Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 5 February 7 >

February 6 edit

Template:Valley Railroad (Connecticut) 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) 23:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; the railroad as a whole is covered by {{Valley River Line}} and this template seems far too detailed to be of use. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this one, move {{Valley River Line}} to this title The template's name should really align with the name of the article here (neither the historical company nor the current heritage railroad use the name "Valley River Line"). And, if anyone who knows how to make templates is interested, we need one for the Connecticut Valley Railroad, the Valley Railroad's predecessor which operated between Hartford and Long Island Sound. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:35, 8 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:T-Line (Hamilton) 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) 23:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; parent article was merged into BLAST network in 2019. Mackensen (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused and unlikely to be used anytime soon. BLAIXX 00:03, 7 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:Rowingatthe2012SummerOlympics 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. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article content. The link had been removed from Rowing at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Qualification. I have added the content there, so the template can now be deleted. Nigej (talk) 21:03, 6 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:Rugby League European Shield 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. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navboxes superseded by {{Rugby League European Cup seasons}}. Nigej (talk) 20:40, 6 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:RUSHockeyHistory 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) 23:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Ancient style of infobox. No prospect of reuse. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 6 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:RSAF sidebar 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) 23:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar for the Republic of Singapore Air Force. Was removed from that article in 2007. Presumably the navboxes are sufficient. Nigej (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. the navbox {{RSAF Airbases}} can be slightly extended to include the lists of squadrons and aircraft (and possibly renamed). But it shouldn't block the deletion of the sidebar. – robertsky (talk) 08:17, 7 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:Romeo + Juliet 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) 23:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Romeo + Juliet (ballet) doesn't use it. Nigej (talk) 19:59, 6 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:Official residences in Hong Kong 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) 23:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Official residences in Hong Kong but the navbox is unused. Nigej (talk) 19:41, 6 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:Miss Grand International delegates 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) 23:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox listing delegates for 2021 and an associated footer listing other years. However, there's no links. Nigej (talk) 18:57, 6 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:National Register of Historic Places in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin 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. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{NRHP in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin}}. Nigej (talk) 18:30, 6 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:Miss Russia winners in the Grand Slam pageants 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) 23:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 6 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:Method ringing 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) 23:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful WP:NAVBOX with only 2 links. {{Bells}} covers the area. Nigej (talk) 17:42, 6 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:Nutcracker 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) 23:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet template that is only used in one user's very old sandbox which hasn't been edited since 2014. This clearly isn't needed. Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 6 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:Royal Houses of Wales 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) 23:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Royal houses of Britain and Ireland and Category:Welsh royal houses. DrKay (talk) 16:52, 6 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 route sign 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) 23:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused road sign template. Gonnym (talk) 16:45, 6 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:Dreadnought-class submarine 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 both; despite {{Dreadnought class submarine}} not formally being named in the nomination, pretty much everyone in favour of deletion mentioned deleting both of them for a lack of links. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to serve exactly the same purpose as {{Dreadnought class submarine}} (no hyphen). I changed one article to use the no-hyphen one, so the hyphen-one is now unused. Nigej (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose, these are two separate classes of ships Llammakey (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what the difference is? Using actual article links, if possible. Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the first ({{Dreadnought-class submarine}}) is the template for HMS Dreadnought (S101) was the first ever nuclear-powered submarine of the Royal Navy and is a single-ship class of warship, as subsequent submarines were built to an improved design. The second {{Dreadnought class submarine}} is for the newer Dreadnought-class submarine, one of the newest class of submarines in the Royal Navy fleet. I only opposed because they are not the same class and do not duplicate information. They could be renamed as Hammersfan suggests down below. If there are other reasons to delete because if fails some MOS, I have no opposition. I will just point out that there are hundreds of these single-ship templates you could look at too if they fail MOS. Llammakey (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below. The issue is that these are WP:NAVBOXes whose sole purpose is as "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia". There aren't "multiple related articles" there's just one. Often people think about 5 links is the minimum to make a navbox useful. Nigej (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Oppose, they are templates for two different classes - the single boat one is for HMS Dreadnought (S101), the Royal Navy's first attack submarine, while the other is for the new class of SSBN Hammersfan (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete for both. So we have two templates, apparently about two different things yet both titled the same. However the bigger issue is that one template has 1 actual member link in it and the other has zero links in it and both have the shared list of... links. So for 1 or 0 links we don't need navigation templates. If I missed something, please let me know. Gonnym (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only single ship class that has a template, so deleting both would be overkill - there is certainly no reason that articles could not be created for the new boats, particularly given that similar articles have been created for other new classes of Royal Navy ship under construction. Renaming them, perhaps to something similar to "Dreadnought-class submarine (SSN)" and "Dreadnought-class submarine (SSBN)". Hammersfan (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the correction. Confusing for those of us not in the know. Perhaps some renames might be in order, otherwise the same thing is likely to happen again at some point. Also as pointed out both are pretty useless as WP:NAVBOXes whose sole purpose is as "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia". The one proposed here is actually only used once (in HMS Dreadnought (S101)), so fails the "multiple" part. Nigej (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The other underlying issue is that they don't have more than five links for navbox regardless of the differences of the different classes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. We don't need navbox templates that don't link any member articles, and are only in use on one article. Can be subst-ed if necessary. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This template fails WP:NAVBOX by not linking to a main article about the class. The second mentioned template contains no article links in its body to members of the newer class of submarine. It is confusing that there are two classes with the same name, and if the navboxes are kept, they should be renamed to clarify the difference between them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept, it should get a year added to distinguish it from the 21st century class. Template:Dreadnought-class (1959) submarine for example -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:21, 6 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).

