The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 11:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Species with no link
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Empire ships templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 12:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having these navboxes split alphabetically is not a useful navigational aid. Restricting in this way is abitrary, who is to say you would only want to look at all of thise beginning with "H" for example. In fact if you take "H" as an example, I think nearly all of the very few blue links link to the same article. This is not really good navbox practice. Best left for category navigation I think. --woodensuperman 15:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1st preference is Keep, look at templates A-F, which are pretty much blue links; 2nd preference is to redirect all to ((Empire ships)) so that historic versions of articles don't have redlinks where the templates are. Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove redirects, links to list articles, non-links and red links. After that either merge all together into a single template or merge templates by type. Gonnym (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better to use a list article and category to navigate here per liberty ships discussion. if I am viewing an article about a Empire ship starting with "A", why would I only be interested in navigating to other Empire ships with the same starting letter? Frietjes (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:WikiProject Zimbabwe/doc
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused as the project templates use the automatic documentation (|DOC=auto). Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gonnym, I created Template:WikiProject Water sports/doc so that I could add template data for the "insert a template" feature on the visual editor. However I clearly didn't do it right as it is still not using the template data on the insert a template wizard and now it has been nominated for deletion. Should I have removed the |DOC=auto? It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. |DOC=auto means you are using the automatic documentation and not the /doc one. Regarding the TemplateData feature, since that is helpful for all templates, I suggest bringing that up at Module talk:WikiProject banner so User:MSGJ can see if its possible to implement it. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, I have put my two cents into that discussion. For now, is it safe to remove |DOC=auto and everything will be good? It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Meerut Metro color
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Created in error; this type of template is deprecated, and Module:Adjacent stations/Meerut Metro should be created and used instead.
Also, this template has no possible use yet, since Category:Transport in Meerut does not contain any metro stations and the Meerut Metro is not scheduled to begin operation for more than a year. The articles for the stations should be created first, after which Module:Adjacent stations/Meerut Metro can be created and used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We've moved away from this style and there is no reason to create new instances of it. Gonnym (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:FCPtopic
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The effort behind this seems to have stalled soon after it launched, its last meaningful update was in 2006, and is since covered by Wikipedia:Translation. DB1729talk 23:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 14:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template's main function is to insert MOS:QUESTIONs and MOS:PULLQUOTEs into articles, redundantly restating an idea from the article or section and placing it in a large box to the side for decorative or emphasis purposes. It's been discussed at TfD before, but for some reason these specific issues have never been brought up. If anything, they've come to stand out even more since its TfDs from years ago, since which Wikipedia's standards have increased. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid deletion reason given. These are not "pull quotes", teaser-like copies of redundant article text; they are summaries of article content, generally worded more concisely, much like an infobox or a short description. There is no prohibition on block quotes more generally, only for the teaser-quote usage of them, which this is not related to. As for MOS:QUESTION, it's even less relevant: these are not instructions for readers to follow, addressed to a reader, but rather statements of research problems, generally written without pronouns. They are in the grammatical form of a question not because they are asking the reader what the answer is, but because the fact they are describing is that the answer to a certain question is unknown. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have the article lede to provide a summary. This is visual clutter. - Crosbie 13:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think all infoboxes should also be deleted, as redundant with the lead? Not that I disagree, but... —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are not redundant and should not be deleted. Infoboxes provide a list of standard fields in non-prose format, making it easy and quick to find values for those specific fields. Prose goes in the article body. The body and the infobox serve different functions, and between them they cover both these functions well. The 'Unsolved' template duplicates the function of the lede. - Crosbie 17:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMOS:QUESTION is beside the point, and MOS:PULLQUOTE doesn't apply either. The former says to avoid rhetorical questions, and an unsolved problem can't be a rhetorical question. The latter is irrelevant because, well, they're not pullquotes. Nor do they do the things that make pullquotes bad, e.g., providing undue emphasis. I find myself unable to split the hair between these and infoboxes. After all, infoboxes contain stretches of prose, such as Outstanding contributions in mathematics attributed to young scientists (Fields Medal), longer than some descriptions of unsolved problems, like Are there infinitely many amicable numbers? (Amicable numbers). Moreover, linking one unsolved problem to the wider landscape thereof is a helpful navigational aid. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator's "TfDs from years ago" is misleading. The most recent of the six previous TfDs (four keeps and two no-consensus) was in 2018. It closed as a snow keep. I don't think our standards have changed much between then and now. See the template talk for the list. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Burmese letter
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or documentation. Created by now-blocked editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Burmese letters seem to be all redirects to Burmese alphabet ; so there appears to be no articles, and there's also the newer infobox ((Infobox grapheme)) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to have anything useful, and grapheme infobox seems better anyways EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.