Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 1 March 3 >

March 2 edit

Template:National Register of Historic Places in Kansas 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of Template:NRHP in Kansas by county. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge: Sorry for this, I have been working on standardizing the hot mess that is the NRHP templates and created this one; due to a mixture of it being early morning hours and the first template not being property categorized, I missed it... And then forgot about the situation.
I would like to keep the template and naming convention at the new template, replacing the old one with a redirect. I chose the name "Template:National Register of Historic Places in (State)" as the standard for state-level templates, and that is what I'm working off of (some states, like Alaska and Colorado, do use "Template:NRHP in (State) by county", and I intend to have those redirected as well). The new template includes much more information, and matches new standardized and old examples, as well as matches other project navboxes. See: Template:National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania and Template:National Register of Historic Places in Nebraska. – TCMemoire 00:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to merge? It has every county and the links to the respective space already. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to keep the syntax from the new template and replace the old one with it. – TCMemoire 00:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's fine. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:15, 7 March 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:CDNblock edit

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — csc-1 17:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not used or substituted anywhere despite its transclusionless function. Creator could move it to his userspace if he wishes to do so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actively used in block messages, e.g. [1]. Before someone asks why they're not transcluded on talk pages as block messages, they're rangeblocks. Thanks for reminding me to pick this project back up, though. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the template usage only seen by admins? Gonnym (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and frequently used for Apple Private Relay blocks. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This can be closed since this is used but for block functions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 2 March 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:IPA-new 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 keep. Izno (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Unused now, but aren't these the sort of templates that are useful to have available the first time somebody needs one of them? Perhaps there have even been previous occasions when somebody would have used them if someone had created them, and has resorted instead to manually writing out the text being provided here in an automated fashion. Panda has merely expanded the large collection of such templates available should they be needed as displayed at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:IPA-. Largoplazo (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IPA-New was created back in August 2021. If it is useful wouldn't it have been used by now? We could all argue that unused templates are useful in the future, but if there is a place for these three to be used in light of this nomination, I'm all for it to be used. Templates should be used at some point after creation because otherwise, it's taking up unnecessary space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with your characterization of them as "unnecessary". They will be necessary the day someone first needs one of them. But unless that person knows how to create a template, that person will be out of luck, which is why it's necessary to have them in advance of first use. To hold otherwise is like saying car insurance is an unnecessary expense until after your first accident. Largoplazo (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Templates are created to be used. And no they don't become necessary until someone finds a use for them. They are necessary because there is a need for such a template to be created in the first place. At the moment they are not and are taking up unnecessary space. You can argue about their usefulness all you want. But they are right now, not. Unless you can find a place to find them to be used then that's fine. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume you drive around without a spare tire on the grounds that the spare won't be necessary until you get a flat. I don't understand your conception of the meaning of the word "necessary"; it seems to be divorced from practical considerations. Largoplazo (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made my argument and if you're not going to recommend some practical use for them, then don't bother dragging this out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In case it isn't clear, when somebody responds to an argument you've made in an open discussion, it isn't just to show you what's wrong with your argument, it's to point it out to other participants. Now I'll point out that you're saying I haven't given a practical use for them when I've pointed out quite clearly what the practical use for them is. Arguing that there isn't one after it's been pointed out to you is like arguing that there's no practical use for a spare tire, even after it's been pointed out to you. Now, you don't have to respond, obviously, but this is out there for everyone else's benefit. Largoplazo (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been discussed that we should migrate these IPA-xx templates to {{IPA}} much like {{lang}}, but that obviously involves coordinated effort of design, consensus building, and bot operation. So until that happens, I see little motivation or need for deleting these given the whole point of Category:Future IPA templates is to have templates made for various languages so editors can use them when they need them. Nardog (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no benefit to deletion here. These have a clear future use and keeping them around comes at no cost. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In all fairness, these were the only IPA's under the future category that are unused. A discussion about migrating them at the respective space would be useful if anyone wants to start it to avoid another Tfd depending on how long one takes after this one is closed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:21, 2 March 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:Db-wrongnamespace 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 relisted on 2022 March 9. Izno (talk) 06:49, 9 March 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:Find medical sources mainspace edit

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

