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 relisted on 2019 March 15. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Trademark-EU (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 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Swiss Federal Council election result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template with no actual data. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unless someone can point to its usage, the lack of editing by its creator after the initial day and no documentation seems to suggest this has never been used. --Gonnym (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, has apparently never been used (author did not employ it in the two weeks following creation, and used manually written tables in relevant articles). —Kusma (t·c) 09:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Trinidad and Tobago legislative election, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election box. data already present on necessary page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaced by Template:Trinidad and Tobago general election, 2007. --Gonnym (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Transnistrian presidential election, 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election box. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Tokelau Island council election, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election box. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is not even an article for the 2005 elections so no place to even place it, but even if it existed, this simple table should be placed on the article itself. --Gonnym (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:United States House of Representatives elections, 2016 imagemap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaced by File:US House 2016.svg. --Gonnym (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Replaced by image --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:United Kingdom local elections, 1909 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox, no parent article, nearly entirely redlinks and plain text. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Template was missing 1909 Liverpool City Council election, which has been added and the template is now used. It's likely that the parent article will be created at some point (perhaps by MrPenguin21). Number 57 22:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @MrPenguin21: still not used... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zackmann. I gave this a look over and have created the related page. MrPenguin21 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a navigation template's sole purpose is to navigate a reader between connected articles. While there are 3 blue links in this template, only 1909 Liverpool City Council election is actually a 1909 election article. Nothing to navigate so fails it's objective. --Gonnym (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym and Tom (LT): The 1909 United Kingdom local elections has been created and 1909 Aberdare Urban District Council election was missing (and has been added) so there are now three 1909 articles at least. Cheers, Number 57 20:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • While 3 is still low, this has the potential of growing. Hopefully it does. --Gonnym (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gonnym. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Number 57 - now in use! Thanks for the ping. As a sidenote, Zackmann08, it's great to see how some of these nominations are jogging memories of other editors and stimulating editing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Urologic procedures in women (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unused. We already have ((Urologic procedures)). Nigej (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. --Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:United Kingdom Independent Broadcasters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no need for this nav template that just links other nav templates. The templates should be linked on pages they are relevant at and grouped together by this template. --Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Tokyo Anime Award for Domestic Feature Film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this can be used as it does have a parent article at Tokyo Anime Award#Domestic Feature Film Category, so the award is notable and a complete list appears on the article, however, if it not actively maintained by anyone, there is no reason to add these to articles (which by the look of the article, seems is the case). --Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2019 (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 soft delete. No real opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Telford and Wrekin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Author removed it from the parent article Telford and Wrekin here: [1]. Don't know enough about Shropshire to say whether that was a good or a bad idea. —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Kusma, to clarify, Author being the author of the template who removed it EIGHT years ago... Not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmann08 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems it can be used on the articles it is linked, but like Kusma, I have no idea if the removal was done with some valid reason behind it. Would help if anyone from the UK could answer this. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2019 (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 substitute and delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Tamil Nadu legislative election results by alliance 1996 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election box. data already present on necessary page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete - probably ahould be in 1996 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election#Voting and Results. See also eg 1991 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election#Voting and results and 2001 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election#Results. Nigej (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Subts and delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Turkish general election, 1950 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Turkish general election, 1954 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Turkish general election, 1957 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Turkish general election, June 2015 nationwide and overseas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:14, 28 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Turkmenistani presidential election, 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Turkmenistani presidential election, 2017 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page in a much more complete format. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:US Virgin Islands governor election, 2002 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is not even an article for the 2002 elections so no place to even place it, but even if it existed, common practice is to place the results table on the article and not in a template. --Gonnym (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:US Virgin Islands senate election, 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template with no actual data Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is not even an article for the 2002 elections so no place to even place it, but even if it existed, common practice is to place the results table on the article and not in a template. --Gonnym (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:United Kingdom general election, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to have been replaced by Template:United Kingdom parliamentary election, 2005. --Gonnym (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Western Cape provincial election, 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused election stats template. Data already present on the article's page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - replaced by a similar table in parent article. --Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2019 (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 Withdrawn. Now widely used (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wikipedia categorization navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What would you expect the parent article to be? All the pages to which it links are project pages. And it's not orphaned, as I've now added the template to a number of the linked pages. