Template:Formula Regional European Championship rounds
- 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 04:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to be a navbox for FREC rounds, but these round reports have been deleted. The navbox no longer serves its purpose to assist navigation and should be deleted.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The articles that exist already have a navbox for the specific purpose. This isn't even used anywhere. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2021 (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 meta/color/社會主義者和民主人士進步聯盟
- 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 04:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
unused and seems unlikely to be used considering the non-conventional name for the template Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2021 (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).
- 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 2021 September 4. ✗plicit 04:44, 4 September 2021 (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:Public high school
- 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) 12:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding these links to an article manually isn't a huge burden on editors, and makes article prose more maintainable than a template. Should be substituted and deleted (or if this is really needed as a shortcut, made subst-only). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Elli I couldn't find any guidelines for what should to shouldn't be made into a template, and there's been the FTE template for many years, so I assumed that since the Public high school template is clearly more useful than the FTE template, and the FTE template has remained, this one should too. Not to say the existence of the FTE template justifies the existence of a Public high school template, but is there any guidelines that would clarify what should be a template and what shouldn't? I created this template to make the process quicker, and while one could argue that it isn't a huge burden, there is more reason to keep it than to remove it. Additionally, everyone uses a non-specific link when linking public schools ("High school" or "State school" & "High school", as opposed to "State school#United States" & "High school"). Creating a template makes it so that people are more likely to make links to the more relevant and specific links. These links don't need to be manageable, they only need to be right, and it seems to me that their is an objective "right" when it comes to specificity of these links, and so a template helps manage links by making people not have to think about what links they put. Of course, if there happens to be a guideline that explicitly states something that this template does not abide by, but as far as WP:TFD#REASONS goes, rule number 1, 2, and 4 is irrelevant, and rule number 3 is clearly abided by. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized it does violate one rule specifically when dealing with article text, so I believe that this template would follow all guidelines if it were edited to deal solely with infobox fields. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Useless template. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not how we use templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Misuse of templates. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but revise Without this template, users have very often used links that were unideal (the biggest problem being people linking "State school" instead of "State school#United States", or simply not linking the "State school" article altogether.), and this template has the potential to completely turn around this systematic trend of unspecificity (a bit exaggerated perhaps, but my point is that this template will help guide these phrases to be more precise). However, the guidelines do mention, per WP:TG, that templates shouldn't be used for article text, and I certainly don't believe this would be an exception, so I believe the best way to go about this is to revise the template. A template should be used to maintain consistent formatting per WP:TMP, and that is exactly what this template is doing, so if this template is designed specifically for infoboxes, I don't believe it would violate any guidelines. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I went ahead and edited the template to comply to WP:TG on my own volition. I don't believe this action to be controversial since it's explicitly stated that the template cannot be included in article texts, and there isn't anything worth even considering to make this template an exception. I also went ahead and removed this template from all article text, so this template is currently specifically designed for infoboxes. Because of this, I believe there is no longer any reason to delete this template. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A template within a template is quite common, and seems perfectly appropriate within an infobox template. For example, age templates are used in templates of people and schools to help with the math and with regular updates, the FTE template is used to make common phrase usages more convenient, and colorbox infoboxes are used to visually represent school colors. The public high school template functions to create standardized phrases, where standardization and specification of links lacks in the large majority of American high schools. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2021 (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:USS Nevada (BB-36)
- 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 04:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a navbox about a single ship (not a class or group) that only ever linked to a section of the ship article, and a related page that no longer exists. There is no group of articles about USS Nevada that need their own navbox. Navbox is no longer included in article, and I don't think it was ever used by any other article. — sbb (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2021 (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).
- 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 2021 September 4. ✗plicit 04:43, 4 September 2021 (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).
- 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 09:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the recent nomination of the similar women's template. Same arguments apply.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Navbox crust applies here as it does for the woman's template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The exact same concerns apply, if I had looked more thoroughly before nominating the other one then this would have been a batch nomination. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 27 August 2021 (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).