Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 7

< January 6	January 8 >

January 7 edit

Template:Campaignbox Nadir of American race relations 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Nadir of American race relations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Superseded by sidebar at {{Nadir of American race relations}}. Merge links into that template, as appropriate, and then delete this mini-sidebar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I made the navbar and I see it as loosing value with the advent of the sidebar.Mangokeylime (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Campaignbox Montenegro WWI 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 23:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Montenegro WWI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Superseded by {{Campaignbox Serbia WWI}}, which is used in both articles that are linked from this campaignbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:BioGeoCatMap AP 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 23:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BioGeoCatMap AP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, no documentation, no categories, no incoming links. Template was created in mid-2020. Creator has not edited since late 2020. Looks like an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Aired episodes/auto 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aired episodes/auto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, no incoming links. Only edits were creation in 2018. This appears to be some sort of experiment that was abandoned. In the meantime, the parent template was converted to Lua in 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the creator. Absolutely delete it. It was something I was trying to implement but too many errors were caused, then apparently I forgot about it. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I support this, would this qualify for a speedy G7? -- Alex_21_TALK 12:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Ahnentafel/examples 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 under G7, noting that I am the creator and sole editor of the template. I also have no idea why I created it, so there's that as well. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ahnentafel/examples (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, no incoming links. There is a better example already in the documentation, at {{Ahnentafel/doc}}, and there are additional examples at {{Ahnentafel/testcases}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "testcases" is the standard name for such things. Nigej (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2020 Big West Conference men's soccer standings 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, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020 Big West Conference men's soccer standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, unsourced. Has existed since early 2020. There are no existing sports season articles for this to be placed into; all of the links are redirects to articles about the team or sections of articles about the college or university. It can be userfied if the creator wants to preserve the work in anticipation of the creation of a season article for one of the teams. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. We shouldn't have templates lying around on the off-chance someone might use them. Write the 2020 Big West Conference men's soccer season article first and then create the template if required, not the other round. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 20:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no purpose. Giant Snowman 20:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 2020 season didn't happen thanks to the pandemic. The Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament was cancelled and so there is no need for a standings template with a bunch of zeros especially when a potential article won't have much other than not held because of COVID. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2019 NCAA Division I & II men's volleyball Independent standings 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. Creator is free to request userfication at WP:REFUND should they desire. ✗plicit 23:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2019 NCAA Division I & II men's volleyball Independent standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, unsourced. Has existed since 2019. It can be userfied if the creator wants to preserve the work in anticipation of the creation of a season article for one of the teams. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. We shouldn't have templates lying around on the off-chance someone might use them. And where is the content which should be written first? Nigej (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2017 SEC volleyball standings 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. Creator is free to request userfication at WP:REFUND should they desire. ✗plicit 23:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017 SEC volleyball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, unsourced. Has existed since 2017. Its sibling templates in Category:2017 NCAA Division I women's volleyball season are used in at least one article, but there are no existing articles for this to be placed into. It can be userfied if the creator wants to preserve the work in anticipation of the creation of a season article for one of the teams. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. We shouldn't have templates lying around on the off-chance someone might use them. And where are all the articles on SEC volleyball or 2017 SEC volleyball which should be written first? Nigej (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Greece in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 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 23:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greece in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox was recently trimmed down to remove unlinked text and red links. All remaining links are now redirects with the exception of the main article. No longer helps with article navigation. Grk1011 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. User:GKFX^talk 18:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, no reason to continue to offer this since all articles are now redirects. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Xxxx-larger 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, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xxxx-larger (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template for 249% font-size – it is unusual to want text that big particularly in articles. User:GKFX^talk 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not for articles. I imported this for the userbox I created for my userpage. It's unused now but I think someone else might would need to use it like I did earlier. But, I have no issues even if it got deleted because I am not using it now. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should parameterize the size it scales to -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there an alternative that does the same? Nigej (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{resize}} takes a size parameter (as suggested by 65.92 above) and {{huge}} does 180% (in fact, huge looks to be very flexible). User:GKFX^talk 18:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion then. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete too. Nigej (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Advanced Direct Connect 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 23:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advanced Direct Connect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This link farm does not constitute an appropriate sidebar, even if it were used at Advanced Direct Connect. If the links are really needed, which seems dubious to me, then they should be added to the "external links" section of the article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not clear to me what it is. Is it a sidebar? If so WP:SIDEBAR says "Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates". Perhaps its an infobox, But an infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject" and it certainly doesn't do that. Nigej (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Formula One tyre supplier timeline (1950–1989) 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 14:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Formula One tyre supplier timeline (1950–1989) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Formula One tyre supplier timeline (1990–present) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Formula One circuit timeline (1950–1969) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Formula One circuit timeline (1970–1989) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Formula One circuit timeline (1990–2009) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Formula One circuit timeline (2010–present) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Continung from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1950–1979) and as noted there even earlier at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 53#New timeline templates, these unused Formula One templates are unwanted and won't be used. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Utterly confusing way of showing the information IMO We have articles like Formula One tyres and List of Formula One circuits and a template {{Formula One circuits}} which show the information in a much clearer way. Unclear to me whether they were meant to be navboxes or article content; either way they need to go. Nigej (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – Same rationale as the earlier nomination, they are: Inaccurate, misleading, and most of all completely unnecessary, these templates aren't used anywhere and I can't conceive of a practical application for them. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the circuit timelines as very confusing and unwieldy, and very unlikely to be used. Weak delete the tyre supplier timelines as not too bad, possibly useful (though I think there would be much better ways to present this information) but still unlikely to actually be used. A7V2 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Political party color 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) 06:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political party color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is basically an early attempt to have a single source for political party colors (instead of endless amount of templates), in the same manner Module:Political party does now. Since then the module has been created. The maintainers recently also brought up the issue of converting this to Lua on the talk page.