Remaining Pas de 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following a comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 30#Unused Pas de templates I am nominating the remaining related templates. These are used but only at subpages of User:Robertgreer/sandbox/NYCB, like User:Robertgreer/sandbox/NYCB/Winter. I would suggest deletion without substitution. The templates are quite simple and it seems a waste of effort to sort out issues in one user's space, especially since there seems to be no prospect of this content ever being used in it current form. Nigej (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Old user page that hasn't been updated since 2014‎. This obviously isn't used by that user. Gonnym (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
substitute and delete, not needed and bad for mobile view. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 7 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).

New York City ferry 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 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{s-line}} templates for the NYC Ferry and Staten Island Ferry. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/NYC Ferry and Module:Adjacent stations/NYCDOT. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen could you also replace the single usage left at Template talk:Infobox station/Archive 2? Or should it just be removed from it? Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Done; no harm in migrating that instance. Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this! Doodle77 (talk) 18:34, 10 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).

Shaker Heights Rapid Transit 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 14:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{s-line}} templates for predecessors of RTA Rapid Transit. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Cleveland Railway. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 6 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 events monthly archive 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! 23:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. It would seem that pages like Portal:Current events/December 2021 use {{Events by month}}. Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template/module author here. It seems a bit of a waste to delete this, instead of rolling it out to the monthly current event pages. Using this template should save editors a few keystrokes each month, and would keep the pages consistent. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought people involved in the monthly portal pages might like to know about this discussion, so I left a notification at Portal talk:Current events#TfD notification for Template:Current events monthly archive. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue if you want to make use of it. However, if it stays unused and it isn't used on the set of pages it was created for, then I'm still in favor of deletion. Gonnym (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Though looking at the two templates, replacing one with the other doesn't really add anything...
    • {{Current events monthly archive|year=2011|month=9}}
    • {{Events by month|2021|prefix=Portal:Current events/}} Gonnym (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:51, 6 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:Liberal conservatism 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. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles listed in this template do not describe their subjects as being "liberal conservatism", rather, their listing here is totally about the opinion of the template creator, (Storm598), who is banned from AmPol, and has been shown to have a rather tenuous grasp and inaccurate understanding of the subject matter. Their opinions on these subjects are guided by Korean political blogs, and *not* by reliable sources. In point of fact, the inclusion of these articles in the subject area "liberal conservatism" is totally unsourced and misleading to our readers. This template should be deleted immediately, and the creator warned -- once again -- about editing in the area of political theory, of which they understand very little. (See this for the latest instance.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may see the existence of the template negatively, but don't attack it like this. Is there any evidence that I looked at and referred to South Korean sites when editing articles on European politics?--Storm598 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the template should be deleted. Liberal conservatism is a key theme of European conservatism, and European "liberal" are different in meaning from American "liberal". I don't think there's a problem if the template deals with European politics without editing related to politics from other countries such as the United States.--Storm598 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Europe's centre-right conservative parties are related to liberal conservatism. The CDU of Germany, the Republicans of France, and the Conservative Party of the UK are representative liberal conservative parties. (However, there is some controversy over whether the Conservative Party of the UK is completely liberal conservative.)