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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2021–2022 Primera División de El Salvador (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Standings are used as part of the article on the 2021–22 Primera División de El Salvador article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 19:49, 18 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Alianza F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Three links. Fails NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 19:49, 18 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:C.D. Atlético Marte (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Three links outside the title. Fails NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 19:50, 18 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Second Spouses of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Most of the entries are covered by the scope of Template:Spouses of the President of the Philippines and Template:First Ladies and Gentlemen of the Philippines. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 17 July 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).

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) 22:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite AIA Columbus 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused citation template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC) (struck * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose, pretty rude! All you have to do is ask, I'll be happy to use this in innumerous articles, I just haven't gotten around to it until now. ɱ (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Now in use to standardize the citation, negating the only deletion rationale. ɱ (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At best, only four articles use this template. One of those is a "For Further Reading" entry. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim1965:, it's not an unused template, and if only someone had the simple courtesy to reach out to the creator, I would've readily fixed that. And you can't make that your argument when you yourself are removing instances of its use. ɱ (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the "not used" argument. I ran a search on Wikipedia to see how many times the source is used. Four: List of mayors of Columbus, Ohio (a "For Further Reading" suggestion), Green Lawn Cemetery (Columbus, Ohio), AIA Columbus, and White–Haines Building. There potentially may be a fifth if a page moves from a sandbox to article-space. It seems inappropriate to create a template that has to be maintained in order to handle just four citations across some 6.5 million articles. Just how many contributors are going to do a search to discover this template among the tens of thousands out there? Or is someone going to set up a bot to do auto-replacement? - Tim1965 (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's inappropriate is for someone allegedly interested in Cleveland history and culture to go on a diatribe against a fellow Ohio historian, trying to delete their work, when -I literally fucking wrote- that the four uses were just added to prevent deletion here, and that I'd be happy to add more uses (AS I AM WORKING ON HERE). It's useful for hundreds more uses, only a lazy person who doesn't actually try to inspect the source would have no clue of that. ɱ (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly I'm pissed. I am a prolific writer on Columbus history. If I can't even have a damn template to standardize the reference for the most in-depth book on Columbus buildings and architecture, I'm just going to plain give up. This is a tome for my topic of research, a fucking vital resource. If you can't understand that you can go bother some other helpless writers. ɱ (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given that there are, by my count, about 200 templates in Category:Specific-source templates that have fewer transclusions than this one does (and thus they seem to be allowed by custom), there's no persuasive reason for deletion of just this one now that it's in use. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice. Good faith nom, but there is a use case presented for the template, and it appears to be useful. Now, if we're still looking at a disused template six months from now, I'm game to revisit this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There should probably be some general rule related to source-specific template uses e.g. the potential exists to be used in X articles by demonstrating a search for some text pertinent to the citation returns some quantity of pages > N (similar in sense to WP:NENAN which even if an essay still has some guideline teeth behind it at WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAV). Barring such a general rule, we probably should lean on the precedent of the category of interest (though I personally dislike its existence, and I know at least one editor who has commented on its existence at some length). If I have any issue, it's the awkward 2 construction in the title of the template. --Izno (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could rename to ((Cite Arch-Columbus))? I was making it fit with ((Cite AIA Columbus)), another excellent resource. I presume more AIA books will be released in the future as well. ɱ (talk) 17:23, 20 July 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).

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 July 23. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Arab_Swimming_Championships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:EURMP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:EPAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused except as an example in an ancient talk page post. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:31, 17 July 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).

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 July 23. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Wordify (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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; deleted as G7 by Sdrqaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Active hours (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in creator's userspace, broken, insufficiently complicated to warrant a module. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete failed belief expected to be useful. Since no one is interested I will tag it with db-author. Sorry. Utfor (talk) 14:54, 21 July 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).

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 No clue how I missed that this wasn't unused, I'm usually better than that. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Main if exists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused module created by user indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This isn't unused – it's used by ((main if exists)), which in turn is used in several articles. I can see a plausible argument for deleting the template, but it isn't part of this TfD nomination, and it wouldn't make sense to delete the module but not the template. Perhaps this should be relisted, with both the template and module included in the nomination? --ais523 05:22, 19 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Testrand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Self-described "temporary module" from five months ago likely does not need to be kept around further. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:32, 17 July 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).

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 July 23. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Domino_Unicode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Domino_Unicode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Base64 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Base64 encode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused except in one VPT post requesting coding help; Base 64 has no more plausibility of constructive usage than, for example, SHA2 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:33, 17 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Wikipedia ads sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Despite having been created two and a half months ago, this is still only used in its creator's userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting that the original Wikipedia Ads took a while to become popular, and while it is used in many userpages now, it's been around since 2007. This project has only been around for two and a half months. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia ads received plenty of attention from other people within two months of being created, if you look at the history * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 18 July 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).

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 July 26. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:HiaShatar_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:HiaShatarboard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Dou_Shou_Qi_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Dou_Shou_Qi_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Euroshogi_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Euroshogi_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Eurojanggi_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Eurojanggi_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Makruk_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Makrukboard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Pocket_Shogi_Copper_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Pocket_Shogi_Copper_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Chu_shogi_diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:ChuShogiboard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 the second spouse template. Please feel free to nominate ((Second Ladies and Gentlemen of Colombia)) if you would like to see it deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Second Ladies and Gentlemen of Colombia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Second Spouse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Second Ladies and Gentlemen of Colombia with Template:Second Spouse.
Identical templates used for the same people – created by the same editor who clearly got into a tangle with the naming of the navbox and decided to create a second version without deleting the first one. Would probably lean to keeping "Second Ladies and Gentlemen of Colombia" as the name of the merged template because this is the one already used in the articles, although frankly none of the included subjects are notable and should probably be deleted or merged to the articles for their spouses, ultimately making this template redundant. But that's for another discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge Delete Second Spouse as it's too broad for its scope because it could just be an entire navbox for all second spouses and gentlemen from all countries. Since both templates have the same group of articles, there is no need to merge. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I follow your reasoning... it's a bit vague though, in this case the editor means the spouses of the vice-president (not the president) of the country, who are rarely notable in any country in the world. Or if you just use it for the second husband/wife of anyone in history, then this navbox could get very messy. Richard3120 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but just keep the Second Ladies and Gentlemen of Colombia as it is specific to its purpose for articles about Colombia's VP spouses. But on a second look, none of the three articles seem to merit any form of notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I change my mind. Delete both templates. They fail the basic navigation required. Three links are not enough. Merging would not be a solution. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem with this solution – I'm leaning toward simply redirecting the three articles anyway, which would empty both templates... even in the USA, the spouse of the Vice-President is rarely notable unless the VP later becomes President and the spouse becomes First Lady. Outside of the USA, this position gets even less coverage. Richard3120 (talk) 19:27, 19 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference baseball coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Outdated navbox. The baseball teams of the Mid-East merged in 2022 with the Northeast Conference baseball program. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as no longer needed. Billcasey905 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. MEAC baseball is now currently defunct, as all four surviving teams are now affiliate members of the Northeast Conference, as reflected in the NEC baseball template structure. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:20, 19 July 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).

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. It was pointed out that it wasn't "almost everything" in the template that was a redirect; there was enough non-redirecting content even if the redirects were purged. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pugad Baboy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost everything just redirects to the main article, giving this zero navigational purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 19 articles exists. There are only a few redirects. Just remove the redirects. No need to delete the entire thing. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WikiCleanerMan; I concur that there are enough articles here for a navbox even after removing redirects. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 17 July 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).