The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 17:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox that links to Anatomy infoboxes. Don't see what benefit this is supposed to provide. It's probably just best to use the category to find anatomy infobox templates at this point. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With my new edits, "Template:Anatomy infobox templates" can be seen in all sub-templates. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer unused, don't see a problem with navboxes containing templates. * Pppery *it has begun... 21:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only used in the documentation of the other templates I think, eg ((Infobox vein/doc)). So we're using a navbox to navigate between infoboxes. "A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." "Between articles" not "between templates". Nigej (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Templates are used to navigate between other templates if they form a series. But it's mainly been used for navboxes from what I've seen. Maybe an exception could be made for these Infoboxes but I think there should be a greater consensus for that. Normally Infoboxes are navigated through cateogires and if this is kept, then there could be similar navboxes for infoboxes for particular topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCleanerMan (talk • contribs) 00:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:AFL color cell
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Unused and broken template. There is no Module:Sports color/australian rules football for this to work. Gonnym (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Missing param
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Iffloat
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template that does something #ifexpr can do quite straightforwardly if ever required. E.g.: ((#ifexpr: floor(x) = x|...)). User:GKFXtalk 22:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Year in country category v2
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Your user page/intro
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and not particularly clear preload template for new user pages. It is used only at User:Przykuta/Welcome, which as far as I can tell is broken. Not edited in over ten years. User:GKFXtalk 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better alternatives are available. Nigej (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Puke
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Unused emoji template. Per WP:CIVIL, I doubt that there are many legitimate uses of this template; it's not going to contribute to a rational discussion. People can, of course, type any emojis they want without templates on most modern devices. User:GKFXtalk 22:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if this is part of a larger set of emoji wrapper templates, or if there was a particular reason for it in particular. The edit comment on the initial creation indicates there's a larger context here. This TfD seems to be premature without asking those basic questions. Waiting for User:SMcCandlish for some of those answers. VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 23:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to really not like puke templates. Dunno why. Legoktm (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are so many ways an editor can type a simple emoji. This is one of the things that does not need a template. Other emoji templates in the same category can also be deleted for the same reason. Gonnym (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Makes me wonder if there shouldn't just be a general emoji template that would generate a character from one of these aliases as the first parameter. I would much rather see one general use emoji template than dozens of specialized ones that beg all of these kinds of questions. VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 04:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the point of that: all phones, Windows 10 (⊞ Win+.), and Mac OS all have emoji pickers built in nowadays. User:GKFXtalk 11:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GKFX here. In 2022 it is very simple to find an emoji to use that templates are really not needed. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this supposed to be used on April Fool's? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to ((emoji-puke)) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm remembering correctly, there was once a pointless ((Trout)) alternative, of someone barfing, and it was deleted but the name of it redirected to what is presently ((Puke)), and it does seem to be part of a series of emoji wrappers. If ((emoji-puke)) would be more consistent with the names of the rest of them, then, yes, move it (if kept). I'm not seeing much of a reason to keep this, though. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are no templates whose names begin "Emoji-", and there isn't, technically, a series of emoji templates (Unicode characters) that I can see. There is a series of emoticon templates (PNG/GIF images); I kind-of think they're all obsolete now to emojis but that would be a separate TfD. User:GKFXtalk 11:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Citation/book quick
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Unused subtemplates of Template:Citation. "book quick" is no longer necessary due to the performance enhancements from WP:Lua-based citation templates; the rest are just obsolete subtemplates. User:GKFXtalk 21:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Template is back in use; thanks @User:Trappist the monk. (non-admin closure)User:GKFXtalk 23:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have updated ((cite vf lineage)) to use Module:template wrapper and replaced the 67 dead-linked templates with ((cite vf lineage)). Having done that, I think that this tfd should be withdrawn.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Cite news/doc/parameterlist
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Cite web/doc/parameterlist
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A template to help subst citation templates. People should not be substing citation templates because it makes the citations considerably harder to edit. My understanding is that citation templates rendered very slowly before WP:Lua so wanting to subst them is probably a relic of that era. User:GKFXtalk 21:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Cite act/core