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it seems an informative and well put together template. Thank you for bringing this nomination if it causes the template to be distributed to its container pages (I saw this nom from the template being added to a page). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I could see no reason why it shouldn't be on each of the pages that it links to, so I did it. If it needs a "parent article" (whatever that is), try Wikipedia:Categorization. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Boys' Youth European Volleyball Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bora Bora family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (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 relisted on 2019 March 15. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Don't_subst (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 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Doosan Bears roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused roster that is redundant to Template:Doosan Bears roster navbox Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. Happy to restore it if anyone wishes to work on incorporating it into an article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Donbass War detailed map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused massive image Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — there are indeed many-many articles linked to this template, in case if anyone should be interested where the action takes place.—Pietadè (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pietade-Pietade. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For normal "content" templates (as opposed to templates used for internal project purposes, e.g. ((uw-vand2))), usage and usefulness are the only things that generally matter. How could such a huge image be useful anywhere? It's 2500px wide, or almost twice the width of my widescreen monitor, and because it doesn't seem to have a width= parameter or anything similar, there's no way to reduce it to a more manageable size. Consequently, it can't properly fit in any page: it's not useful. The only way that this should be kept is if someone's willing to redo everything and cut it down to a reasonable size. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and re-do. It is useful but unmanageable. Possibly split as a map and a navbox, rather than a map in a template. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DC Streetcar infobox header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused styling template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creator, replaced by Template:DC Streetcar style last month. Cards84664 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cards84664. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused flag shortcut. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; part of a huge series of flag templates, and whether it's in use now or not, it's a plausible member of the club. I've just added it to Laks (Caucasus), where the image was already used but with more-complex coding. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Czarni Radom team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cyclist data 2014 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused cyclist data. Not sure how or where it would be used, but no templates or pages are calling it. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems to relate to ((Cyclingresult2)), an attempt to create some clever system for cycling results. Seems to have been abandoned after 2015, and never used in 2014. Creator is currently banned indefinitely so won't be commenting here, I assume. Nigej (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CrossCountry stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that just produced a simply wikilink. No reason for this to be a template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unused, undocumented. Nigej (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cricket Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused squad template Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Over 6 years old and seemingly unused and forgotten. Nigej (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused cell style Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Connecticut Radio Markets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused list with no real purpose. Not a navbox, just a block of text. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Templates like this were originally created to transclude into the navbox templates, so that related radio market templates could crossreference each other by calling this template. That approach has since been deprecated, however, and the templates now do their crosslinks by directly linking to each other instead of by calling a second subtemplate. All of the templates listed here have already been converted to the contemporary format, which is why this is unused. Most of the other templates like this that used to exist were already deleted a few years ago — the only reason this one is actually still here is that it somehow got missed in the process. But it's not so much that it has no purpose, as that its old purpose has been superseded by a different way. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bearcat. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CatDescr1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused relic of the 2000's. No longer needed. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no longer useful. Nigej (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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 keep. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused route map template Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: restored to parent article. (Had been removed on 06:23, 19 November 2016‎ by Lourdes with the vague and misleading edit summary "fix format".) Useddenim (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Useddenim. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Caribbean Premier League results summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused results table Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused external link template. No need for it. Just use standard wiki-markup Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Canadian election images (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table of images from a random election Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no idea where or how this can be useful. --Gonnym (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just to be clear, this isn't actually images from one random election — what the images actually are is bar graphs of the popular vote breakdown across all Canadian elections of both the federal and provincial varieties throughout Canadian political history. But not all of the graphs have actually been updated to reflect the most recent elections; the federal one, frex, is missing both 2011 and 2015. I also haven't figured out why it's treating the Progressive Conservatives and the contemporary Conservatives as one continuous party with the same colour (apart from the 1990s, when the PCs get buried in "other" instead of being represented with their standard colour at all) while chunking Reform/Alliance out as a separate one, but I digress. But no, it's not actually useful: comparing the evolution of popular vote breakdowns across provincial and federal elections isn't a thing we need a navbox for, because it doesn't tell you anything that crosses provincial boundaries in a useful or defining way. That's why it's not actually in use, and why it isn't really salvageable. