Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 11 December 13 >

December 12 edit

Template:Civic LegCo members 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) 22:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused with the first six with less than the minimum of five links. The last template doesn't even have the main article space created yet and is not needed despite meeting the minimum link amount. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. 2-3 links is not enough for a navbox. Template:The Professionals Guild LegCo members. {{The Professionals Guild LegCo members}} should also be deleted as there is no The Professionals Guild nor is "The Professionals Guild" mentioned in most of the entries. Gonnym (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Chippewa County, Michigan labels 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) 21:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unneeded maps. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I made these maps a long time ago as a test for county maps. They are sloppy and not going to be used anyway. -Notorious4life (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Karaçoban 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need for template; all "villages" have been redirected to disctrict. –dlthewave ☎ 20:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nomination. dlthewave, I merged the nominations under a single batch. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Database spam article lists that have since been cleaned up. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Party shading/Brazilian Democratic Movement 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above templates are all unused Brazilian political parties shading templates. These are currently unrelated to Module:Political party so there is no ongoing deprecation of these. Gonnym (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't even remember why I created these but I assume they were used then but not now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:French politics/party colours 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) 22:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Module:Political party has all political party color information in it, having this separate template means that there are now two places where colors need to be maintained and errors in one will eventually be reported at the other (errors that will be much harder to trace).

