Template:CONCACAF U-13 Champions League
- 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 23:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox with only two links of relevance. Two articles were deleted at an Afd back last month. The rest of the links have never been created. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:42, 20 April 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).
Template:Mumbai Metro color and related rail 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 23:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Mumbai Metro in all relevant articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Dubious. Izno (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to have a fork of Template:Dubious. The small disctiontion the template creator is hoping for is negligible. Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The distinction is real and it provides users the ability to more precisely express the extent to which they believe a claim is dubiously sourced better than simply having a template without a question mark. There are other template pairs that are akin to this, such as ((unreliable source)) and ((unreliable source?)), each of which clearly have a distinct use. That the substantial difference is real but subtle is not a valid reason for deletion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You gave an example of two templates similar to this, yet Template:Unreliable source redirects to Template:Unreliable source?. If that is your argument, then I agree with your example. Redirect this template. Gonnym (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the questionmarkless version -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The distinction is real. Each is valid, each has its own use 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as how both templates also use the same maintenance category, I doubt the distinction is real and that editors actually search by it. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Either Keep or add a new parameter to the "dubious" template that allows a question mark to be inserted. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect
The term "dubious" already implies doubt; adding a question mark is redundant
; creating a template fork is simply pointless. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect; these templates have exactly the same function, question mark or not. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ((dubious)). Double meaning, second template not needed. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:57, 20 April 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).
Template:Time Is A Thief
- 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 11:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only one albums is linked (two EPs were previously also included, but have been redirected for failing WP:NALBUMS), and the band is now defunct so there aren't going to be any more releases from the band. No need for this navigational template per WP:NENAN. Ss112 05:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No additional aid to navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:15, 21 April 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).