Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 27 December 29 >

December 28 edit

Template:Herbert Maeder Committee/shortname 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) 00:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Political party template orphaned by migration to Module:Political party/H. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:59, 28 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:HCMC War Remnants Museum edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation. Appears to be a table of data without a reliable source for the numbers. The only substantive incoming link is from a 2020 discussion at Talk:1965 in the Vietnam War, where editors are wondering why it was being used and what its sources were. It appears to have been removed from articles since then. It is unclear why the template's name is similar to the name of the War Remnants Museum, since the content does not appear to document anything directly related to the museum. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:54, 28 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:HI Monarch list edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This is clearly intended as article content and performs no template functions. Much better versions of this information already exist at List of Hawaiian monarchs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 28 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:Gold Coast line basic edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. A more complete version of this template, {{Gold Coast railway line}}, appears to be preferred at Gold Coast railway line, probably the only article in which it could be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 28 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:GnRH antagonists marketed for clinical or veterinary use edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Maintained as an in-article table at Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, which is probably the only article where this article content could live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 28 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:GnRH agonists marketed for clinical or veterinary use edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Maintained as an in-article table at Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, which is probably the only article where this article content could live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 28 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:Disrupted discussion edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template, created in May 2020 with ~180 transclusions, places a warning banner at the top of a talk page section header noting that "This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user". It serves only to Streisand disruption by highlighting it with a large banner at the top of a talk page section. In essence, it's a way of telling the WP:LTA that they've won, like planting a flag on the section for all to see. This is counterproductive: the extra attention will serve to encourage, rather than discourage, disruption. See, for example, Talk:2020 Oregon wildfires#Riverside fire caused by human? (a short section that totally doesn't need it), or Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies#RfC Superstitions in Muslim societies related questions (where a blocked user made only one comment, but still the whole discussion gets a banner). We do not need this template because we have other inline templates that serve the same purpose of notifying closers and participants about disruption, without a large Streisanding banner, e.g. {{spa}}, {{canvassed}}, {{csm}}, {{csp}}, {{COI editor}}... these inline templates (or simply striking the blocked editor's comment) work better at preventing/containing disruption than this {{disrupted discussion}} template, and so I suggest {{disrupted discussion}} be deleted. Levivich 16:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see this template as another part of the deterrence effort along with WP:BE and WP:BRV. The work of these editors should be undone as completely as possible and their negative impact highlighted for the benefit of future editors, I do not agree that placing this template encourages more of them, they need no encouragement. I understand that not every editor believes the same but I fail to see how deleting this template assists the overall effort, perhaps the latter needs a more general discussion in some forum, with this being a part of that.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the principle but I think this template violates that same principle. In my view, this template does not undo the work, but rather highlights the work, which is the opposite of undoing it. I don't see what this template does that the inline templates don't do better (they help "undo" the work without highlighting it), so this is really an argument about a single template under WP:TFD#REASONS #2 (redundancy) and not a broader discussion about how to respond to socking. Levivich 16:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • For clarity, I think this template is used mainly after a discussion is closed, when said discussion can no longer be altered, posted at the top of it as an information for future editors that they should take that into account, if considering a new RM, AfD etc.Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comments are struck after closes are made (as in the examples I linked to), and the inline templates can also be added after a close. A banner at the top is not necessary to inform people that a sock participated in the discussion, as the striking and inline templates already do that (as in the examples I linked to). Levivich 13:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Joe Roe seems not to agree with that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Interesting. I'm curious whether Joe Roe thinks adding the {{disdis}} template to a closed discussion is permissible while striking or adding inline templates is not permissible? If so, that would certainly be a use case... but then I'm also wondering where the consensus for any of this is documented. IME people routinely strike and add inline templates to closed discussions. (I've certainly done it.) Joe's comment is the first time I've seen someone object to that, but of course my experience is just anecdotal, and Joe's explanation strikes me as pretty logical. I'll note that the {{disdis}} template says Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus, which indicates it is not intended to be used after a discussion is closed, but before -- i.e., same as the inline templates or the practice of striking. That could be changed by editing the template of course, but it comes back to the question of whether there is global consensus about any of this documented anywhere. Levivich 15:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • It also says (at the top) "The template is suitable for tagging discussions for which striking or deleting the comments would not be preferred, which may include closed or archived discussions." You're right though, where was it all agreed?Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks for the ping. I agree that it does not make sense to add this template to a closed discussion, and the tense of the message suggests it wasn't intended for that. As for striking, there is a box about halfway down WP:SOCKSTRIKE that says Per WP:TPO and discussion, none of the measures below [including striking] should be used for closed or archived discussion. If comments by sock puppets may significantly affect the outcome of the discussion, a new discussion should be opened in a proper venue. I'm not sure when it was added but it seems pretty clear. I wasn't actually aware of it until now though: I just have a lot of old AfDs on my watchlist so occasionally I happen to see and revert people editing closed discussions. My logic for doing so is simply that these are prominently marked "do not modify" and, for the reasons I explained in the diff linked above, it doesn't make sense to treat WP:SOCKSTRIKE as an exception. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So 3 opinions, yes, no and inline :) My position is that the closed discussion was disrupted even if it was not known at the time so highlighting that somehow makes sense, perhaps the wording could be tweaked. Even if there was no template, I would still be inclined to write something at the top of the page outside the close box, I don't see this as adding to a closed discussion myself.Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 16 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) 15:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - useful for archived discussions that may need to be rediscussed in light of sockpuppetry discovered after the close. Striking out is ill suited there as you may think that the closer knew about that at the time of the close. nableezy - 19:06, 6 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:Latin Grammy Award for Song of the Year footer edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. The need for this template is served just fine by Template:Latin Grammy Award for Song of the Year. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 28 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:Latin Grammy Award for Record of the Year footer edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. The need for this template is served just fine by Template:Latin Grammy Award for Record of the Year. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:34, 28 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:LegislatureSeats edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links, no documentation, no categories. Only edits were in 2005. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:32, 28 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:LEGval and its siblings edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. All of these templates have been replaced by {{LEG}}, which performs the functions of each of them with no trouble. Note that at least one of these was the subject of a previous TFD that was unrelated to the de facto merge that appears to have happened through editing of List of Ediacaran genera, where {{LEG}} is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 28 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:Israel FIFA World Cup record edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. Essentially identical article content is maintained as a table in Israel at the FIFA World Cup, which is the only plausible place for it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 28 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:Isobel Cup Finals Year edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links, no categories, no documentation. Appears to be intended to link to an article like 2019 Isobel Cup Finals, but no such articles appear to exist, and such a link doesn't need a template anyway. The closest related article appears to be Isobel Cup. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:11, 28 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:Docnote 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 to Template:Doc-code. Izno (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since 2009 [1]. Up-to-date equivalent at {{subst:doc-code}}. User:GKFXtalk 23:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do we really need either still? Seems that explanation was good for when it came, but typically editors working in the template space already know this. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Existing template editors know what’s in that notice, but editors new to the template space won’t until they’ve read it. User:GKFXtalk 12:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"People who have already read documentation do not need it" is your argument? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:09, 4 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:CURRENTMILLENNIUM 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) 16:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. For all practical purposes, it will always output "3". User:GKFXtalk 22:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It has at least five transclusions on reader-facing pages, and is used in {{Year category header/core}}. These templates exist not just to output a number, but to be able to do math with the output in a template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The mainspace usage was [[{{ordinal|{{#expr:{{currentmillennium}}}}}} millennium]] which (a) doesn't follow MOS:NUM and (b) is far too complex for code in mainspace, so I replaced it with "Third millennium". The usage at {{Year category header/core}} can be swapped out for "3" as a constant. User:GKFXtalk 11:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it highly unlikely that Wikipedia will still be around in its current form in 978 years. Unless that happens, then the template is useless. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a template I would consider having a beneficial usage since it's pretty broad for its intended scope. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Templates.Wikia, and any MediaWiki template coding repository. WMF should consider building one, a SourceForge/gitHub for MediaWiki template code --- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is basically equivalent to someone asking "who's the Queen of England?", and we have so far declined to templatize the answer to that question. --Izno (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not sure why we need some complicated code when it will always return 3. Nigej (talk) 15:02, 7 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:HoldtoDecline edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canned AfC comment template that seems to have only been substed at a talk page discussion about it. Otherwise unused. User:GKFXtalk 21:30, 28 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:Honoured editor of the encyclopedia edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template for a barnstar that has only been awarded once (and based on the dates, this template was not used to award the barnstar). User:GKFXtalk 21:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the barnstars that use this format should be changed to use a meta template instead of each of them encoding the table themselves. Such as creating a {{BarstarMetaLargebox}} and processing all the barnstar templates that include this large box format (there are other formats) to use it. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:47, 30 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:GM platforms edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article content, should presumably be merged into List of GM platforms. User:GKFXtalk 21:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. As usual, I oppose merging content from unused templates, as if the content were truly wanted at List of GM platforms, then it would have been added there independently of this template being discovered. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've popped a note on the article's talk page, I'll leave it to whoever watches that page. Don't think there's much if anything to merge anyway. User:GKFXtalk 11:31, 29 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:Encodelink edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template to partially urlencode links, where "partially" means from the 43rd character onward, which is rather arbitrary. {{urlencode}} can be used directly to urlencode the whole of a string. Trying to urlencode a whole URL at once is not really the point of the urlencode function in any case, you are supposed to encode individual parameters in the URL. User:GKFXtalk 21:03, 28 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:Copied/text edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate. User:GKFXtalk 20:52, 28 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:Average temperature table/FtoC edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate, apparently replaced by {{#invoke:weather|FtoC}}. User:GKFXtalk 20:49, 28 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:Article history/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 23:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate of {{article history}}. User:GKFXtalk 20:45, 28 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:Homo Sapiens 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 but feel free to create a user box if you want one Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userpage banner, created 2019. I am not certain if this counts as a userbox or not; if it does this nomination should move to MfD. User:GKFXtalk 20:34, 28 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:Cs-timeline-sk edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links, no documentation, no categories. No substantive edits since 2005, but we have had to visit this page about ten times to perform maintenance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 28 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:Country data US-FL edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Redundant to the better-named {{Country data Florida}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems pointless to have just a Florida version. Nigej (talk) 18:32, 28 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:Congress seats Peru 2006 2011 edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links, no documentation, no categories. Last substantive edit was in 2007. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 28 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:CaptainsWelcome 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 Moved without redirect to User:CaptainEek/CaptainsWelcome by CaptainEek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template intended for use by just one editor. I recommend moving it to that editor's user space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why you didn't just leave me a message on my talk page first asking me to do just that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CaptainEek. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 28 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:Calendar/1-column and similar subpages 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) 23:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. Appear to have been made obsolete by the addition of |row= and |lk=, so that these formats can easily be generated by {{calendar|row=12}}, {{calendar|row=6}}, {{calendar|row=4}}, {{calendar|lk=dy}}, and {{calendar|lk=my}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are apparently called from the code of the parent template depending on the aforementioned parameters, e.g.: {{calendar/{{{row|{{{col|4}}}}}}-{{#if:{{{row|}}}|row|column}}. Sheesh. — Christoph Päper 07:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, that's ugly. Well, Withdrawn, I guess, unless someone wants to rework this set of templates as a single code block or rebuild it in Lua. I have added documentation to the templates to explain how they could be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better to make it flow into the width available with the required number of columns with sensible CSS to make it useful across platforms. Not sure how easy that would be. User:GKFXtalk 22:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck my withdrawal following the refactoring performed by Frietjes described below. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT note to the closing admin, if these are deleted, then the closer will need to rewrite {{calendar}} because of the issues pointed out by user:Crissov; if these are deleted without the rewrite, it will break the template whenever someone uses these options -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they won't. These three unused options will stop working; this is no different from the deletion of any other unused template which will cause all of the zero pages that transclude the template to stop working. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I refactored {{calendar}} to not use the individual column/row templates, just need to history merge the /4-column template with the new /table subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 4 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:Map of The Troubles in Britain and Europe edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no categories, no documentation, no incoming links. Possibly misleading name, since the map shows only a tiny portion of Europe. Created in mid-2020; no substantive edits since then. Appears to be abandoned work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really a good way to present the information as there are so many events in London that you can't see most of the map pins. User:GKFXtalk 21:18, 28 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:SoC Brand 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) 23:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No main article. Unclear title. The links go to different sorts of articles about computer chips and boards, one article about a plant genus, some redirects, a disambiguation page, and to at least one navbox. I suspect that if these links have anything in common, that commonality is sufficiently served by categories (e.g. Category:System on a chip), and that this unused navbox should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Relates to System on a chip. We have {{Single-board computer}} which includes SoC brands and which is used. Nigej (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A navbox is better than categories clear to see stuff. It navbox is listed the table of SoC model easy to find. S214917 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't aid well in navigation. Already superseded by the category. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unused, no clear parent article, and we already have a category. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 4 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:S-line/SMS left/Bundang Line and other unused rail 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 noting that these have been replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Seoul Metropolitan Subway Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused S-line and related templates with over six months since the most recent edit. Nominating for deletion per this discussion; articles using S-line templates are being migrated to use Template:Adjacent stations. Also see this recent related TFD, from October 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 28 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:Menu icon blue 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) 15:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links, no documentation, no categories. Last edits were creation in 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 28 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:San Pablo City 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 14:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When doing post-close cleanup after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagong Bayan, San Pablo, I realized that all of the links remaining in this template now redirect to the same article; this no longer appears to serve a useful navigational purpose. Hog Farm Talk 14:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Serves no useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 16:06, 28 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:Political party list/meta/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. ✗plicit 10:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused shading template. Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 28 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:Graphical timeline/old 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 10:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and now broken sub-pages of Template:Graphical timeline. Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 28 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:Calculate increment 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 10:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused except in a user's sandbox (in which it does nothing). The /doc says it was used for Template:scalemarkers which was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. User:GKFXtalk 10:15, 28 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).

Chset color 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 11:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above templates can be replaced with the following three templates:

If replaced, the /docs will be updated. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 28 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:No Copy to Wikibooks 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) 00:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' It seems like it should be unused most of the time. It is a cleanup message preceding deletion, as a page written in a form that is used on WikiBooks, but not on Wikipedia, for a topic that already exists on WikiBooks; so if the tagged article isn't rewritten, it should be sent for deletion. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:45, 28 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:Copy to Meta 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) 00:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated for deletion by a sockpuppet in 2018. Three years and nine months later, it's still unused except in subpages of Wikipedia:Template index, and I see no plausible use case. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it should necessarily be rarely used, since most content is not content that would appear on META. It should be project pages (and not articles) that deal with features of META or cross-wiki content. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I also don’t see a use-case, and the absence of this template would not stop people proposing or requesting that a page be copied to Meta if they for some reason wanted to. User:GKFXtalk 10:05, 28 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:Euro adoption past/RefTag 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) 00:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the template is not used, okay? Q28 (talk) 03:07, 28 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:Currency 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template unused. Q28 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Just a table and formatting so doesn’t need to be a template. User:GKFXtalk 10:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looks like it was removed here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 28 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:CountyLink 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) 00:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not useful and should be deleted. Q28 (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. User:GKFXtalk 09:59, 28 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:Annotated image 4/Annotation 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) 00:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we should delete this template, because it's not used. Q28 (talk) 02:23, 28 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:Load user script edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Load user script with Template:Js.
There doesn't seem to be any reason to maintain two templates that serve almost the identical purpose (the only difference I can see being {{lusc}} produces code that won't work on other wikis). Qwerfjkltalk 14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{lusc}} is a direct replacement for {{iusc}}, which is similarly limited to local scripts on whatever wiki the template is installed on. {{Js}} will only work for scripts that are located on enwiki. If the desire is to produce portable code once substed, {{localurl:}} should be switched to {{fullurl:}} instead of hard-coding the url, but there is some advantage to producing code that uses a relative URL (for example, if there are localized versions of scripts on different wikis). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be easier to just use a parameter |local=true than have to different templates. Also, there are fairly few user scripts that have localization (I can only think of Auto-Formatter right now). ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that {{lusc}} produces a cleaner output when using an interwiki prefix, e.g. {{subst:lusc|1=vi:User:P.T.Đ/TwinkleMobile.js}} vs {{subst:js|1=vi:User:P.T.Đ/TwinkleMobile.js}}. The sandbox version allows you to specify an absolute URL by using any interwiki prefix (including "en:"). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very good point about interwiki links. I think that's an important feature of lusc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:16, 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) 14:43, 6 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) 23:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. TfD is not well equipped to handle generic "what do we do with these templates?" Nardog (talk) 11:47, 28 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:Graphical timeline components edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

only 2 of the 8 links in this template navbox are blue Izno (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G7 it. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 28 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_28&oldid=1064484290"