The result of the discussion was Moved without redirect to Template:Find medical sources mainspace/sandbox2 with comment "Per [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#Template:Find medical sources mainspace]]" by Mathglot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused source banner template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recent template not intended for direct use on an article page, but rather indirectly via transclusion by other templates such as {{unsourced}} and others, in the same way that {{find sources mainspace}} is currently invoked by such templates. {{Find medical sources mainspace}} was created as part of the upgrade of the Module:Find sources suite of templates, which includes {{Find general sources}}, {{Find video game sources}}, {{Find medical sources}}, and {{Find biographical sources}}. All of these are talk-page only templates (or rather, any space except mainspace). Each of these has (or will have) a simplified sister template that is designed for indirect use from article pages, such as the original one: {{find sources mainspace}} after which this one was patterned. You can see the "mainspace" version in use at the top of Agricultural science, where it is invoked by the code of {{more citations needed}}. Ultimately, {{Find sources mainspace}} will become a wrapper, following the pattern of template {{Find sources}}, and then the wrapper will choose the {{Find medical sources mainspace}} template automatically for those articles that meet the conditions. However, this hasn't been done yet. The template was created first, and the wrapper work hasn't commenced. So the question is, where can this template be placed until it can be connected? Draft space would be iffy, as it might get deleted in six months; can I just move it to the sandbox instead, and let it sit there until I or someone is ready to work on it? Would it be best to leave the Template space filename a red link, or let it redirect to the sandbox? Adding Wikmoz, who is familiar with this situation and may wish to lurk, or comment. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, be bold and move it to the sandbox because as you state it's not yet ready for use, and the work related to this template hasn't been done yet. So go for it. I don't think you need to wait a week, but I'm open to hearing from Wikmoz on this if you want to wait. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan:, Okay, I'll move it. For the purposes of not annoying the bot that discovers unused templates, which is better: to create a redirect during the move, or no redirect? Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (P.S.: I used the "Reply" feature of the new discussion tools about to be released March 7 and currently in Beta, and it neither indented properly nor automatically used {{Reply}}.) Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, doesn't really matter, a move is still a move. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to /sandbox2. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 3 March 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:FAProgress self review 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:20, 2 March 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:Linkbr 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:20, 2 March 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:List of countries 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 userfied to User:امین اکبر/Template:List of countries. Izno (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant as each article in the template has a respective navbox for the topic at hand. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently more than 800 pages on WikiPedia, that starts with "List of Countries by...". I am tring to create a templet for all lists according topics like finanacial position, population, miltary etc. I will further work on this tamplet, currently I am collecting and compiling lists pages.Ameen Akbar (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ameen Akbar, you're navbox might be overkill if it includes over 800 articles that have the title starting with "List of Countries by..." I think it's best to leave those articles with the navboxes they are already included on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCleanerMan look now Template:List of countries, I just want to put all countries like this but with more topics.Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ameen Akbar, a little better, but this could be userfied if this still a work in progress. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCleanerMan, I am working on this. Give me some time to complete this. I think, this will very useful.Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCleanerMan, please remove discussion tag from template. I will complete templete, but it will take some time.Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To any admin who closes this, it's clear that the creator is still working on this and should be userfied until it's ready. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy in good faith. I don't think this template will be useful, but let's give the creator a chance to work through it and find out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:42, 9 March 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:Newspapers established in year cat 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:20, 2 March 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:Round corners 2 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) 06:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template is currently broken as it relies on Template:Box-shadow which was deleted here. Additionally, it does the same thing as Template:Round corners so nothing is lost. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 2 March 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:WPTANKS 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. ✗plicit 11:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused archive system. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanks is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force so seems unlikely that it will be used. The related category Category:WikiProject Tanks archives is empty apart from this template. Nigej (talk) 08:04, 2 March 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:GO Transit Peterborough edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route-map for a proposed train system in Tronto, now covered by {{GO Transit Midtown}} and used at GO Transit rail services#Midtown corridor and Peterborough line. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 2 March 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:History of Kerala edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox covered by the "history" section of {{Kerala topics}}. Nigej (talk) 08:58, 2 March 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:Mitsubishi Motors timeline 1980 to date edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapper for two "automobile timeline" templates. Only use in one article and once in user space. Seems simpler to add the two templates as required, as is done at Mitsubishi Motors for instance. Nigej (talk) 09:18, 2 March 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:ZIL passenger car since 1960 to 1980 edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline used in one article ZIL-114 which also has the very similar {{ZIL timeline 1960-present}}. Suggest deletion as redundant to the other. Nigej (talk) 09:23, 2 March 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:Hyundai Motor India Timeline edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline for Hyundai Motor India. Perhaps covered by {{Hyundai timeline 1995–present}}. It is unused and hasn't been updated for 10 years. Nigej (talk) 09:28, 2 March 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:WPNL ID BtG edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template from 2008, relating to "a current article improvement initiative of the Netherlands project." No prospect of reuse. Nigej (talk) 10:10, 2 March 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:WPNICK assessment quality and importance cat edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates relating to the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force. Nigej (talk) 10:12, 2 March 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:WPTijuana-invite edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused invitation template to joint the defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Tijuana. Nigej (talk) 10:22, 2 March 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:WP Grey's assessment quality task force edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template relating to the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Grey's Anatomy task force. Nigej (talk) 10:33, 2 March 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:WP Massachusetts Rollcall edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused "rollcall" template from 2015 to see who was still active. The project has been semi-active since 2014. Nigej (talk) 10:37, 2 March 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:Werribee railway station edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused station layout for Werribee railway station form 2020. Presumably unfinished and surely too detailed. Nigej (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/International medical cases chart edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused COVID chart, which has been effectively blanked since April 2020. Nigej (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I created this template and I don't use it anymore. In the past there is an idea of using this for global cases but I forgot it. Thingofme (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the author accepts the deletion then I agree, even though I thought it was a good idea. Well, if the opportunity arises in the future it can be recreated. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Barbados new recoveries chart edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charts of the number of recoveries to early 2021/late 2020. Personally I'm very doubtful that this is at all useful. Nigej (talk) 11:54, 2 March 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:Railways around King's Lynn edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused railway template with no mainspace for use. The template shows railways around a station, not for a specific railway, as is the case for most of these railway routes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Xenophon Philosopher asked me to create this in July 2021. I have notified said user that the template has been created, however, it seems they have chosen not to use it. Neutral on retention or delete. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 17:02, 2 March 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:Olympic medallists in Open 470 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 relisted on 2022 March 9. Izno (talk) 23:51, 9 March 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:Nth letter 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! 23:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates created by the same user. Doesn't seem to be a place for these to be used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:29, 2 March 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:PE W Coldwater Canyon 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 relisted on 2022 March 9. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 9 March 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:PVI edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Unshaded version of {{Shading PVI}}. I don't know if it would ever be used as most (all?) PVI ratings on Wikipedia and elsewhere are shaded by party colors. Could be repurposed for inline PVI ratings but I'm not sure if that's needed. Deletion endorsed if consensus achieved. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 17:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I now remember why I created it. Basically for the case, where more html styling options, for example, border color, etc. are applied. Because {{Shading PVI}} already uses styling for party color shading. But again, it remains unused. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 17:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment cat added -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:24, 4 March 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:History of medicine in India 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! 23:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant template. No mainspace article exists with the title of the navbox, most of the links are covered by Template:Ayurveda or Template:Traditional medicine, or other templates as in the case for the section of physicians. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. There's only room for so many Navboxes. Nigej (talk) 18:14, 2 March 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:PRV 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! 23:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. This template appears to have been created for use at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers in 2018, but it does not appear in the instructions at that page and is no longer in use there. The use of this template was discontinued in mid-2021 by the creator of this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete thanks for proposing this Jonesey95. This is no longer needed and, as creator, I'm happy for deletion.Tom (LT) (talk) 10:03, 3 March 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:List of attractions in Tehran 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! 23:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No main article for this navbox. Articles listed in this navbox generally use more relevant navboxes that fit the navbox criteria better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The parent article has just been deleted. Personally I'd that a "List of tourist attractions in Tehran Province" was too disparate a grouping, better covered by categories rather than a Navbox. "Tourist attractions" can pretty much cover anything, so I'd say was generally a poor topic for a Navbox. Nigej (talk) 17:25, 2 March 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:MH 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. Userfication can be requested at WP:REFUND. ✗plicit 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Content is a simple link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 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:DMCFAC 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! 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template appears to have been replaced by similar templates that were either preferred or expanded to perform the functions of this one. If I am wrong and this template is used in some way, I will be happy to modify the documentation to that effect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 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:Mahatma Gandhi 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 relisted on 2022 March 9. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 9 March 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:Dawoodi Bohra Dais with noted Duats 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! 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation. Appears to be an abandoned creation from 2020. Because this tree template is so broken, it is unclear if all of these people are even connected, let alone where and how this template would be useful. OK to userfy if the creator wants to keep working on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 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:Tzh edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. But, I will move it to userspace to avoid changing the author's userpage. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused display of bar lines for a graph. Not sure what the numbers for France, the U.S., and Ireland are supposed to represent. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems too simple to be a useful replacement. Nigej (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's desgined to be simple though Anpang01 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really can't seperate the actual template from the documentation? The France, US, and Ireland are just examples of how to use it. Anpang01 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment have you considered contributing it to Templates.Wikia? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify unfinished documentation, and seemingly limited with only 5 bars. Should probably be subtemplated for each bar, so you can easily do say 20 bars without too much code repetition -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please inspect more into the template if you're commenting, it is subtemplated for each bar. It's just that the single-bar template has so many parameters, so this is already the least code repetition possible. Anpang01 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. The tzh row seems like it could subsume the div as well. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But then the code would get even more repetitive, as it requires the spacing parameter, adding an additional parameter to the single-row template. Anpang01 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think. I don't see a need for yet another way to add graphs onwiki. --Izno (talk) 23:49, 10 March 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:Tetrapod osteology 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 relisted on 2022 March 9. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 9 March 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:List LDS Temple World Map/label edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused at {{List LDS Temple World Map}} and {{List LDS Temple World Map/status}}. Nigej (talk) 18:45, 2 March 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:Righeira albums 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) 23:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact this navbox currently only contains two items and therefore fails WP:NENAN, it's simply not needed – there is already a {{Righeira}} navbox which includes all the group's other recordings for navigation purposes, and the albums can be included there. We had exactly the same issue with this same editor last year – see the five listings at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 6, and the editor simply seems unable or unwilling to understand that you don't need separate navboxes for studio albums, for singles, for compilations, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Duplication. Clearly relate to the same topic. Just add the albums to the {{Righeira}} navbox if required. Probably could have been a WP:G4. Nigej (talk) 20:34, 2 March 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:TFAR nompage links 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 00:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used only on two ancient FAR/C nomination pages. Recommend subst and delete, clearly the community is using some other template. Izno (talk) 20:34, 2 March 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:Season by category edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Izno (talk) 21:01, 2 March 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 road/name/SOM 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 relisted on 2022 March 9. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 9 March 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:Taxonomy/''Bryobia graminum'' 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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Taxonomy subtemplates which not long after creation were tagged with Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. Highly unlikely these will find use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This whole category is already approved for speedy deletion. See this 2019 TFD. All we need is an admin to clean it out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 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:NE Negros Radio 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 relisted on 2022 March 9. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 9 March 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:Cats2 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! 23:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete hides categories in a template parameter list. Clearly obfuscates page metadata. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page creator, this was used but isn't now Anpang01 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 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:USAC Races 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 relisted on 2022 March 9. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 9 March 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_March_2&oldid=1076414725"