only ever be single-use templates containing article content. It should not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:24, 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:Mohun Bagan AC 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 01:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. There is no squad roster in the parent article, but this one is at least five years out of date. The only reasonable place for a "current squad" template is in the parent article, so at best, these templates would only ever be single-use templates containing article content. They should not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update. The team still exists, and the correct places to use the template are on all the players' articles (once it's been updated and verified that they still play for the team), which is a valid use case for keeping it. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly an "improve, don't delete" case --SuperJew (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Question @Joseph2302: On second looking, does team still exist? Seems from the article it was merged to ATK Mohun Bagan FC. --SuperJew (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, didn't noticed they've been merged. As Template:ATK Mohun Bagan FC squad exists for the new team, changing my vote to delete, as we don't keep squad templates for non-existent teams (and this template is less useful than the updated one for the new team name). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going for delete too, as it is a former team. Important to note that Jonesey95 original comment The only reasonable place for a "current squad" template is in the parent article, so at best, these templates would only ever be single-use templates containing article content. They should not exist. as a rule is wrong since there is a place for current squad templates. --SuperJew (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - defunct team = no current squad, so no need for 'current squad' template. GiantSnowman 19:41, 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:Toronto Wolfpack current 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 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, out of date. There is no reason to have this article content in a template, when the only article that can use it is Toronto Wolfpack. Either delete or subst into the parent article with a note saying that the roster is out of date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:20, 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:Orlen Wisła Płock squad and similar "current squad" 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 procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. No prejudice in nominating these templates separately. ✗plicit 01:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The current squad is listed as article content in the main article for each of these navboxes. In each case, the only reasonable place for a "current squad" template is in the parent article, so at best, these templates would only ever be single-use templates containing article content. They should not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unused and not updated for a year and a half. Seems like most of the Category:Polish handball club squad templates are in the same boat. If they're not kept up to date they're worse than useless. Nigej (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "current squad" templates in general should be kept up to date. But that's a case for improving, not deleting. --SuperJew (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really "current squad" templates shouldn't exist at all. We're an encyclopedia and while we need to keep up-to-date we're not in the business of maintaining thousands of such things. Nigej (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Should these be listed and discussed together? There are Polish handball teams, Montenegren football club, Turkish football club, English rugby league clubs, Chilean football club, PNG rubgy league club, reserve Australian Aussie rules football club, & American indoor soccer club. --SuperJew (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. These should be separated by sports, as many people will be knowledgeable in one or two of these sports, but not all of them. So trying to apply one rule to all these different scenarios and sports seems disingenuous to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I think the association football ones listed can be deleted, as the "current squads" section of those articles show the squads don't have enough players with articles to warrant a template. But the rest I have no knowledge on, and I would guess the handball ones would be okay to navigate between players, if people from that project updated them. Although this highlights why we should split by sport, as not every sport will be using the squad templates in the same way, and some sports WPs might have given up using them. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from nominator: I am OK with these nominations being split. I was probably overzealous with my merging of nominations, in the name of efficiency. I see that I combined "roster" and "squad" templates, which was probably an error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per the above by Joseph2302.Fleets (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural keep as above, this type of mass bundling is entirely inappropriate, both given number of templates and the different sports. GiantSnowman 19:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All are unused and qualify on deletion on that basis alone. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiCleanerMan Mass-bundling random things together and then shouting delete isn't correct procedure, which is why these should be speedy kept and nominated separately. Even though you think that may be the quickest way to delete things you don't like. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:19, 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:Osaka University departments 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 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Every link in this navbox goes to the same article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A navbox that it is clearly no use for navigation. Nigej (talk) 21:05, 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:Politics of the Eurasian Economic Union 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 January 17. ✗plicit 01:01, 17 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:Editintro/Group/Template:Taxonomy 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, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if used in some hidden place, however the template itself is basically an empty switch so it does nothing. Gonnym (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a working editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Taxonomy. I don't know what the difference between an "editintro" and an "editnotice" is. User:GKFXtalk 20:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:22, 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:Usertitle 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, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template to change the title of userpages, doesn't seem to work properly any more. User:GKFXtalk 19:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does anyone know if there a template that replaces this? I have no objection to its deletion, but perhaps someone could fix it instead? -- SamuelWantman 19:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can do without it, even if it was to work. Nigej (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete $wgRestrictDisplayTitle was set for a reason. This template's existence endorses the use of dubious hacks to circumvent rules that should not be circumvented. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:22, 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:U0400 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, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Templates created for a 2015 edit which attempted to move large chunks of an article into template space and was reverted two days later. User:GKFXtalk 19:16, 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:Taxonomic ranks 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 01:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and seems to be replaced by Template:Biological classification and on Taxonomic rank by another image also. Gonnym (talk) 16:17, 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).