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not used, confusing, and not suitable for template namespace. Difficult to navigate --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Unrest in SR Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC) Template:Campaignbox Unrest in SR Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree on this, and I want a wide discussion. This template should be completed and added to the Bosnian War and added as a pre-template. I know that the Muslim and Turkish lobby in the US justifies Aliа Izetbegovich, but the fact is that the Clinton administration is pointing out that April 6 is the first day of the war and that I can not do it. I insist on the discussion and that if the chief administrator does not allow me to put into the main template the true start of the war in Bosnia, which is March 1, then at least I insist that it be retained and added this template as a pre-form within the main template like before - patterns of the Syrian Civil War. I think that Wikipedia is rejecting my pre-form for political reasons or by refusing patrol administrations year after year who are in favor of the current political nomenclature in the United States related to the State Department, as well as the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and want to cover up the period between March 1 and April 6 at all costs. I want a discussion and find some Modus Vivendi. With this pre-form, I wanted to be maximally NEUTRAL to everyone, but some admins do not give it and want to keep their distorted and frozen version of the beginning of this war PERMANENTLY PLASED. I am from the Balkans and while I'm alive I will not accept the BOSNIAN WAR template as it is today until some changes are corrected, and here I have presented them here.Baba Mica (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Campaignboxes are meant for a closely defined group of battles in a military campaign, e.g. ((Campaignbox Gettysburg Campaign)), but it's not used for anything close to that purpose. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2019 (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 keep. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox South West Pacific theatre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - have added the template to relevant articles. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is not unused. Nuke (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Rebellion of Domhnall Dubh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaign box with only 2 links WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I created this template but it is no longer used in any article and the links in it are now part of another template. Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Post-Deir ez-Zor period in the Syrian Civil War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and non-functional campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (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 relisted on 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox_Perso-Ottoman_War_(1730-1735) (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 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Military Operations of the Philippine Commonwealth Army (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Created by a long-running ban evader and vandal, and used as part of their campaign to insert misleading information into Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Islamic Conquest of Hispania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN & WP:EXISTING Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We do not know enough details to produce separate articles for the many of the engagements listed. This campaignbox is unlikely ever to be useful. Srnec (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Indonesian National Revolution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Deir ez-Zor escalation period and ISIS collapse in the Syrian civil war (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (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 relisted on 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox_Indian_wars_and_conflicts_of_Nevada (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 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 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox_Indian_wars_and_conflicts_of_Arizona (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 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Early Incidents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:15, 7 March 2019 (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 relisted on 2019 April 3. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bengali_desserts (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 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 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Balrampur_district,_Chhattisgarh (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 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Batangas labelled map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - awful and unreadable map which is replaced by File:Ph fil batangas.png in the article. --Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Gonnym.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Aviation accidents and incidents by years templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete - Could be used if someone really wanted to add it to all of those template pages, but even the template creator it seems did not care enough to do it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (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 no consensus. A merger was discussed, so there is NPASR if the other potential merge templates are added to the list. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ESPN Montana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with no parent article Update: Limited use navbox that is a clear case of WP:NENAN. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I see 6 links in the infobox. It's being used. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:09 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • Update: Placed on 4 of the 6 pages. The other 2 were no longer sports formatted. One was Active Rock, the other was Sports but had gone off the air last month. Zackmann08, please don't be deletionist and actual help the project. It's easy to tag something for deletion, it's better to actually put the 10 minutes to make the project better. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