Most usages are probably from Template:Infobox French constituency and Template:Infobox New Caledonian political party which will require replacing the template call there and updating usages from the abbreviation to the party name. Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Internet Party and MANA Movement/meta/gradient 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) 21:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused gradient template. Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was an experimental case to represent factions within a coalition, but it didn't function across multiple browsers and I decided not to further develop it. Fanx (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Chemical elements: table of term symbols 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) 22:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused list template of the chemical elements. Feels redundant to Template:List of chemical elements. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, could be speedy. Was intended for mainspace, but unused. (No not redundant to that List: the two main columns differ!). However, it is a full copy of this documentation template (to be kept as doc), so can freely be deleted.
I first tried to save it for documentation before discovering the already existing doc copy. So, my move into {{Infobox element/symbol-to-term-symbol/overview-list}} is useless and confusing. To delete:
A creator of the original set, I propose Speedy deletion of these five. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After confusing y'all, HTH -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Chembox NFPA (set) 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) 21:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutraldelete, recreation when needed. The template was created as development, but did not mature. Incidentally, more things are happening in that area these weeks so recreating might happen when its development is reignited. (In that case WP:G4 would not apply, obviously). -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC) - delete for now then -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Czech Republic political party shading 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) 21:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Gonnym (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not really a template. Just lists the color templates that are being used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Checkvalue 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) 21:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was in use, but no longer seems to be. I guess calls were moved over to the main WikidataIB call by someone (no idea how to find out what happened!). So probably this can just go. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Checkuser testing 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. No-longer-needed test, with G7 support of creator. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Probably was a test as the creation edit states it clones the main Checkuser template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy-G7 Indeed, that was a long-ago test that I could re-create if we ever need to discuss/work on that aspect again. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Championship clubs map 2010 edit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 December 19. Izno (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cfb division III edit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 December 19. Izno (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:United States political party key 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) 22:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused color legend. Gonnym (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:100 Most Common Family Names in Mainland China edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_30#Template:Taiwan's_Top_100_surnames. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Don't see the benefit in having this as a topic that needs a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I'm unconvinced the prior TfD had the right outcome (I certainly would've !voted keep were I aware of it). Eastern surnames are much more centralized than Western ones, such that the "other countries don't have these navboxes" objection falls apart when you consider where enwiki's coverage is biased -- the naming practices most heavily covered by an English-language, Western-centric project are very different to those in East Asia, where a small number of surnames covers millions of people. Because the most popular Eastern surnames are much more concentrated in the population than their Western counterparts, there is in turn much more historical and modern significance attached to the ranking and sorting of surnames. "100 Chinese surnames" is a very natural category -- it's in fact the category of the Hundred Family Surnames, one of the single most important works in Chinese literary history. With only around 4000 surnames in China at all, the top 100 surnames and the 101-200 surnames are things that carry cultural significance in a way they don't elsewhere and shake out as natural categories more smoothly. Someone interested in reading about a surname in one such category is much more likely to be interested in reading further about similarly popular surnames and the history of Chinese surname popularity and culture than someone doing the same with Western surnames, which is the reason we have these navboxes for Chinese surnames and not Western ones. Vaticidalprophet 03:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep widely used and significant in their frequency, and combine together to forma a natural collection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, we don't need a navbox for everything. the list article does a much better job with ranking the names. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, For clarify the number. All is notably. And easy to read other listed common surname.114.10.16.93 (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Useful for navigation between articles about the different Chinese surnames. Historically, "the hundred surnames" (百姓) is literally a synonym for "the people" or "the populace". Chinese surnames comprise a much smaller set than western surnames do, so we're not doomed to a future of fifty of these templates just because we have one for the top one hundred surnames, which are shared by an estimated 86% of the population (the most common five surnames are shared by about 30% of the population).[1] Also, per Vaticidalprophet, we probably shouldn't have deleted the one for Taiwan. It's a poor precedent to follow, and is the only reason given by the nominator. Folly Mox (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Yeung, Jessie (2021-01-16). "Why 1.2 billion people share the same hundred surnames in China". CNN.
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:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round group tables 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) 00:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed. These tables have been imported to most relevant articles and transcluded to related ones. Ping template creators @Dekabreak101, Santiago Claudio, and TheBigJagielka:. Also ping @Foghe, Jkudlick, Nmk829, S.A. Julio, and Skyblueshaun:. Centaur271188 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Honestly, I think it's useful to keep these templates and continue to use them in articles. The edit histories contain useful info about how each group progressed (e.g. if I want to see what the table situation was at the end of matchday 6, I can easily do that with the template, but I can't do that if they're transcluded and deleted). – PeeJay 18:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PeeJay: Hmm, I think such need cannot justify these templates' existence. Module:Sports table is not meant to be some kind of chronicle, and we have reached consensus in WikiProject Football against these chronological data (e.g. results & league positions round-by-round) more than once. Centaur271188 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template doesn't have to display that data, but it is part of the page history of each template. By deleting these templates yet keeping the information, you're essentially deleting contributions from a lot of editors, whose contributions would not be visible in the articles the templates are transcluded to. – PeeJay 10:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The templates have been merged already and we don't individual standings templates for each and every tournament. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the templates have all been hard-coded into any articles and talk pages where they had been transcluded, I concur with PeeJay in that retaining historical records of changes to the templates, as well as individual editors' contributions, would be overall beneficial to the project. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Jkudlick and PeeJay: I still think such values (historical records of changes, round-by-round situations) are not a purpose of Wikipedia or this module. Anyway, if you guys really want to retain them, I believe the Merge option will satisfy you. There is no point in trying to keep these templates - as of now, they are largely unused (100% unused in mainspace) and redundant. Please also be noticed that many similar templates from 2014 campaign and earlier were deleted, following this dicussion [1] and these nominations [2] [3] etc. I do not know whether a lengthy debate about them is appropriate here - I may start a new talk in WikiProject Football to see if the consensus has changed. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete - they have served their purpose. GiantSnowman 19:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Agree template no longer needed. I personally would rather advocate for transcluding group tables from page where it's details (matches, etc.) are specified. This templates are harder to edit because of no preview for updates before saving them. -- Sfaxx (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose UEFA group tables These tables are spread across 10 group articles and transcluded to many other national team pages, it is much easier to watch for vandalism of the standings on a single template than numerous, longer group articles. If any mass changes are needed to be made to the templates (for example rescuing dead links), it is much easier to edit a single page than 10. This is a valid use of the template namespace and provides a useful benefit to editors, it should not be deleted. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also want to comment that I think it is inappropriate to have already merged these templates before even gaining a consensus to delete the templates. I understand deleting such standing tables when they are only transcluded to a couple articles, but when the table is transcluded to 40 or 50 articles, why are we deleting these? Isn't that the purpose of the template namespace to centralize the storage of code used for consistent formatting and maintenance? When these are merged into the articles, you are then creating a quasi-template namespace in the mainspace, with numerous articles transcluding the table from another article in the mainspace; what's the point? Isn't that what the template namespace was intended for? S.A. Julio (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @S.A. Julio: Sorry, I misunderstood the TfD procedure. I thought those templates should be imported and replaced before being nominated. But I do not understand your 'transclusion' paragraph. What is wrong if we have a template-like section in a mainspace page, then transclude it to others? We have been doing this frequently for other purposes (brackets, result tables etc.), why are standing tables different?
    About UEFA group tables, I agree that importing them to articles makes some maintenance work harder, but I think having 1 less page to watch is better in general. And some other edit work benefits from this practice; like Sfaxx said earlier, we cannot preview our changes in template pages (or it is just me and him. Can you use the 'Show preview' feature in them?), but we can if the tables are imported elsewhere. Sometimes template pages do facilitate editing, like the AFC 2nd round where group table shares a section with group matches, people try to update the table and the matches at the same time, then edit conflict happens; but UEFA group articles have a separate 'Standing' section. Centaur271188 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, No longer required. I find the attribution argument very weak. If attributions were required they should have been noted when copied over. Arguing that they're some sort of repository of scores is also a weak argument. Surely we don't use edit histories to work out the sequence of football matches. Nigej (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no longer needed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my !vote to Subst then Delete. After mulling this over for quite some time, I concur that once all the templates have been hardcoded in the appropriate articles they should be deleted. The templates served to provide a single location where changes could be made across multiple articles, and that purpose has been served to its conclusion. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:AFL2016ladderprogression edit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 December 19. Izno (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2011 West Coast Eagles 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. Izno (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and should be substituted on the 2011 West Coast Eagles season article with a section of its own. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Template documentation for subnational units with flags 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) 18:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused doc template. Gonnym (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:HCO3 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) 18:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused chemical symbol template. Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; {{chem2}} is more flexible. User:GKFXtalk 16:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like any of these kind of templates (eg CO2 H2O), just write it out in wikitext. Try to avoid chem2, but substing a couple of times may avoid the problems. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Echolyn 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 14:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the links in the template have are to nonexistent articles as I recently redirected most of the albums as nonnotable. Sikonmina (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Talkback/manual editintro 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 00:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is no longer in use. Please let me know if someone else is using it. Q28 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and no comments after two weeks. Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Talkback/preload page 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 00:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is no longer in use. Please let me know if someone else is using it. Q28 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin note combined duplicate nominations. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2 weeks of no TfD comments and a creator of two of the above templates is an active admin, that singles that it is not needed anymore. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_12&oldid=1062356630"