Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 13 February 15 >

February 14 edit

Template:Swiss populations ref 2017 edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template has been orphaned by edits like this one and this one. I don't know why Tobyc75 decided to replace the source 20+ times instead of changing it in a single template, but there may be something I do not understand about how these templates work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had nothing to do with this template, I think it was intended to solve a problem with the same source appearing multiple times on a page. But with the sources being named in the population template, I think that problem was solved making this template pointless.Tobyc75 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Swiss municipality OSM map edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2019. Appears to be an unused fork of {{Swiss subdivision OSM map}}, which is used in 118 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Swiss cantonal elections 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 userfy. ✗plicit 01:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This is essentially a list article in the wrong namespace, in the shape of a navbox. It is linked from {{Swiss elections}}, a navbox, which means that we have 200+ cross-namespace links at the bottom of articles. This has potential as an article, because many of the linked articles exist at de.WP; I think it should be draftified or userfied with the goal of turning it into a sourced article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy As noted this is an unreferenced article in the form of a navbox. Could be turned into a useful article. Nigej (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Swimmingrecordequalled 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 01:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template appears to be superfluous to the set of templates it was supposed to accompany, and its documentation does not explain how it might fit in to the family. List of world records in swimming shows records that have been tied using a simple "=" character, which seems easier than remembering to use a dedicated template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unused. Nigej (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there's a tie, = would be fine to use rather than a made-up template. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Swimmingmedalisttablenoresult 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 01:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Swift Orange Line 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 01:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Route diagram template for a transit line that will not exist until 2024 at the earliest, and currently merits just two lines in an article about its parent transit system. I recommend userfying this quite nice-looking template until an article is created about this new transit line. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Educational institutions in Marinduque 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 01:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both created by the same user, just duplicate each other minus one link missing from the Boac version. But both fail basic navigation. Fewer than five links and everything else is either red or just text. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Elections in Georgia (U.S. state) 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 01:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bloated, unused, largely filled with redirects, and certainly not a footer. Scope of the articles are already covered by U.S. elections by year templates or other U.S. election templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Already covered elsewhere and no obvious use. Nigej (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Aus1 edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused medal icon templates that just transclude a file image of the gold, silver, and bronze medals, which are transcluded across multiple articles on Wikipedia. This template is not necessary for such an action. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was meaning to nominate the entire Category:Medal icon templates myself. I find that the these templates, with their extremely small icon (which also probably fails accessibility with its current color contrast) and which requires a tooltip in order to identify what part of the world the medal belongs to, to be a bad templates. In any page where there is a medal, the tournament itself would give the context needed and Template:BlankGold, Template:BlankSilver, and Template:BlankBronze would be enough. Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I oppose leaving these behind as redirects. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've created these templates after finding the 3 Australian medal files, in order to curate them in Category:Medal icon templates and make them more accessible. The main Justification for having this kind of templates, in my eyes, is to ease uniform edit. Also, the templates have the advantage that while hovering over them with the mouse a description appears, helping with MOS:COLOR's mandate to "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information.". I also Strongly oppose to Gonnym's broader deletion proposal, but that isn't in the scope of this discussion.
In conclusion: Keeping the {{Aus1}}, {{Aus2}}, {{Aus3}} templates are not a hill I would die on. It can help future editors access these 3 image files and goes along better with WP:COLOR than a "naked" icon file. If we look at the templates as mere redirects to the image files, we could also take into account the WP:CHEAP suggestion that "Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around.". CLalgo (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Complying with MOS:COLOR while violating MOS:NOHOVER isn't helpful. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good argument, but for a different discussion. As the proposal is for to remove Template:Aus1 while leaving File:Gold medal australia.svg for use, the argument is irrelevant to our discussion as the template does to improve the accessibility of the image file. CLalgo (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with your argument is that it implies that we should provide some sort of wrapper like these for all the countless images that exists, to improve accessibility should they be used without explanation. In reality there's an onus on editors using images to explain them without hovering. If they can't (and the nature of the image isn't obvious) then they shouldn't be using them. Nigej (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't, as WP:ALLORNOTHING clearly states. Keeping one template of a kind doesn't mean a similar one should be created for all that kind.