    • @Neutralhomer: comments like don't be deletionist and actual help the project are not helpful and also do not WP:AGF. We all help in our own ways. No ones methods of editing are any more or less important than anyone else and your implication that others are not being helpful just because you don't like their actions is absurd. You clearly lack familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures based on the recent comments on your talk page. As for me not being helpful, I've got over 300,000 edits on here, I do more than my fair share of helping out thank you. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Zackmann08: Having lots of edits and helping out allot are not necessarily the same thing. LorenzoMilano made over 40,000 edits to his NOTWEBHOST-violating sandbox, which doesn't mean he contributed to the project. Talking about you specifically, many of your recent edits are something that I could easily have requested that AnomieBOT do (Task: TemplateSubster), so they aren't exactly boast-worthy. (Not saying that those edits are bad, because the bot would have used a generic edit summary, but the general point remains). ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the entire "X radio stations in the state of Montana" templates can be merged into one template. Some of these templates just have 3 links for each page (see ((Classic Hits Radio Stations in Montana)), so merging them would solve the small navboxes. --Gonnym (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alot of these should/could be filled in. I think that was Dravecky's project before his passing. Perhaps Mlaffs could fill in the Montana ones? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:44 on March 5, 2019 (UTC)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, not really clear what it would be used for. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Adelaide Lightning roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused roster template. The parent article (Adelaide Lightning) already has the roster directly on the page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Add horizontal bar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that apparently would add a bar? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is commented out in ((Timeline row)), which itself has been deprecated and replaced with ((Simple Horizontal timeline)). The whole group of deprecated horizontal timeline templates should be nominated so the few uses they still have, are replaced by the newer template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:USA topicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused custom ((top icon)) template Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:55, 7 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:USPP course table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused broken table code Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:US Congress member archive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused template that is simply a link Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:US Army Aviation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Classic case of WP:NENAN. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:53, 7 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:United Kingdom Supreme Court composition row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused table template Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uniform hyperbolic tiling list table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused table code Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Unblock-bot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused unblock template. Thought it might be a substonly template, but per this search has never been substituted either (assuming it wasn't removed...). Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to Category:Wikipedia adminbots, the only bots approved to block users are ProcseeBot and AnomieBOT III (sidenote: which appears to have stopped running that task). Neither of them does blocks of a kind that require any serious human judgement, and therefore don't use this template. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • AnomieBOT III doesn't use this template. The task is still running, but probably the spammers moved on to links not on the bot's blocklist. Anomie⚔ 14:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Template was used by Special:Contributions/AntiAbuseBot. Looks the reason it doesn't have transclusions is because when the blocks are right the template is removed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks like a useful idea if we should choose to have a bot performing blocks on accounts or on IPs that aren't open proxies. The abuse filter also has the ability to block users (although it's not enabled), and with a little tweaking, this template would be useful as a you-got-filter-blocked message should we choose to enable that feature. As an internal project template, I don't see any problem in letting it hang around indefinitely, as it's not some sort of content-related template that might get used wrongly. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for now it isn't useful, but if we ever have a bot which does blocks which may require human judgement, it may become useful again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:29, 10 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused custom decade template Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• can not even remember why i made it --Andrei (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Andrew. Agree this is quite an unusual template.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused custom template for leaving user message. Anoptimistix nothing stopping you from doing this is your userspace. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (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 relisted on 2019 March 25. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Unblock_an (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 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 move to User:CFCF/Infobox drug/simplified. There is no consensus to delete, but a weak one that until such time as it's actively being worked on there's no reason to have it in the template space. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox drug/simplified (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. No reason for a "simplified" version of ((Infobox drug)). Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's used, and it's a beta version for a replacement. It should not be deleted, and I was going to suggest it be moved to Template:Infobox drug/beta, but I see it's already listed under that template, so it just makes this deletion request all the more over-zealous. Please leave this alone, it serves a very useful purpose for translation and is the base for much needed overhaul. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no Template:Infobox drug/beta - your link is currently red. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CFCF: Please leave this alone is not a reason to keep nor is how TFD works... You claim that is is being used but it has zero transclusions and you haven't touched the template since November of 2016... So how is it being used? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sandbox subpage with potential use explained by CFCF. —Kusma (t·c) 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - if used please explain how or where its used. The history shows that is hasn't been updated since the initial creation day in 2016 and the template itself has no documentation. Template space is not a private userpsace. --Gonnym (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CFCF. Seems to be planned for being use. Could be useful for articles. If consensus not for keeping, then I support moving to user space.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "planned" is very generous. Hasn't been updated once since November 2016. It can continue on being "planned" in their sandbox instead of masquerading as an actual infobox ready for use. --Gonnym (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2019 (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:See also if exists. Please make sure the related templates are updated accordingly after the merge is completed. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:See also if exists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Category see also if exists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly duplicate modules, only difference is that Module:Category see also if exists hardcodes category namespace. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems like bad code design to me that neither template is a wrapper around the corresponding template without the "if exists" suffix, and instead hardcodes its text. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (as creator of both). No, that's not only difference. ((Category see also if exists)) does not require the "Category:" namespace prefix when linking categories. Thousands of uses will break if this is required.

