The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dysprosium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Holmium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Thulium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Radium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Protactinium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Curium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Einsteinium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough bluelinked articles. Not enough articles in the corresponding categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. There are not many bluelinks now, but there could easily be more, since these elements have been investigated in bulk. A good start for Ra, Pa, Cm, and Es could be the Radiochemistry of the Elements series. The lanthanides can surely have even more. I see no problem with having lots of redlinks in templates if there are a few bluelinks already to get started and the redlinks could easily support articles; I helped with exactly this sort of expansion for ((Polonium compounds)) a while ago. Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:EXISTING requires avoidance of redlinks in navboxes unless the contents represent all the members of a set or the articles are very likely to be developed. I'm unconvinced without more that either of those two conditions are met here. That doesn't mean this navbox wouldn't be useful in the future, but since its primary purpose per Wikipedia:Navigation template is navigation, it doesn't seem useful presently. --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. It seems arbitrary to say there must be five written articles about compounds of a chemical element in order to have a navigation box. See the complete list at Category:Chemistry compounds templates. Why not six or four? One can argue about including red links, but these elements have compounds. Happily the noble gases, which do have difficulty forming compounds, are all included in a single navbox. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2018 (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 below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Module:Sports color. But let Frietjes do the merge (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Handball color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Baseball color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Basketball color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Hockey team color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Handball color, Module:Baseball color, Module:Basketball color and Module:Hockey team color.
Almost exactly duplicate modules, only significant difference is the name of the /data module, which could be a parameter rather than a separate module. The merged module should be called Module:Sports color. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed For my from the Handball part is this ok. --Malo95 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sure, but please let me do the merging. it's really just the baseball and basketball ones that require careful merging. the other two could be simply deleted as unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2018 (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 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 no oppose. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2014 FIBA World Championship for Women finalists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:2014 FIBA World Championship for Women. The teams are already listed in the 2014 FIBA World Championship for Women template aside from an error where Mali is listed which should be Mozambique. Whpq (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, the detailed results should be listed in the article, not in the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2018 (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 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. Primefac (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Portal flag talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to using ((Portal maintenance status)) on the portal itself and ((WikiProject Portals)) on the portal talk page, as noted on the documentation. No longer has any transclusions in the Portal_talk: namespace. Evad37 [talk] 01:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree. Nuke it. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 01:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is just going to cause confusion if we keep it and the new template makes the implemenation more simple. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 09:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is transcluded twice :: see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Portal_flag_talk. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one of those is its own testpage, and the other is an auto-generated list from one of User:Pppery's modules. Not in any "real" use now. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 04:40, 2 July 2018 (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).