Moreover, WP:TFD#REASONS lists the Reasons to delete a template:

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

1 doesn't apply, there are no better-designed templates for these images as section 2 requires, section 3 doesn't apply as other templates of this kind are being used, as well as the images these templates transclude and 4 doesn't apply as well. In conclusion, most arguments for deletion can be found as examples of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and the proposal doesn't clear the basic threshold of WP:TFD#REASONS. Hence, keep. CLalgo (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in template deletion discussions#It's unused: "The fact that a template is unused is not, by itself, enough for deletion. It must be demonstrated that the template isn't likely to be used." CLalgo (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TFD says "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here." and that is the normal process. Nigej (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if after all the points I've made the motions is still to delete the templates while keep using the naked image files, it may look like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the files currently in use are kept, the templates may be used in the future. As they are templtes, it covers that side. As they work like redirects to the image files, that is another reason to keep the templates as they make finding the image files easier. The only arguments in favor of deleting the templates are actually about deletion of the image files, which is not the subject of this discussion. CLalgo (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To summarise my position: We have an image which is a gold circle with the outline of Australia in it. This is used with a small size that the outline of Australia is impossible to see and understand. The idea that we should be providing an explanation of this which you can get by hovering over the icon is just madness. It's obvious that we shouldn't be using this image for this purpose. A classic example of trying to solve a problem which shouldn't exist in the first place. Nigej (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As rebutted before, the templates do more than just adding the "hovering explanation". The templates default to add alt text per WP:ICON#Remember accessibility for people with visual impairment: "Every functional icon should have alt text...". They also make the icons more accessible as they are curated in a category. If the main point is that the default icon size should be larger, than it can be discussed and done, although WP:TFD#REASONS states that "Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing.".
In our case:
{{Aus1}} is yielded by {{Aus1}}, and:
{{Aus1|size=25px}} is yielded by normal editing allowed by templates via {{Aus1|size=25px}}.
Therefor, even this argument doesn't hold water. As I wrote before, if the main issue is the usage of the images themselves, than the images should be the subject of discussion – not the templates organizing and wrapping them. CLalgo (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But why do we need one for every event/continent/country/etc. If we need something to say its a gold medal ok (although personally I'm doubtful about that) but having something to say it's an "Australian" gold medal doesn't make sense to me. The article should make that clear surely.Nigej (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your argument is about the usage of the image files, not the templates. That is a different discussion. As this kind of icons is currently in use in various articles, the question is whether to allow the option to use a template for those images or "force" the usage of naked image files. Deleting these 3 templates will not remove those icons from the articles currently showing them, nor will it prevent other articles to do so. It will only make it harder to include "alt text", to find specific icons and to standardize icons shown. And for the "why do we need that?" question: Nothing is needed. not a single icon in this website is needed. not one article is essential. Some, are just nice to have. Some bring some added value, such as competition specific icons. So please, let's focus this discussion. If the goal is to remove the icons from Wikipedia, these 3 templates are the wrong tree to bark on. CLalgo (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. My argument is that we shouldn't be providing templates to cater for inappropriate use of images/icons. My argument is specifically about the templates. Nigej (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this- they're not needed, because we have a better existing template- the one without the country specific data in it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I'm clearly in the minority in this discussion, so I'll lampshade this comment as a WP:ATAATA and flush everything out.