See these examples:

1. ((See also if exists|Category:Spain)) →
   See also: Category:Spain
2. ((Category see also if exists|Category:Spain)) →
   See also: Category:Spain
3. ((See also if exists|Spain)) →
   See also: Spain
4. ((Category see also if exists|Spain)) →
   See also: Category:Spain

Also, ((Category see also if exists)) displays a warning if none of the items exists. ((See also if exists)) gives no warning.

It would save everyone a lot of time if @Pppery did some WP:BEFORE and actually examined and tested modules&templates before nominating them as near-duplicates. This nom replicates the lack of homework in Pppery's nomination at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 29#Template:Cat_main. I just hope we don't have the same levels of bluster and obfuscation as Pppery displayed then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing merging the templates, I'm proposing merging the modules while having the two templates still do their separate things, which can be done without breaking thousands of uses. ((category see also if exists)) and ((see also if exists)) will continue to exist, and both will use the same module, passing it different parameters which the module can use to distinguish between the two cases. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Still no acknowledgement that you had not spotted the key difference, nor any clarity about whether/how you propose to retain the distinctions. Just like last time.

@Pppery, for the avoidance of drama, why don't you simply:

• withdraw this nom
• design the merged module in a sandbox, so that you can actually show that what you propose is possible without creating unwieldy code
• if we agree that it works, then we can just boldly merge. If not, bring it back to TFD.

Personally, I think that this whole thing is waste of time, but if you do want to spend your time this way, then I don't see why you would object to demonstrating your proposed code before an XFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I've written a merged module at Module:See also if exists/sandbox, with Template:Category see also if exists/sandbox and Template:See also if exists/sandbox calling it. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: please don't make me do the spadework. Please do a sandbox for both templates, and demonstrate them with a set of testcases like I did above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Done. Both tests are green at both Template:Category see also if exists/testcases and Template:See also if exists/testcases and both Template:See also if exists/sandbox and Template:Category see also if exists/sandbox call Module:See also if exists/sandbox. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: What exactly do you mean the the relisting comment: It is better to pend other editors comments. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, fixed. Just mean I hope other editors comment here in next 7 days Hhkohh (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added some new test cases to the test cases page. Seems OK I guess. User:BrownHairedGirl do you see any further issue? -- GreenC 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have struck my oppose. So far as I can see, the new Module:See also if exists/sandbox now replicates the functionality of both.

I still think it's a great pity that the nomination was made without a demo of the proposed combined module, and without a clear explanation of the actual difference in functionality ... but thanks to @Pppery for sorting all that out. And sorry I have been so slow to respond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 20 March 2019 (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 no consensus. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that since ((railway line header)) is deprecated it should be replaced, but there is no agreement on whether that will mean conversion to ((BS-map)) or ((Routemap)). If and when a consensus on this can be reached, the matter can be re-evaluated here. Just to reiterate, there is no consensus currently for which template to use as a replacement, but if "railway line header" is fully orphaned then there is no reason to keep it around and it can be deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Railway line header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BS-header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BS-table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BS-table1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox route diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Routemap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Railway line header, Template:BS-header, Template:BS-table, Template:BS-table1 and Template:Infobox route diagram with Template:Routemap.
These templates have been deprecated since the creation of ((BS-map)) in 2011, and should already have been replaced by ((BS-map)) or by ((Routemap)) (which is newer than ((BS-map)) and has several advantages and additional features). A majority of route diagrams on the English Wikipedia use ((Routemap)). ((BS-map)) is also currently nominated for merging with ((Routemap)).