Module:Location Map/data/Gozo 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 Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of Module:Location map/data/Gozo * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no use for it at all. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 15:59, 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:Taxobox/displayed cell 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) 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of unused Taxobox and Taxonomy templates that aren't needed anymore after confirming with Peter coxhead. Template:Taxonomy/ is used in some sandbox pages but is not needed anymore. Gonnym (talk) 15:50, 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:Spaces/char 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) 22:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused whitespace template; several other whitespace templates are available, and named HTML entities are also a readable option. User:GKFXtalk 15:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Templates.Wikia -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Use to {{spaces}}, add the missing types of whitespace characters (but not all the names of spaces, just one for each type will do) to the base template. Though, {{spaces}} could just call this subtemplate instead of implementing its own switch structure twice to select the character? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:59, 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:Party shading/Kalibapi 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, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above are unused and uncategorized shading templates created by Raigeiki55. Gonnym (talk) 13:57, 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:Party shading/Trinidad Labour Party 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, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above are unused and uncategorized shading templates created by 744cody. Gonnym (talk) 13:55, 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:HSBB Yearly Record Start family of 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 redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This family of templates has only one transclusion after existing for ten years. I recommend redirecting each one, and each of its subtemplates, to the corresponding template in the {{CBB yearly record start}} family, which has 3,000+ transclusions. Here's a link showing the minimal differences between two corresponding HSBB and the CBB templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no concerns about what you propose here. Your recommendations are reasonable because they retain functionality via a template family that has wider use.Jlhcpa (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nigej (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 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:HBQ2019PAG and Template:HBWQ2019PAG 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 13:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This is article content that already exists in final form at Handball at the 2019 Pan American Games. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:01, 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:HCM Baia Mare 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 13:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The current roster is listed at the main article, CS Minaur Baia Mare (women's handball), and there do not appear to be season articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Superseded by the one noted following a name change. Nigej (talk) 15:42, 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:H2 efficient clear 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 13:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation, no incoming links, no documentation, no categories. Unclear what it is for, but it's been around with no changes since 2013. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:57, 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:H1notoc and Template:H2notoc 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:Fake heading. ✗plicit 13:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending a merge to {{fake heading}}. I believe that these two templates, which have a total of two transclusions, can be replaced by {{Fake heading}} where they are transcluded. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:55, 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:Golf at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics 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 12:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. {{Golf at the Olympics}} is used on the relevant articles instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:42, 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:Golf at the 2014 Asian Games 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 12:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. {{Golf at the Asian Games master}} is used instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All now superseded by the generic version. Nigej (talk) 14:55, 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:Golf at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics 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 12:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This is a sidebar that contains no article links except a link to the main article, where an infobox is used instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:40, 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:WikiProject Football/Examples 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 12:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. The page is intended to link to a historical page that shows examples of how a specific template is used, but that historical page is non-functional after changes to that template. The target page is in Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded and Category:Pages where node count is exceeded, so many of the examples do not render. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP banner is very common and standard. There is no need for an example page (other than the /doc itself) and there certainly is no need for an example page of a previous, very old (2008!) version of the template. Gonnym (talk) 12:51, 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:Infobox reality competition season/examples 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 12:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. I have merged the content from this secondary testcases page into {{Infobox reality competition season/testcases}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fine by me to delete, I can't G7 as I'm not the only editor there. Gonnym (talk) 12:31, 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:Infobox music genre/blank 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 12:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Blank template for copying already exists at {{Infobox music genre/doc}}, which is the standard place for it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:27, 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:BTS 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) 22:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template {{{s-line}}} operated by Bangkok Mass Transit System are no longer used after being replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/BTS Skytrain. -Jjpachano (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after replacement per nom. The templates are still in use. Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: {{BTS color}} still has 219 transclusions. There is already consensus to migrate these templates. The usual practice is to nominate them for deletion after they have been replaced by Module:Adjacent stations, because the TFD notices break existing routemaps in very ugly ways. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I've looked into these lately and there are many instances of modules created while leaving behind these templates. So I think adding them to the /holding cell which has much more eyes, is more helpful than leaving them in a limbo state. Regarding breaking the templates, a noinclude tag should fix that. Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know how to fix the templates with noinclude tags. I just did that to all of these templates, since they were causing various errors in hundreds of pages. Jjpachano is making work for gnomes by nominating these templates before they are fully converted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete now that the transclusions have been eliminated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep on the grounds that this specific template conversion is no more urgent than any other s-line conversion and does not need to be specifically listed in the holding cell. On the merits, I would of course support deleting when they become unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, it looks like they are now all unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although I don't object to the migration of {{S-line}} to Module:Adjacent stations, the accompanying {{documentation}} never seems to be created for the replacement modules. Useddenim (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer: Please note the timing of the comments. As of this time stamp, all of these templates except {{BTS color}} have zero transclusions. BTS color is transcluded on one page, so it will need to be converted post-close, or omitted from the close. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 16 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:Red bib 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 11:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are almost exclusively used in tables instead of the number "1". From random checks I did, most don't even explain the usage of the color. This goes against MOS:COLOR. I'd also argue that usage of a color like this, even when explained, is MOS:JARGON which should be avoided. If the player finished in the first place, just use what every single competition table uses, which is "1". If something extra is needed, then explain that in prose or with a note.

Examples of bad usages:

2006–07 Biathlon World Cup#Scores and leader bibs actually explains what these mean, but while that explanation is great for an article about Biathlon bibs, it really doesn't add value to specific articles. As a note, neither Biathlon nor Biathlon World Championships even mention bib colors. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and replace with text. Just plain confusing and clearly fails MOS:COLOR in cases I've looked at: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information." I'm still not clear even what it means. Is this the bib they wore during a race or the bib they became entitled to wear by winning/leading something? We need to put a "1" in instead. If the bib is important it can be mentioned in a footnote. Even then I don't see the need for a colored box. Better to simply say "yellow bib" than put in a yellow box. We've even got fancy colored shirt icons here: 2021–22 Biathlon World Cup#Standings. Is this same as the bib color? 2021–22 Biathlon World Cup#Men says who's got the "Dark blue bib (After competition)" but that's not too much help either. Lets help our readers, they're not all experts in all the details of biathlons. If they won or are leading something, put in a "1". that's clear to everyone. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with numbers matching the formatting in the articles where they are transcluded. This non-standard formatting fails basic accessibility. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with numbers. MOS:COLOR is clear that colours shouldn't be only way to show information, so replace with the actual numbers that the colours are supposed to represent. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 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:Annotated image/Spider main organs 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 11:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An annotated image which is used only at Chelicerata. Should be subst there and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 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).

Template:Annotated image/Tyrannosauridae forelimb proportions 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 11:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An annotated image which is used only at Tyrannosauridae . Should be subst there and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 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:Annotated image/Porifera body structures 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 11:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An annotated image which is used only at Sponge. Should be subst there and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 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:Annotated image/Lysorophia distribution 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 11:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An annotated image which is used only at Lysorophia. Should be subst there and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 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:Annotated image/Arachnid phylogeny Shultz 2007 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 11:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A clade template mistitled as an annotated image which is used only at Chelicerata. Should be subst there and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 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:WPFCstatustext 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 05:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2007 and not used. Q28 (talk) 04:35, 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:Infobox Australian road/cleanup 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This appears to be a page that was created for temporary use in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page is not meant to be transcluded so of course there won't be any transclusions. It was created for cleanup in 2016. I'm not sure if members of WP:AURD still use it but that project should be approached for comments before deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have posted there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:20, 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:British Columbia provincial election, 1996/Vancouver-Mount Pleasant 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 02:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as both 1996 British Columbia general election and Vancouver-Mount Pleasant use different tables. Gonnym (talk) 01:23, 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_9&oldid=1066145839"