This is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and most if not all the delete arguments are either WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("No need"), WP:USELESS ("adds nothing of value") or both. Many dabble in an WP:ALLORNOTHING approach, WP:CRYSTALBALLing that other templates of this kind will be created for every other country. Moreover, the main premise of the proposal is incorrect. More than just to transclude the icons, this kind of templates allows for standardizing icon usage and verifies the existence of alt text per WP:ICON#Remember accessibility for people with visual impairment. The existence of the templates also curate these icons, per WP:CATEGORY "to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.". And lastly, as aforementioned, deleting the templates will not remove the icons from articles. If that is the goal, the icon files themselves need to be nominated for deletion. Otherwise, we just lose the benefits the templates provide without "gaining" the removal of the icons from articles, as some deletion supporters might wish. CLalgo (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the solution here: FIBA Oceania Under-17 Championship for Women#Participation details? to use {{Aus1}} instead of the bare icon, or change the usage to something acceptable like {{Gold1}}. Nigej (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the discussion that needs to be had. I think that the bare minimum is to use the {{Aus1}} templates instead of the the bare icons, but if the these icons should be completely abandoned is the subject of a broader discussion that based on this discussion – must be held. In my opinion, it should be held in a broader context such as the WikiProject Sports talk page, with calls for discussion participation posted on relevant talk pages. CLalgo (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question. Anyway you're right that the use of these icons shouldn't be held somewhere since it's pretty obvious they're nearly always inappropriate, but that's not the discussion here.Nigej (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't answer your question because it is not my decision to make. If one wants to remove these icons in favor of others, they are welcome to start a discussion about it in the relevant talk page. I am glad that you see my point that this discussion isn't about the general usage of the icons, which as I see it turns most arguments in it mute. I think that this discussion should be closed as a "Keep, pending broader discussion", with the discussion held in a major forum — not as a deletion proposal — where the fate of these icons, and not just some of the templates wrapping them, be decided. CLalgo (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're twisting my words now, which you shouldn't be doing. My position is quite clear: This discussion is about a very unsatisfactory template which needs to be deleted. Another discussion should be held to discuss issues relating to the use of the icons. Two separate issues. Nigej (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you agreed that the need for the latter discussion makes the former redundant. I stand corrected, by still stick to my position. CLalgo (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless gimmicks. As noted, we should get rid of the others too. If we need something that says its a gold medal, ok. But having one for each event/continent/country/etc is just crazy. We should have either one set of the three or none. Nigej (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nigej. The existence of these for other countries is a reason to delete those too, not to keep these ones. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unnecessary and I would really hate to see this styling expand to more continents/countries. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Table of Maxwell equations 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 01:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation. This is article content that already exists at Maxwell's equations. Proposed for use in articles here back in 2017, but consensus was against it, apparently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unused article content. Nigej (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Table of electromagnetic laws 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 02:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation or categories. Proposed for use in articles here back in 2017, but consensus was against it, apparently. This is article content that appears to exist in acceptable form in relevant articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unused article content. Nigej (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Television companies of the United States 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 02:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This sprawling template appears to be focused (loosely) on sports television, but it is a giant mess that probably can't be fixed by simple editing. We already have {{Sports television in the United States}}. This thing should probably just be nuked. There is related discussion at User talk:Galabahce; that editor created a bunch of pages that were later deleted, then vanished. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Too confusing to be useful for navigation. Good navboxes are generally more focused. Nigej (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Spanish-language writers of the Philippines edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. We have an article Spanish language in the Philippines but the list of names are not really "related". Nigej (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates/styles.css edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Styles unlikely to be used; deprecated for better-designed styles currently in use on parent template. Jroberson108 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind deletion (as creator). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country/styles.css edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Styles unlikely to be used; deprecated for better-designed styles currently in use on parent template. Jroberson108 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Spacecraft instruments 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Looks unfinished since the doc page seem completely out of line with the current contents. Nigej (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:South Sudanese name edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. This style of hatnote has been replaced with {{Family name hatnote}} to which South Sudanese/South Indian could be added if required. Nigej (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since they are unused no merge should be done until an actual need arises. Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment South Sudanese name is not functional, there is a redlink where the name format is supposed to be explained, though apparently it should use multiple patronymics [1]. If this is kept, someone needs to fix that redlink -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we don't have any article on South Sudanese naming systems, so not sure where you're expecting us to link to? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both unused, and if someone wants to use, they can add to the general family hatnote template. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:South Australian State League 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 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer navboxes which seem to have been superseded by {{Soccer in South Australia}}. Nigej (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:South America edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar. Probably too broad a topic to be useful. Nigej (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the articles linked would not use this as the first or even second infobox on the page. Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Soribada Best K-Music Awards Grand Award Winners edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox relating to the Soribada Best K-Music Awards. Nigej (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Snohomish County Council edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox for the Current members of the Snohomish County Council. Nothing like enough content to need a navbox. Nigej (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Suburbs of Geraldton edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox, superseded by {{Towns Mid West WA}} which has a section "Geraldton suburbs". Nigej (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Summary of 2016 World Wrestling Olympic Qualification Tournament 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused summary of the qualifiers in this event by country. This was one of 6 qualifiers, see Wrestling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification. That article has an overall list of qualifiers. No need for the same for each of the 6 events. Nigej (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Supply and Demand of Electricity in Pakistan 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 11:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content was created in 2008, so this is a prediction at that time of the supply/demand up to 2020. Probably not useful. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/layout 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 11:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be used, especially due to the complexity of the parameters. Jroberson108 (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Current holders of Korean female Go titles 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 12:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navboxes. Supposedly current but not been updated since 2008/2017 respectively. Nigej (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:DNA microarray glossary 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, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused glossary box. Content replicated at DNA microarray#Glossary. Perhaps was there at one time. See Docking (molecular) for a similar one that is used. Nigej (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was the creator but I'm not sure this was ever used in the end. Amkilpatrick (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:DP-genealogy 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. ✗plicit 13:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused "family-tree" of the Dravidian parties. Was TfDed here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 31#Template:DP-genealogy. I suspect that it's just too large and complex to be usable. Nigej (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was removed here. It would seem that editors on that page aren't interested in this template. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a good faith edit by User:Nirinsanity accidentally removed the template during the clean-up. The template is not part of the right-wing propaganda (which is to call Dravidian parties as a Christian conspiracy) that the user is referring to. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh haha. I wasn't aware this template got removed as well, in that edit. I just went through it, and it definitely seems to be a good summary of the chronology of the origins of all the Dravidian parties. Nirinsanity (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the user who removed it said it was by accident then its removal wasn't valid. No issue with restoring it. Gonnym (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added back the template. I am happy if it is removed after a discussion. It is complex and large, because the political squabbles that it depict have been complex and convoluted. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guess I should explicitly say this for administrative reasons. This is a good faith nomination for delete but misunderstood on what's going on. This is was an accidentally orphaned template. The template was created because the split within the Dravidian parties and the factions are so complicated that only a genealogy tree can explain. It was removed by another user when they were fixing vandalism. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, that's exactly what happened at the previous TfD I noted. It seems strange to me that no one seems to notice it's missing until someone tries to delete it. Nigej (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, this conversation should be posted on the Dravidian parties page. In fact, most South Indian political articles stays vandalized for years before someone notices. I have pointed out that the template was removed as an accident by someone. Is there a policy to still delete this? Remember that most editors (including me) who were active on South Indian politics articles have "retired" due to professional/personal reasons. I responded because leaving a message on my talk-page alerts me to my personal email. If the rational here is that vandalism should be encouraged, then go ahead is all I could say. It seems strange to me that you are wanting to delete this regardless of the obvious fact that this was removed due to someone trying to fix vandalism. Remember, that a lot of put tremendous effort to make these articles possible when Wikipedia carried a heavy Anglo-American bias. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 02:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Indic glyph/5in7rowheader edit