As the nominator, I support replacing the templates with ((Routemap)). If the discussion is closed with a consensus to merge, the templates should be replaced manually after using the Routemap module to convert each diagram; fixing errors and stylistic issues should be expected. I would also support manual replacement of the nominated templates with either ((Routemap)) or ((BS-map)). Bot replacement would be unusually difficult due to the use of the pre-2011 templates through ((Infobox route diagram)), especially if there is an expectation to update diagrams to current conventions (navbar, continuation icons, text placement/size, etc.). Jc86035 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Useddenim (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replacement with ((Routemap)), as the former is tagged as superseded. --Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to Template:bs-map, leaving the issue of whether to convert to Template:Routemap to a later discussion. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Useddenim, Gonnym, and Pppery: I've added ((Infobox route diagram)) to the nomination. Jc86035 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support that as well. --Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is the sort of conversion that is proposed. It has exactly the same problems that I mentioned at 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC), i.e. the syntax being weird and non-intuitive. If any conversion should be done, it is from ((Railway line header))/((BS-header))/((BS-table)) to ((BS-map)); this is not difficult (example), and the syntax for the actual rows of the RDT is exactly the same as with Railway line header etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Redrose64: In defense of ((Routemap)), the original syntax was opaque to begin with, and I personally find the Routemap syntax more intuitive because it has an explicit separation between icons and text and doesn't require named overlay parameters. Newer users – particularly those who joined post-2015 – are also likely to have only learned how to use ((Routemap)). Jc86035 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  All editors (other than those using VisualEditor) have to learn how template paramaters work. The point Redrose64 is trying to make is that ((BS-map)) maps use the same syntax as all other templates do, whereas ((routemap)) uses its own entirely new syntax that one has to learn separately. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: Yes, I'm aware of that, and it was the main point of discussion in the 2016 RfC, but I was referring to the template as a whole (i.e. including the icon naming system).

  As noted below, introducing ((RDTr)) would ease a ((BS-map)) transition; but the end result would probably be that a few years down the line someone nominates that template for deletion because it's functionally completely unnecessary since it just makes Routemap code, and then we're right back to "convert all of the templates to Routemap". It's like artificially creating a middle step. Jc86035 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing so would segregate the discussion into two phases:

  1. should routemaps be generated using Lua or Wikitext
  2. should the syntax for generating routemaps be using templates or using ((routemap))'s backslash-and-tilde syntax

  . I would support the first step but not the second, and therefore think they should be done independently of each other. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) @Pppery: I don't think it's likely that all of the current ((Routemap)) diagrams will be converted to use ((RDTr)) or something like it (I would oppose that, because I'm familiar with the current Routemap syntax, as are most of the other Routemap users on the 37 other WMF wikis where the template exists), so deleting/deprecating ((RDTr)) as well as the pre-Routemap templates is pretty much the only likely outcome of any successful attempt to institute a single diagram format.

  I also think ((RDTr)) could be viewed unfavourably as a bad compromise, because a new set of templates wrapping ((RDTr)) would have to be created to replicate the functionality of the original templates (and imperfectly at that). Jc86035 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support replacement with Template:BS-map, Oppose replacement with Template:Routemap; that should be decided by #Template:BS-map below. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2019 (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 relisted on 2019 April 1. Primefac (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Listify (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 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) 14:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources video games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overcomplicated, see no reason that this information needs to be in module data pages rather than the wikitext of the template itself. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All relevant code changes to accomodate the new style of been written to the sandboxes. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate? What templates should the code go into? what sandboxes have you edited? --Gonnym (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Find sources, Template:Find sources mainspace, and Template:Find sources video games, with changes to the backend modules at Module:Find sources and Module:Find sources/autodoc (to be renamed Module:Find sources/template) to match. I've edited the sandboxes of all of those pages ((3x|p))ery (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The advantage of the current system is that it is known to work. It is more complex than required because it's creator aimed for generality with an extensible system, although not much has been needed since creation. As usual, Pppery poses an enigma whereby each onlooker would need to spend half an hour working out what templates/modules are proposed to be replaced with what templates/modules. What existing pages would be deleted? What new pages would be created? What existing pages would be edited? (I can work out some of that, but the information should be presented clearly.) What is the proposed benefit of this turmoil? Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The existing pages that would be deleted by this are exactly the ones I listed above, as they will be rendered obsolete. No new pages are created by this TfD, and the edits made are to sync the sandboxes of Module:Find sources, Module:Find sources/autodoc and all three templates that invoke it (Template:Find sources, Template:Find sources mainspace and Template:Find sources video games). One can't exactly say that my proposed system is not known to work, given that it exists in the sandbox without producing any errors. (Template:Find sources/testcases is yellow because of a trivial encoding difference of a literal space versus  , it's HTML entity form) ((3x|p))ery (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing to be wary of with putting the config in the templates themselves is that it will increase the post-expand include size. I remember there were problems with the daily AfD log pages going over the limit, which I helped to fix by converting Template:Find sources AFD to use Module:Find sources. Also, parsing the template parameters in wikitext will be slower than using the config modules, as a) parsing Lua tables is generally quicker than parsing wikitext, and b) the config modules are only loaded once per page with mw.loadData, although the post-expand include size is probably more important. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't seem to be able to reproduce any significant change in post-expand include size via testing. (A page containing only "((find sources))" uses 2,130 bytes, whereas a page containing only ((find sources/sandbox)) uses 2,139 bytes. ) ((3x|p))ery (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, looks like you're right. I think what must be happening is that parameters to #invoke aren't counted towards the limit. 5 bytes of the 9-byte difference can be attributed to the the use of   instead of a regular space, and the extra "q" before the start of the template (I'm guessing the "q" was just for testing something). The other 4 bytes, I'm not so sure. But 9 bytes isn't something to be worried about, I agree. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning oppose - If a template has been converted to use a module, then it is more correct to have that module handle everything, with the template just being used as an access point. In the case of Wikipedia template code, for me, that makes it an even stronger case, as template code is much harder to read than module code. Why can't these be under Module:Find sources/data if the 3 separate sub-modules are the issue? --Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The module is still handling all of the logic of creating the find sources links, and each template is an access point. While you may be right about the readability of Lua vs. Wikitext as a general rule, in this case, |introlink=google is just as readable as