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Unused subtemplates of citation templates, presumably obsoleted by the switch to Module:Citation/CS1. User:GKFXtalk 21:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:SRT color
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Single-use weather box templates (A–C)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
single-use weather box templates, per numerous prior discussions, these should be merged with the transcluding article and deleted. we have thousands of weatherboxes in thousands of articles, and the convention is that we put them in a separate template only when they are transcluded in more than one article. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably best to delete the Camborne one rather than putting it in Truro. Its already been copied into Camborne and including it in a different town would be confusing I think. Nigej (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes if the size of the nom is an issue, what we usually do is place them on a sub-page. So something like Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 24/weather boxes. Gonnym (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sure, that's an option. I also don't want to overload people who want to check each of these, e.g. the very helpful comment above. but, if people think it would be better to push them all through at once, I can add the other 200 to the list. Frietjes (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the subpage linked above in order to help prevent the TFD page from exceeding the PEIS limit, which it is currently doing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete all (pending additional comments). At the time of my comment I've verified that all are single used except Template:Camborne weatherbox which is used in a user's sandbox about a different town so per the same argument Nigej gave it should just be removed from it; and Template:Columbia, South Carolina weatherbox which is used in another templates which itself isn't used. Also, please actually delete them this time and not redirect to the page, as last time another editor (User:CaradhrasAiguo) restored a lot of them. Gonnym (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete all per nom. Transclusions outside of articles are fine being substituted too. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:TransMilenio route
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Localities in Arjeplog Municipality
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only 1 link, superfluous: both the municipality and town refer to each other already. P 1 9 9✉ 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Percentage CSS
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template. Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 8 years old and unused. Percentage without the "%" at the end. Somehow we've managed without it. Nigej (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically just a wrapper around #expr, not necessary and would be unclear if used. User:GKFXtalk 21:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:NYCS const/BMT designations
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst/delete all Hidden article content. Nigej (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Line A (BA)/Stations
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Romania political party color templates
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above templates are all unused Romania political party color templates. Some of which I've replaced with Module:Political party templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have created a subpage with the list of templates in order to help prevent the TFD page from exceeding the PEIS limit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added 2 more that've missed. Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Party shading/Constitutional (Kenseito)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all listed per nomination. — Eric0892 (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WanukeX (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Category 5 typhoon" is not an entity recognized by the RSMC. 2001 is also too arbitrary of a cutoff. Jasper Deng(talk) 00:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jasper Deng Category 5 Pacific typhoon is unofficial category uses by JTWC HurricaneEdgar 02:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as Cat 1 2 3 4 5 are unofficial categories, but in JMA, the highest scale is Typhoon, which is too many. I don't discuss about the logs for deletion, but Saffir-Simpson scale is only true in hurricanes. Thingofme (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all you guys the Saffir-Simpson scale isn't used in the WPAC so it's meaningless to have this template. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rework - This is where the international tropical cyclone category system, used by the JMA on behalf of the Typhoon Committee falls down as it does not account for systems above typhoon intensity. However, it should be noted that typhoons are commonly compared to the SSHWS by reliable sources using windspeeds from the JTWC, as a result, I'm not so sure that this template shouldn't exist along with the relevant list article even if it is supposedly unofficial. As a result, I feel that some expansion, a rename to Category 5 super typhoons and a bit of TLC, this template would be worth it.Jason Rees (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mostly agree with Jason Rees' view; however, I also understand that the SSHWS is not official in the Western Pacific basin. Furthermore, there are no templates for the other SSHWS categories in the Western Pacific. I would have suggested that this should be re-categorized to the "Very Strong Typhoon" and "Violent Typhoon" subcategories that JMA use in their tropical cyclone advisories and forecasts, but I am not sure if those subcategories appear in their archives. Vida0007 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "2001" is not completely arbitrary, it's the first year of the 3rd millennium, 21st century, 201st decade. (no, Y2K is not the first year, it is the last year of the prior division) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Keep. This is a subst-only template. Q28, pleasedo a search first! We've been through this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Subst:NewDYKnomination