Instead of having two parallel lists, any (valid) entry not in one of the sub-pages of Module:Political party should be added and Template:Political party color redirected to Template:Party color. Gonnym (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to update {{Party cell}} (Special:Diff/1063911640/1064065327) to use the Political party module but was unsuccessful as the old parties were still to be migrated to the module (see my talk page). After migration, ~~please update the transclusions to use the module directly~~ please update the {{Party cell}} from {{Party cell/sandbox}}, so that the module will be used instead of the Political party color template.

`{{Political party color}}` entries vs module usage colorized with `{{Party cell}}`
Entry	`{{Political party color}}`	Module usage `{{Party cell/sandbox}}`
Alliance	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
American (1924)	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
American (1969)	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
American Delta	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
American Independent	#800080	#800080
American Labor	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Labor	#FF6347	#FF6347
Labor, 19th century	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
American Republican	#005B96	#005B96
American Solidarity	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Americans Elect	#FFFF88	#FFFF88
Anti-Administration	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Anti-Jacksonian	#FFE6B0	#FFE6B0
Adams	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
National Republican	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Anti-Jacksonian Hold	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Adams Hold	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
National Republican Hold	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Anti-Masonic	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Anti-Masonic Hold	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Anti-Nebraska	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Anti-Monopoly	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Birthday	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Bread and Roses	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Citizens	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Commonwealth Land	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Single Tax	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Communist	#FF0000	#FF0000
Communist USA	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Connecticut for Lieberman	#DDDDBB	#DDDDBB
Conservative	#318CE7	#318CE7
Constitution	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Concerned Citizens	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Independent American	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
U.S. Taxpayers	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
US Taxpayers	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Taxpayers	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Constitutional Union	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Constitutional Unionist	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Democratic	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Democrat	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Democratic hold	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Democratic light	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Democratic shading	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Democratic–Farmer–Labor	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
DFL	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Democratic-Farmer-Labor	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Democratic-Republican	#008000	#008000
Democratic–Republican	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Jacksonian Democratic	#3333FF	#3333FF
Democratic-Republican (Adams)	#68C468	#68C468
Democratic-Republican (Jackson)	#698DC5	#698DC5
Democratic-Republican (Crawford)	#FF9955	#FF9955
Dixiecrat	#FF9955	#FF9955
Farmer–Labor	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Farmer-Labor	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Federalist	#EA9978	#EA9978
Pro-Administration	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Free Soil	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Fusion	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Green	#99CC33	#99CC33
Pacific Green	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Greenback	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Greenback	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Independence	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Independent	#DCDCDC	#DCDCDC
Independent (US)	#DDDDBB	#DDDDBB
Other	#DDDDBB	#DDDDBB
Others	#DDDDBB	#DDDDBB
Independent (Oregon)	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Independent Democratic	#6699CC	#6699CC
Mississippi Freedom Democratic	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Independent Green	#ccffcc	#ccffcc
Independent Republican	#CC6666	#CC6666
Independent Voters Association	#E64E4E	#E64E4E
IVA	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Independent Whig	#FBCEB1	#FBCEB1
Jacksonian	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Jacksonian Hold	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Justice	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Know Nothing	#D99FE8	#D99FE8
Know-Nothing	#D99FE8	#D99FE8
American	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Law and Order	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Liberal	#FFFF00	#FFFF00
Liberal (Utah)	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Liberal Republican	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Libertarian	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Liberty	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Liberty Union	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Marijuana	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Legal Marijuana Now	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Marijuana Reform	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Grassroots	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Mountain	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Nacionalista	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Natural Law	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
National	#DDDDDD	#DDDDDD
National Democratic	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Gold Democratic	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
National Democratic (Alabama)	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
NDPA	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
National Union	#D2FF78	#D2FF78
New Alliance	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
New Progressive	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Nonpartisan	#C0C0C0	#C0C0C0
Nonpartisan League	#FCF5D9	#FCF5D9
NPL	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
North Dakota Democratic-NPL	#0055AA	#0055AA
Democratic-NPL	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Nullifier	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Opposition	#FFE153	#FFE153
Party for Socialism and Liberation	red	red
Peace and Freedom	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
People's	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Populist	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Personal Choice	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Popular Democratic	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Populist (1984)	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
America First	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Progressive	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Progressive (1912)	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Bull Moose	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Prohibition	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Raza Unida	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Readjuster	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Republican	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Republican hold	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Republican light	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Republican shading	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Reform	#FFE200	#FFE200
Right to Life	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Silver	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Silver Republican	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Social Democratic	#FF3300	#FF3300
Socialist	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Socialist Action	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Socialist Alternative	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Socialist Equality	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Socialist Labor	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Socialist Workers	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Southern Democratic	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Southern Rights	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
States' Rights	#F5BCA9	#F5BCA9
Townsend	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Union	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Union Labor	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
United Citizens	#B8BFFE	#B8BFFE
United Utah	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Unity	olive	olive
Unionist	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Unconditional Unionist	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
US Labor	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Vacant	#FFFFFF	#FFFFFF
Vermont Progressive	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Whig	#FF7F00	#FF7F00
Women's Equality	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Workers World	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Working Families	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Workingman's	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Write-in	#FFFFFF	#FFFFFF
Write in	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
Unknown	#F8F9FA	#F8F9FA
No party preference	#DDDDDD	#DDDDDD