  introLink = {
  		code = 'google'
  	}
  

  and all this TfD does is convert the latter to the former. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If the template passes data then it isn't only an access point. Design pattern-wise, if we already have a module, let the module handle everything, including a sub-module for /data information. That's at least how I view them. Regarding the readbility of the template code, when you have only one line, then maybe they are the same, but here it becomes harder to read, while the lua code stays the same. --Gonnym (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Including lots of extra curly brackets and quotes is not "more readable". ((3x|p))ery (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That is your opinion, mine is different. --Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The module provides the tool, and the template provides the implementation. That seems more efficient than these intermediary module subpages. --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (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 Template:Navseasoncats per consensus below. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WorksDecade navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Navseasoncats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WorksDecade navigation with Template:Navseasoncats.
((WorksDecade navigation)) is redundant to the newer generic ((Navseasoncats)).

• ((Navseasoncats)) needs no parameters
• ((Navseasoncats)) separates all links with a bullet point

Before ((Navseasoncats)) was developed, there were many of these topic-specific by-year or by-decade navigation templates. Now that we have a generic template, it's better for readers to see a consistent style of navigation, and pointless for editors to have to figure out and apply a separate syntax for by-year/decade categories in each topic area. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• PS If the merger happens, I think that ((WorksDecadeNavEntry)) will become redundant and can be deleted. However, that won't be confirmed until merger is complete. --13:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Visual arts notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ((WorksDecade navigation)) has a feature which ((Navseasoncats)) does not - the ability to navigate 100 years forwards and backwards (if those cats exist). Is this functionality undesirable, or would it be incorporated into ((Navseasoncats)) prior to merge? WP:WikiProject Visual arts should probably be notified if the display is going to change significantly.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tom.Reding, I don't think it's a significant feature. ((Navseasoncats)) goes 5 decades before the current decades, and five decades ahead. There will be only a v few exceptional cases where the preceding 5 decades are all-non-existent and the 10-decades-earlier cat also exists (and same for succeeding decades), so it will just take an extra click to jump back further.

If there is merit in expanding the number of decades in the navbox, it applies equally to all types of decade category, so that option should be considered at Template talk:Navseasoncats. A widely-used navigational tool is much easier to use if standardised, so I think we should be wary of creating variants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: you're right - it only really saves 1 mouse click per 100 years, since ((Navseasoncats)) currently goes (in this case) in steps of 50. If desired, that can be added ((Navseasoncats)) after some discussion (maybe with a "|" or "..." separating the larger steps at either end, to avoid confusion with the " • "), but I don't see a problem now with merging as-is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per discussion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]