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. ✗plicit 01:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete? WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. Template should be put has been placed into the specific aircraft listed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NAVBOX. A Navbox is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia". That's its only purpose. Having two similar navboxes can often make navigation more difficult., not easier. Nigej (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Navbox is no longer unused. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still support deletion; this only because used because it was at TfD (in order to make a point), rather than because anyone independently thought it was useful, and the rationale provided for keeping is a complete non-argument that is out of touch with consensus. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:19, 11 March 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:Olympic medallists in Open 470
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 01:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:51, 9 March 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 keep but rename and move to infobox. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary template that clutters up external links section of articles, and doesn't seem to link correctly to their profile on that website. No reason why we'd need this on sailing articles, which have their World Sailing profiles with the non-cluttered template Template:World Sailing (either directly, or via Wikidata sports links) Joseph2302 (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The function of this template is to show the Highest ranking in the worldwide Star Sailors League ranking list and the ranking per date of a specific sailor. In the World Sailing Template one can enter the WS identity number of a specific sailor. No ranking info! Therefor the SSL template gives additional information. You write that the template shows incorrect info. This is not true please check e.g. Bart Lambriex. The available links are to the Star Sailors League wikipage and to the SSL ranking website. Not to the exact page of the specific sailor. SSL ranking can be compared to the ATP Rankings. I agree that some improvements can be made to the template. Like less cluttering and maybe a direct link to the current SSL ranking database. The last mentioned improvement is however out of my programming skills league. But maybe someone can help out here.Dragon Genoa (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that the Star Sailors League is important to justify this. And it didn't work on Eilidh McIntyre where you added it, because she doesn't look to me listed anywhere on that website. And the fact that it's cumbersome and clutters up the bottom of the page is a reason to delete it- Template:World Sailing is a much better, and less obtrusive, external link. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well the template didn't link to that profile anyway, so my point stands. And those profile have very little useful information (just the rank at this one tournament), which is way less useful than the World Sailing Profile (which lists most of their tournament performances). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I explained earlier. The link goes to the wikipage an the other to the SSL webside. Just like the World Sailing template does not link to the actual info of the sailor. Also it does NOT relate to just one tournement. The SSL ranking is a continuous ranking off ALL sailors Worldwide over ALL regattas.Dragon Genoa (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly one issue is the way it looks. I think it needs to decide what it is. At the moment it's just as funny box hidden away in the "External links" section with an unnecessary icon and microscopically small text. Personally it looks to me as if its the sort of information that would normally go in the Infobox (although there could be a link too in the External links section). I'd have thought a few extra parameters in ((Infobox sailor)) would do the job. This whole Star Sailors League area is starting to look quite promotional and being in the infobox would perhaps be more suitable that an obtrusive box. Nigej (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the idea, This would be perfect according to me. Please can you help with a pointer on how to modify the coding of the Template:Infobox sailor? Dragon Genoa (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't at all claim to be an expert. Depends to a certain extent what sort of system you're thinking of. Are you thinking of having a centralised database (or even extracting the data automatically) or whether you're happy editing all the articles individually each week. ((Infobox tennis biography)) shows how to go about the manual process (they have parameters highestsinglesranking and currentsinglesranking). I know Tennis are thinking about trying to automate this area, although I don't think they've made much progress, see WT:TENNIS#Rankings, which notes a system they use for Darts. See also ((Infobox snooker player/rankings)) for a relatively simple system, where a centralised system is used to store the current snooker rankings, using a cut-and-paste-and-a-bit-of-clever-editing approach. Nigej (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To start with I would be happy to have just 4 "| SSL ranking date = ", "| SSL ranking role = ", "| SSL ranking = " and "SSL highest ranking = " parameters in Template:Infobox sailor. Then I can ask the guys from SSL to come up with an auto update mechanism.Dragon Genoa (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm still not keen. Text size is still too small for instance (small text is not allowed in infoboxes, MOS:SMALLFONT) Nigej (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still too "in your face" for me, but see what others say. Nigej (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helping remarks.Dragon Genoa (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept, this should be renamed, as it is not SSL (nor the prominent secure sockets layer). It should be called template:Star Sailors League rating or somesuch -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will follow your advice if kept.Dragon Genoa (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur about renaming. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also have an issue with this template. This is not an external link template as it claims to be, but a table with manual values and no references that is placed in various places - Peter Burling (sailor) inside an infobox; Anne-Marie Rindom at the navbox section. I'm leaning delete as I don't see how these issues can be solved with this template. Also, come on. A template created in 2022 without documentation? --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does have an external liink to the ranking pages of SSL. Point taken on the documentation. I will add the documentation today.Dragon Genoa (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, merging this with ((infobox sailor)) seems like a reasonable idea, but I am not sure if that is the best idea for a template that is only used about 30 times. For now, I have moved the uses to the infoboxes in the articles to make this a little less horrible. I have also created a sandbox version that includes the header and doesn't have the logo. I would suggest renaming this to something more verbose, like ((SSL rank)) or ((Star Sailors League rank)) or something to avoid confusion with SSL. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 15 March 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:USAC Races
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 01:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and no articles in the navbox are directly related to the United States Auto Club. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Indy 500 is directly related, but not for a few decades now, since the CART/USAC split in the 1970s. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:11, 10 March 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:NE Negros Radio
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 01:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox made redundant by other templates covering the scope of the template already. One of them is Template:Radio in the Philippines. And most of the links in the navbox are to the same two/three articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:33, 9 March 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:Infobox road/name/SOM
