Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 9

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

February 9 edit

Template:SYR Blackburn Valley 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; could potentially be used on South Yorkshire Railway but there's a different template already under the "Blackburn Valley Line" section and the two don't match. Mackensen (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though two simpler templates, one showing (just) the original line, the other showing (just) the Blackburn Valley extension are now being used in the main text, rather than this one that combined the two lines.
But this template may have a use illustrating which bits of the line still exist, compared to which have been removed. So, to see what people think, as a trial I've tried putting the template at the end of the article, to see whether think it may be useful there. If it does find a long-term home there, then the template could perhaps be renamed "SYR remains".
I'd prefer if it wasn't deleted, because in some future version of the article maybe somebody might want a template of the whole system, and a certain amount of work has gone in to creating it (far from all mine). Perhaps it could be kept and shown in an item on the talk page, if it doesn't find a current home in the article? Jheald (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it turns out that the template indeed isn't wanted any more, please move it to a subpage of the SYR talk page, eg to Talk:South Yorkshire Railway/SYR remains, and transclude it in a new item "Old template" on that talk page. Thanks. Jheald (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely oppose that request. If you personally want it, it can be moved to your sandbox. Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Why, out of interest? What's the harm in leaving it where somebody else can find it? Anyway, it's currently in use. Jheald (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because a sub-page of a talk page should not be created for things like that. When something isn't used that a sign that the community does not want it or has no need for it. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:09, 9 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:Tehran Metro Line 6 route edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. No prejudice against recreation/restoration if a use is found (either by the article being written or a consensus to include the diagram in a related article). Primefac (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. These rail route diagram are for a line that does not have an article; Tehran Metro, the redirect target for Tehran Metro Line 6 does not contain any route diagrams. Not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Template:Tehran Metro Line 6 Map: Will certainly be usable in the future since a separate article for this line is clearly notable. Almost all other lines already have an article.
    Delete Template:Tehran Metro Line 6 route: Redundant to the other one and less detailed --PhiH (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Not usable" is purely subjective. And there is precedent for including only some RDTs in the system page but moving others onto the individual lines where those (sub) pages exist. Useddenim (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To those voting keep, which one should be kept? The templates appear essentially identical to me. We generally do not keep two templates that do the same thing. These templates were created on the same day by the same editor, who appears to have not known how to move a page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both or userfy. Per WP:Write the article first. Nigej (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as after a week (and almost 3 years) still not used. Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:51, 9 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:Indian legislation edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. No prejudice against restoration for the purposes of converting/seeding the content of an article. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used on over 256 articles and way too big to navigate and scroll through easily. This is one of those high-risk templates given the number of transclusions and we should let the categories for Indian legislation articles be the better way to navigate. Outside of the high-risk status, we don't need a template for every single piece of legislation especially when it adds all of the nation's laws. If not deletion, then probably split the template for the respective categories such as finance, criminal, etc. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The solution isn't instantly obvious. There's a problem in that while the template categorises the acts by type (consumer, corruption, etc.), the category structure at Category:Acts of the Parliament of India only really categorises by year. As for content, there's List of Acts of the Parliament of India which is excessively long but no other content that I can see that binds these acts together. So currently we can't trim the template down to consumer, corruption, etc. because we don't have any content at that level. Nigej (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By trimming I mean create individual navboxes for the types of legislation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but as I said, there's no parent article for those. There's no articles like Consumer laws in India (or whatever), so they'd fail an important aspect of WP:NAVBOX. Nigej (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the navbox as it currently is cannot be kept. It is huge and will only get bigger as time goes on. I'm actually leaning here maybe to no navbox at all as not everything needs one. Do other countries have one? How do they handle this? I've looked at random US pages like Great American Outdoors Act which don't use one. Gonnym (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See {{UK legislation}} which mainly categorizes by date, rather than topic. However, although there's a category structure at Category:Acts of the Parliament of India by year, there aren't actually any articles at that level, so nothing to link to. As you say, the best option may simply be to delete it. Nigej (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no strong opinions on what to do. One last relist for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Aside from my nomination, I think so far there is a consensus to delete from Nigej's and Gonnym's comments above. And splitting/trimming the template isn't viable either due to there being a lack of articles for the respective categories for the legislation. Deletion should be granted as this is too large to navigate comfortably when browsing. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, seems like a good start for a list article organized by topic (as opposed to date). so, maybe repurpose as a list article. but, I agree, as a navbox, it's too large to be useful. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 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:Paid employer=Foundation, Wikimedia edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template, fixed at Special:Diff/1070751080 --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G6. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 9 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:Infobox mapframe alt edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looped template, no other parameters. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax:Yes, please, delete it. I just tried and failed. Mariankagh (talk) 07:58, 9 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:Infobox map frame alternative edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No parameters, only contains <templatedata> --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax:Yes, please, delete it. I don't know how to do it. Mariankagh (talk) 07:55, 9 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:Liga Indonesia Premier Division Teams 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 12:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Template:Indonesian Premier Division Teams this template seems to have been superseded by {{Liga 2 (Indonesia)}}. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 9 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:Lakshadweep 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions an just links to different sections of the same article: Lakshadweep (Lok Sabha constituency) so fails WP:NAVBOX which say that these are "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia". Nigej (talk) 06:37, 9 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:Results of the 2019 Indian general election 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 12:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused article content that already exists at Results of the 2019 Indian general election. Nigej (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There was an earlier discussion about similar templates to substitute and delete. Since the content is already present (without the alliance column), this could simply be deleted — DaxServer (t · c) 09:48, 9 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:MLS Cup 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 12:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No idea why this was created since its the basically the same as {{MLS Cup Winners}}. Nigej (talk) 06:54, 9 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:MLSE sections 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 12:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar listing the franchises from different sports owned by Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. Seems quite an unsuitable style to me. Nigej (talk) 06:58, 9 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:MILHIST Quarterly Reviewing 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 12:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unused Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#Quarterly reviewing awards has a different style. Nigej (talk) 07:06, 9 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:MFR Scale small 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 12:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template from 2009 relating to Tropical cyclone scales#South-West Indian Ocean. Nigej (talk) 07:23, 9 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:MCBcur 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 12:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Templates relating to the MCB Collaboration of the Month. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 13#Template:MCBnom. Nigej (talk) 07:32, 9 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:Fellows of the Econometric Society elected in 2015 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 13:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issues here to those noted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 1#FBA templates 2003 to 2018. The fellows elected in a particular year have nothing really in common, no more so than any other arbitrary grouping of the fellows. Articles for one fellow almost never mention those elected in the same year. There is a list of fellows etc., all accessible via Category:Fellows of the Econometric Society. Nigej (talk) 10:47, 9 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:Roman Constitution 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. ✗plicit 12:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar superseded by the {{Politics of ancient Rome}} sidebar and the {{Roman Constitution}} navbox. Nigej (talk) 12:11, 9 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:RockmusicCollab 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 12:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music/COTW. Never really got off the ground. Nigej (talk) 12:20, 9 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 House of Romania 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 12:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar replaced by {{Romanian Royal Family}}. Nigej (talk) 12:38, 9 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).