I've created a comparison as to which entries exist in the module when compared to the {{Political party color}} — DaxServer (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC) (Updated with table 16:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note that the equivalent of {{Political party color}} is {{Party color}}. Gonnym (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but probably bad for the environment that the data pages with thousands of transclusions are changed daily. Christian75 (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not kept, it should eventually be redirected to Template:Party color. Having multiple different systems for managing party colors seems likely to be confusing, so a redirect seems reasonable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:SEERelatedPortals 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 12:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SEERelatedPortals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one page where it should be subst and deleted. The amount of incoming links is from a bizarre mass spam discussion copy The Transhumanist preformed on 27 April 2018‎. Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subst in Portal:Berkshire/Related portals, although that's not used anyway. Nigej (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be propagated to all the southeast England portals? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a template to a page that isn't used anywhere, be added to other pages that never wanted it? Gonnym (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. Agreed with Gonnym that it's inappropriate to add templates to pages on the grounds that they were discovered as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:New message 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 merge to Template:New discussion. With the assumption (as is usually the case) that the merge can be done for backwards compatibility and/or extant uses properly updated, there is a consensus to merge the templates. The question of whether to restrict this template to only the user talk space did not have any clear consensus (limited discussion etc) so if that is still desired please start a discussion at the template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New message (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New discussion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:New message with Template:New discussion.
We do not need two templates doing almost precisely the same thing. I have a preference for the template using {{mbox}} (new discussion) since I am trying to remove uses of the message box class per TemplateStyles efforts. Izno (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while there is no emotional objection merging the two, this discussion was caused by an unwise edit to redirect New message to New discussion. This redirection broke the deployment of the redirected template. The syntax of each template has sufficient differences that a simple redirection failed. Thus there is work to be done to handle the deployment of New message on those pages that use it.

If the templates can be merged without breaking the deployment then I support the merge, else logic means that I oppose it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove templates from any non-User page. We don't need to reinvent systems the default UI already handles. I'd also prefer it just be gone altogether, but people are picky about their user pages I guess. Article talk space on the other hand is not their own personal playground and there is no room for these. After removal add piece of code to prevent these from being reapplied later on. Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the merge, it seems very simple. {{New message}} |1= is equal to |text= at {{New discussion}}. Gonnym (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym As long as whatever needs to be done on a user talk page is performed for the user, my opposition vanishes in the mist. Most users are template syntax illiterate. Getting it working once was "hard enough" for most of us. You are welcome to show me the header on my own user talk page im the alternate template alongside the other, or use my sandbox with pleasure (or create a subpage under my user id) and let me know.

I agree regarding non user talk pages Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you need to do. If this passes then whoever implements this will take care that every usage is transferred correctly. Gonnym (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my inexperience in this area. I will let the closing editor/admin interpret my conditional statement above. Thank you @Gonnym. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Centre Party (Sweden)/meta/shading edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Centre Party (Sweden)/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alternative for Sweden/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Christian Democrats (Sweden)/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Feminist Initiative (Sweden)/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Green Party (Sweden)/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Left Party (Sweden)/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Liberals (Sweden)/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Moderate Party/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:National Party (Sweden)/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Democracy (Sweden)/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pirate Party (Sweden)/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Swedish Social Democratic Party/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sweden Democrats/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above are unused Sweden political party shading templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all these are major current parties in Sweden. Why aren't the templates in use anywhere? --Trialpears (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because Swedish editors know that shading makes horrible tables. Gonnym (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Party shading/All Ceylon Muslim Congress 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 12:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/All Ceylon Muslim Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Party shading/Democratic People's Front (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Party shading/Jathika Hela Urumaya (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Party shading/Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above are unused Sri Lanka political party shading templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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