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 subpage template of Infobox road. Only edit has been creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:32, 9 March 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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not used and contains mostly unrelated links to the subject of bones in Tetrapod animals. Mostly these are just articles about human bones. Few are related to Tetrapods only. If still a work in progress can be userfyed if requested. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator here—it's a work in progress that I haven't gotten around to working on recently. It's probably complete enough to add to articles as is. I think it would be useful to have a navbox connecting articles on bones to each other. Pinging Dysalatornis, who also contributed to it. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCleanerMan, I've added the navbox to several of the pages that should have it. Other than its lack of use, what exactly is your issue with it? The poor coverage of non-human osteology on Wikipedia is a separate issue from the quality of the navbox per se, and my hope is that the creation of this navbox will facilitate their improvement by making the pages easier to find. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping in as another person relevant to the creation of this template. Agreed that the poor coverage of non-human osteology on Wikipedia is quite poor. This template is in no small part intended to help rectify that by collecting articles on each element of the tetrapod skeleton and allowing for easy navigation between them, and hopefully to aid in identifying osteology articles that need improvement. This has applications to comparative osteology in general. The fact that most articles in here are currently focused largely on humans is, presumably, an artefact of them being written by people with a background in human medicine; however, these articles can and should include information on the skeletal element's occurrence in other tetrapods. The alternative is to split each bone into human and nonhuman cases—something that is certainly far beyond the scope of what we feel comfortable proposing, and is not something I think is desirable. To address the point of "few are related to Tetrapods only", I can certainly see where you are coming from. It may be desirable to expand this template to include all vertebrate bones; the only reason Ornithopsis and I have not done so is out of fear of cluttering the template with a large number of elements found only in a few fish groups. I've certainly seen less complete navboxes being used in articles, and as a student of osteology I think this navbox would be very useful once implemented. Dysalatornis (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, now in use. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 16 March 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:PE W Coldwater Canyon
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 railway template. Hollywood Line which is what the redirect on the template page leads to, already has a railway route template map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still support deletion. Including a whole routemap for a route that only gets a two-sentence list entry is undue weight, and screams of being added in order to make a point rather than because it serves an independently useful purpose; if that were the case it would never have become unused in the first place. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, undue weight and basically trivia to show the old route map in that context without more text around it. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 16 March 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:Mahatma Gandhi sidebar
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 01:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only major edit has been the creation. Seems to be a work in progress, although a navbox Template:Mahatma Gandhi, already exists and contains hundreds of links. Not sure what the sidebar can minimize in terms of articles related to Gandhi for more direct navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:30, 9 March 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:Db-wrongnamespace
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 11:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's not a duplicate, it's meant to be a more specific template. Also I forgot to tag it with ((transclusionless)), but it should be apparent why CSD templates won't always be in use. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Db-error already cover pages created in error in the wrong space. I'm aware of it's transclusionless intention, but what's different from "because it is a page that was created in the wrong namespace." and "because it is a page that was obviously created in error."? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Db-error has no documentation, so there is no clear list of usages it can be used on. Anpang01 (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletea page that was created in the wrong namespace is not a reason for speedy deletion. The correct procedure for such cases is to move the page to the correct namespace, and then delete the redirect as a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. This leaves no useful use case for this template, and instead an encouragement to delete things that shouldn't be deleted. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pppery. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 16 March 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:Omeo & District Football 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 01:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Contains nothing but red links outside of the title page. None of these pages were created back when this template was in 2009. Fails everything required from a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Parent article exists but nothing else. Nigej (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 9 March 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:Project Chanology protests, April 12, 2008
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, 16 March 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:Project Chanology protests, February 10, 2008
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 11:49, 16 March 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:Project Chanology protests, March 15, 2008
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 11:50, 16 March 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:Mwarn
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. LizRead!Talk! 06:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of template was -maybe- useful in 2007, but now the warning templates are used directly, either manually or with tools. There is no need for a template like this. Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was kept at TfD in 2018, just less than 4 years go -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was never "kept". The nominator withdrew and closed it themselves after less than 2 hours. Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 15 March 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:Automatic archive navigator/Next
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. LizRead!Talk! 06:09, 16 March 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:Broad-concept article short description
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 relisted on 2022 March 16. ✗plicit 11:52, 16 March 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:Evolution and evolvability/sandbox/styles.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 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:Header navbar community alt
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 11:52, 16 March 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:Largest airline alliances
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 11:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused image template. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fine by me, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:41, 10 March 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused/unnecessary. Number57 09:02, 10 March 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 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).