2021 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 13:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the style used at eg Ice hockey at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's team rosters#Canada/Canada at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Ice hockey. I have converted the 2021 Indian Premier League article and associated ones (eg Delhi Capitals in 2021) to use this style and the listed templates are no longer required. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#2021 Indian Premier League match templates. Nigej (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't see the need of creating templates for every single match in a tournament. It is simply too difficult to keep track of all these templates. Clog Wolf Howl 15:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per discussions at WT:CRIC (today and a few months ago), we don't need/shouldn't be using templates for these. The solution done by Nigej is much better and compliant with Wikipedia template guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and other comments on cricket WikiProject. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:16, 12 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).

IPL group stage 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) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete You could perhaps say that the match templates can be used in many articles. However, these templates are not used anywhere except the season page. Clog Wolf Howl 05:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue with these is that they currently contain data and can be called with two different modes, one to produce a "match summary" and one to produce a "league progression", see eg 2019 Indian Premier League. I know it's now static information but I suppose it's a matter of whether we want to retain the clever aspect of both tables using the same data. Nigej (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete Per nom, and comments on discussion above and on cricket WikiProject. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:16, 12 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:Janez Janša 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 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar. Many of the links just like to different section of the main article. Nigej (talk) 17:51, 9 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:LASTMONTH 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 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. {{NEXTMONTH}} was deleted here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 9#Template:NEXTMONTH, so it makes no sense to keep this one. Nigej (talk) 18:03, 9 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:Lanka Premier League 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map, Lanka Premier League#Teams has a very similar map hardwired. Nigej (talk) 18:07, 9 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:Near-back vowel 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 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Near-back vowel and Near-front vowel articles were WP:BLARed in 2018 and as result these are no longer used. See Category:Vowel templates for other similar ones. Nigej (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete {{Near-front vowel}} since we only have one article where it could be used (Near-close near-back rounded vowel). I'm leaning delete on {{Near-back vowel}} too since the current IPA definitions of [ɪ, ʏ] are questionable or perhaps merely conventional, but we should keep it should we decide to use it in the articles (e.g. by making it mention the very variability of the actual backness of the vowels represented by those letters). Nardog (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:16, 12 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:Odisha FC sections 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 23:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar. Odisha FC has its own style. Nigej (talk) 18:38, 9 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:Odisha FC Managers 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 23:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox created when {{Odisha FC managers}} (small m) already existed. Nigej (talk) 18:42, 9 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:Oliver tractors 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 23:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused WP:NAVBOX with only one link. Nigej (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with deleting it, I can develop it in my userspace once the articles are written to support it. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 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).

Template:Ontario Freedom Leaders 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 23:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused WP:NAVBOX with only one link, since both blue links takes you to Freedom Party of Ontario. Nigej (talk) 18:56, 9 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 Denmark 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 23:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with lots of numbers but only 2019 links to an article. Nigej (talk) 19:53, 9 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:Paris Saint-Germain Handball squad edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not maintained. Only french handball club with such a navbox Nigej (talk) 21:00, 9 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_9&oldid=1072388636"