--Storm598 (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are political and philosophical differences between "conservatism" and "liberal conservatism" in the traditional sense. In general, conservatism was an ideology centered on aristocrats and rejected the value of classical liberalism. However, liberal conservatism embraces the elements of classical liberalism and advocates more common class and bourgeois values. In modern times, "liberal conservatism" is mainly related to the centre-right forces in Europe and differs greatly from far-right populist conservatism or traditional conservatism. I think the template is necessary.--Storm598 (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term liberal in the template is liberal in the context of international politics, not liberal in the context of U.S. politics. For example, in German Wikipedia, the category "liberalism" is used in Thatcherism articles.# # United States is not the standard of all worlds. In particular, in Europe, where the socialist tradition is strong, "liberal conservatism" represents the right-center political force and is opposed to the left-center political force called "social democracy." In Europe, "liberal" is used in an anti-socialist and classical sense. In the term "Liberal conservatism", "liberal" has at least no room for misunderstanding for Europeans, Australian, Japanese and Latin Americans.--Storm598 (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of errors I made when editing American political articles come from here. The liberal conservative template has nothing to do with U.S. politics.--Storm598 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do have an article Liberal conservatism and a Category:Liberal conservatism, so on that basis a navbox seems reasonable, assuming that Liberal conservatism is a genuine topic. Generally this is not the place to discuss the specific content of a navbox, as long as it fits in with the requirements, per: WP:NAVBOX. I notice that there's a list of names here and a gallery at Liberal conservatism but only two of these people appear in Category:Liberal conservatism and many of the articles don't mention Liberal conservatism. Nigej (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Storm598 has included in the navbox many articles that have absolutely no relationship with "Liberal conservatism". I shall remove those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was clear that much of them were related to "liberal conservatism" --Storm598 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    However see WP:NAVBOX for what makes a good navbox. eg "1 All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. 2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article." Nigej (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... You're right. But there's also WP:BLUE. It is so natural that Konrad Adenauer or Angela Merkel are liberal conservatives that there is no need to mention them in the article. --Storm598 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This seems to be one editor's vision. Miniapolis 00:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No article exist for the subject outside of the main article. No need for a navbox since it doesn't fit one of the basic requirements needed for one. Articles related to the subject outside of the main article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. When I also look at the category to see if it can be improved, it is a similarly disparate set of topics that would not suit a navbox per WP:NAVBOX. --Izno (talk) 01:15, 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).

Sacramento Regional Transit District edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 13:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{s-line}} templates for the Sacramento Regional Transit District. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/SacRT. Mackensen (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 14:50, 6 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:Provincial map of Cambodia edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. Provinces of Cambodia uses a more recent {{Cambodia labeled map}} which doesn't have the useless symbols. Nigej (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The newer one without the icons is easier to read. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 6 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:Provinces of Zambia Post Oct 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 12:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused abandoned map. Nigej (talk) 08:50, 6 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:Prevalence of tobacco consumption country table edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused article content. Not used at Tobacco consumption by country. Nigej (talk) 08:47, 6 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_6&oldid=1071804737"