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:RegionsofAsia-Central.png
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not in use and may be corrupted. Q28 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Images don't belong on template space in this particular way. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a bunch of commented out code in this template, and for some reason a focus on Australians. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Difficult to quite understand what was intended but seems to have been abandoned. Nigej (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Reflist/Safari testcase2
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Portals1
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Party shading/ID
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
US [and other countries'] political party shading templates that no longer have any transclusions after migrations to ((Political party)). No transclusions or incoming links. Q28 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have merged these nominations and added "[and other countries']" to the OP's nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the Spanish ones (the /letter ones) and the color/block ones. Template:Party shading/Documentation template/example should be handled with Template:Party shading/Documentation template which itself seems to be unused. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Topic status/GA
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template is no longer used because … well I don't know. Q28 (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no transclusions and no usage when searching for insouce:"Topic status/GA". User:GKFXtalk 09:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Iw-matrix/easylang
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Rus Allianz Park
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, this template is not used. Q28 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. Part of a Rugby Union stadium system that enables stadiums to be renamed in many articles at the same itme. Mostly used in NZ and South Africa. This is the only England one. Shouldn't stadium names be those at the time of the event? Nigej (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused template. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Lyonbus
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not used! haha! Q28 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. Relates to Buses in Lyon. Seems to be the only thing that uses ((Lyon Bus icon)) so that should go too. Nigej (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like an old template documentation fragment -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Romanian politics/party colours/PNR2012
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused templates. Okay, so here we go. Q28 (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:SSI
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. I fail to see the value of merging functionality from unused templates; if it were truly useful, the need would have been independently rediscovered. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
@Q28 Could I suggest that you withdraw this? User:GKFXtalk 09:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:HCOTM
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this template is no longer in use, so it should be deleted._ Q28 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to WP:WikiProject Horror/Template:COTM so that WPHorror can choose to restore the COTM process if they want -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:WikiProject Horror is only semi-active so this highly unlikely to be needed again. Nigej (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:HCOTM-voter
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this template is no longer in use, so it should be deleted._ Q28 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to WP:WikiProject Horror/Template:COTM-voter so that WPHorror can choose to restore the COTM process if they want -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:HCOTM candidate
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this template is no longer in use, so it should be deleted._ Q28 (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to WP:WikiProject Horror/Template:COTM-candidate so that WPHorror can choose to restore the COTM process if they want -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Highly unlikely to be used again IMO. Nigej (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Micronesian state elections
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused with only two links to articles. Fails navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer unused. While it only has one blue link at present, it has potential to be filled out, so I think deleting it now would be pointless given that it could end up being recreated at some point. Number57 15:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57, it still fails NEAN. An admin such as yourself should know and while I do agree that it has potential like any other template created, the links should just be merged into Template:Micronesian elections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NEAN is an essay, not a policy or guideline. As I've said, this template has potential to have redlinks filled out, so deleting it would be unhelpful/pointless in my opinion. Cheers, Number57 15:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's still cited as a standard when it comes to Tfd's. Navboxes that don't have five links shouldn't be kept. I agree that there is potential, but as of now it doesn't have it. It should just be merged with the Micronesian election navbox with a section of it's own. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with merging it; national election templates are for national elections, not state ones. Number57 16:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Content first, then navbox if required. Not the other way round. Nigej (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Nicely constructed navbox with potential for use; deletion would be a waste of the time put into making it. It possibly(?) shouldn’t appear in articles until there’s more blue links, and should be deleted eventually if those articles don’t get written. User:GKFXtalk 09:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but allow for recreation if a couple more articles are written. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