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete WP:CSD#G7. Izno (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indic glyph was modified in October leaving these sub-templates unused. Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As creator of these subtemplates, Agree. If any admin drops by, I would think this qualifies for speedy deletion as a G7 CSD. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Dr Heiter Award 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 move to userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Award given to those who've made contributions to The Human Centipede (First Sequence). Creator has been inactive for some years. Linked from various user pages. Nigej (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – A fine example of readers being rewarded for active Wikipedia:Collaborations in bringing a stub-class article that was initially nominated for speedy deletion to FA-class. Not seeing how deletion of this template improves Wikipedia. The template's creator being inactive is not a valid reason for deletion, and none of the deletion qualifiers at WP:TFD#REASONS are met here at all. Sorry, but this comes across as deletion just for the sake of deletion, providing no benefit to the encyclopedia. Perhaps consider tagging the page as {{Historical}} as well. North America1000 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason it's relevant that the creator is inactive is that it almost certainly won't be used again. Just clutter. Nigej (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep this is hilarious. In use, just historical. I’ll gladly find a use for this amazing template if no-one else will. Dronebogus (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userspace. It is unused and whether it will or won't be used, is clearly as much about the creator as it is about general use. Second choice delete. --Izno (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Image source2 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 13:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:File source which seems to be the one actually used based on incoming links, categorization and documentation. Gonnym (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:HexShade/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 13:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub-template. Gonnym (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Heraldry/by area 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 13:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub-templates of Template:Heraldry. Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Probably an area where there are too many navboxes. Nigej (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Maccabi Tel Aviv B.C. 2013–14 Israeli Basketball Super League champions edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused squad navbox for a domestic championship. I can see that {{Maccabi Tel Aviv B.C. 2013–14 Euroleague champions}} is perhaps ok for winning a European event, but not at this level. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:EU Foreign Affairs Council 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. ✗plicit 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table and a map showing the affiliations of the "EU Foreign Affairs Council Members", basically all the Foreign Ministers of the EU. Might as well have a list of EU foreign ministers somewhere. Nigej (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The templates were removed here by @Glentamara. Are they not suitable for this article? Gonnym (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not being used as the Foreign Afairs Council does not have the members that the template claims. The members vary from meeting to meeting depending on what is being discussed, sometimes the foreign ministers, sometimes defence ministers etc. participate. --Glentamara (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Glentamara's comment. Gonnym (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:EmmyAward Limited or Anthology Series edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{EmmyAward Limited Series}}. Clearly we don't need both. Nigej (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:European Men's Handball Championship Champions 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 14:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused article content for European Men's Handball Championship that has already been substituted there. Nigej (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:UEFA Euro maps 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 14:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A list of links to images, so fails WP:NAVBOX: "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia" Nigej (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but disagree with nom's rational. The template is unused and won't be used as the images aren't located on en.wiki but on commons. They also have this template there commons:Template:UEFA Euro maps, which is used on those images. Gonnym (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WPAnimation COTW Candidate 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 14:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates related to the Animation Collaboration of the month/week. Nigej (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Sony's Spider-Man Universe drafts edit

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should not have navboxes for drafts (WP:NAVBOX says "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia", emphasis added); the draft categorization scheme is more than sufficient to support collaboration. Whenever a draft is published, the navbox has to be removed from the published article and has to be edited: almost certain to introduce errors and cause confusion. Same navbox editing has to be done if a draft is deleted via G13. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We shouldn't have navboxes for drafts, only mainspace articles. Nigej (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These draft navboxes, along with Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe drafts, are used by their respective communities to better navigate and coordinate what drafts we have and the status of each. Draft categories also compliment each of these. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per decision to keep Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe drafts, it is useful when there are multiple editors working on multiple promising drafts like there are for these. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above two comments. Mitchy Power (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. {{Marvel Cinematic Universe drafts}} and {{Star Wars drafts}} have both survived TfDs in the past, and there is nothing wrong with navboxes for drafts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, as this will aid greatly in organizing drafts for each franchise.--WuTang94 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Navboxes exists to navigate between "articles" not in the mainspace, namely templates and Wikipedia namespace articles; navigation for drafts is no different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Navboxes are used to group pages also in non-article namespaces such as the Project namespace (Template:Manual of Style) and Template namespace (Template:Citation Style 1). These draft navboxes are useful as they not only group related articles (like categories do) but also make it easier to identify what type of draft articles are currently there. Gonnym (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding the issue presented by nom that the navbox needs to be removed after a page is published. There are other things to do after a page is published such as removing {{Draft categories}}, {{Draft article}} or {{Promising draft}}. Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but all of those are performed by the AfC publishing script. Removal of these templates is not. UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the venue to get that fixed is over at the AfC publishing script page. Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per several rationales above, such as those posited by Trailblazer101, Adamstom.97 and InfiniteNexus. North America1000 06:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete drafts do not usually need to navigate between each other, and these templates don't really need to have drafts navigate between each other. If people want to maintain a list of drafts, that should be a list and not a template. A sandbox version of the articlespace template could exist with links to draft in a navbox sandbox, which links to articlespace and draftspace pages, but there should be no draft-navigation templates like these. The category functions to gather together drafts of a topic for editors to choose to work on. A list page in wikiProject pagespace could be built to list drafts in an organized manner that these templates want to do. But they shouldn't be templates, since there's no need to navigate from one draft page to another. Finding drafts to work on is the purpose of the category, or a list page, not a template -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment these can be de-navboxed, listified, moved to say WP:WikiProject Media franchises/List of draft articles for XYZ instead -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where are your thoughts stated that drafts shouldn't be easily navigated between one another or in navboxes? And do you feel the same about templates and other non-mainspace articles that also use navboxes, because this is a same situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're accessing a template page, then you're looking up documentation, or looking for similar templates, since you're not sure what that other template is, so navboxes listing templates for documentation pages make sense. For ProjectSpace (WP:), it's for navigation between projectpages, and should work just like articlespace, as you're accessing projectpages for project material. It works for categoryspace, as you're navigating categories for articles, so navbox would guide you to other sets of articles to read. It doesn't make sense for drafts because drafts are not reading material, they are works in progress; they are specifically not reading material and are stripped out of the index. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

2018 IPL match 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 11:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#2021 IPL match templates, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#2020 IPL match templates and other discussions noted there, these templates have been substituted into the main article and they are no longer required. Nigej (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as per the reasons on the 2019 and 2020 TFDs. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Per nom and my comments on all other IPL templates recently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Table of USNORCOMM commanders edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table of USNORCOMM commanders already covered United States Northern Command#Commanders and Leadership of the United States Northern Command#List of commanders of the United States Northern Command and {{NorthComHeads}}. Nigej (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy over the updated table used in those articles to this template (or a new one with a better name) and use it instead of duplicating a table in two articles. Gonnym (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed these two to use a "section", so now the content only exists at United States Northern Command#Commanders. Nigej (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Arabization edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar which appeared in Arabization (and perhaps elsewhere) in late 2019/early 2020 but is now unused. Nigej (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Historical geographic regions of British Columbia edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by {{Subdivisions of British Columbia}} (see Regions section in the lower template). Nigej (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Hssan Hajgozar edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and misspelt (Hssan). Only two links other than the main article. Probably not useful. Nigej (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Russian brigades edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and surplus to {{Brigades of the Russian Ground Forces}} and perhaps {{Russian Airborne Forces}}. Nigej (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:RxCOTWnom 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, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Templates related to the Pharmacology Collaboration of the month/week, inactive since 2009. Nigej (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:International Security Assistance Force map edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map and table of the troop numbers in the International Security Assistance Force by country, as of 2009. Nigej (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:If administrator edit

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. I'm withdrawing this nomination in favor of the refactoring alternative to deletion discussed below. Mz7 (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template currently does not work because we do not have a CSS class that only shows text to non-administrators. To get the template working, we would need to implement the change that I proposed at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Interface-protected edit request on 14 February 2022 (permalink), but the responding interface administrators were unwilling to implement the change because of the potential for abuse. I'm afraid they make a pretty good point, and I don't really have a compelling enough use case for this template that would override their concerns. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose an alternative to deletion could be to refactor the template to get rid of the second parameter, such that it would only show administrators certain text that would be hidden from non-administrators. In other words, {{If administrator|You are an administrator}} would show the text "You are an administrator" to administrators and hide the text to non-administrators. Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer that to deletion. I also commented at the CSS page; let's see if it's possible to find a solution there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_14&oldid=1074025477"