Template:Fbbicon and related football flag+link 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 12:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Functionality appears to be provided by other templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 19:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I created some of these templates, as discussed here. A lot of these are evidently not used, however I'm wondering how quickly some of these could be merged into the main templates (usually Template:Fbicon). I think all of these relate to sub-teams of the main national team - so Template:Fbbicon relates to the national 'B' (or second) team, Template:Fbamicon relates to the national amateur team, etc. Ideally, there would be one template covering all national football teams at all levels. As I recall when making these, I simply provided flagicon version of all the existing templates in Category:Association football flag templates. Clyde1998 (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge would be fine with me. Is there someone available to plan and implement such a merge? If these are closed as "merge", they can go to the holding cell pending migration, but it is not desirable for them to live there forever. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to merge functionality from unused templates - the fact that they have become unused indicates that they are not useful. Delete all * Pppery * it has begun... 00:30, 25 May 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:Satish Jain
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. No mainspace article. At the moment, the mainspace for the director is a draft, but not submitted for review. Only two links to articles on films that have been directed by this person. The films written have been written by this person, but again, no mainspace article for this person. Thus, navigation can't be provided. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:34, 24 May 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:WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction/class
- 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 14:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. All relevant categories have been deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 24 May 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:Rhythmic Contemporary Radio Stations in Oklahoma
- 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 14:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. It appears that both of the stations linked here have changed formats. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if they hadn't, this is too small for a navbox. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:17, 24 May 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:FC Spartak-2 Moscow squad
- 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 14:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. FC Spartak-2 Moscow has been dissolved, so there is no use for this current football squad template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Appears to be an unnecessary copy of ((West Godavari district)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- West Godavari district and Eluru district are two separate districts in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh so each one needs a template. The districts are each composed of separate objects: cities, mandals, towns, etc. I tried to create the Eluru template and would have populated it, but I ran into a problem. Whenever I tried to edit the Eluru template, the changes also showed up on the West Godavari template and so I stopped. I was about to ask for help, so I am asking now. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The idea that editing the original template somehow would lead someone to this template is nonsensical. The creator just copied that template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not nonsensical at all, unfortunately, from the editor perspective. For some reason, the navbox template uses
|name= to construct the "E" (for edit) link, which can take you to the wrong template. I have fixed that link. The template still has no transclusions, but if it has some by the end of the TFD period, this template should probably be kept. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Even then, it's an exact duplicate of the West Godavari district navbox. The category for the Eluru district has enough articles to stand on it's own. Userfy perhaps. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's standard for individual Indian districts to have navboxes. Nominator should have asked the creator what they were doing and offered to assist rather than rushing to nominate for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- keep after User:Jonesey95 fixed the template, I was able to edit its contents and add its transclusions--which I dared not do before (see my comments above) Hmains (talk) 19:03, 27 May 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).
Surname navbox templates, part three
- 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) 00:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As with the two groups of similar templates deleted after recent discussion at CfD, these "Surnames associated with the given name xxx" templates show unsourced connections between an apparently unreliably-chosen set of surnames and only contribute clutter to the pages to which they have been added. The various surnames could usefully be listed, with sources, in the pages relating to the individual given names, and each surname page could usefully include a well-sourced link to the given name to which it is related, but these navboxes are not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the last one of these, I said delete all only because they were unreliably sourced. The 'similar' names were only similar in sound or spelling but not in meaning or etymology. However, if accurate, conceptually I think they are useful and valuable, such as the one at the bottom of Cooper (surname) which we've used since 2014. Admittedly, even that has been recently modified by the user who has made all of these templates. Surnames have many variants and cognates, and to have a box at the bottom that cleanly directs you to them all is invaluable and far easier to navigate than lists. The issue isn't in the concept for me, just in the execution. I'm only not saying whether to keep or delete because I haven't checked the accuracy of these templates. RandomBlobby (talk) 01:00, 26 May 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:4Team2ElimBracketNoFinal
- 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 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced by ((4TeamBracket-2Elim | maxround = 2)). –Aidan721 (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While both template provide the same purpose, I'd argue that ((4Team2ElimBracketNoFinal)) is more aesthetically pleasing, as well as is clearer that it is indeed a four-team, double-elimination bracket and has has labels for its upper and lower brackets. ((4TeamBracket-2Elim)) looks like a six-team, single-elimination bracket. Since 4TeamBracket-2Elim is more in-use, I propose altering it have the features of 4Team2ElimBracketNoFinal. – Pbrks (t • c) 06:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 24 May 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 with NPASR if necessary. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced by ((4TeamBracket-2Elim | legs = 1)). –Aidan721 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While both template provide the same purpose, I'd argue that ((4Team2ElimBracketExceptFinal)) is more aesthetically pleasing, as well as is clearer that it is indeed a four-team, double-elimination bracket and has has labels for its upper and lower brackets. ((4TeamBracket-2Elim)) looks like a six-team, single-elimination bracket. Since 4TeamBracket-2Elim is more in-use, I propose altering it have the features of 4Team2ElimBracketExceptFinal. – Pbrks (t • c) 06:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 24 May 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).
Italian rail
Template:Star Generations
- 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 and appears to duplicate Template:WeatherStar Generations Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Broken, redlinked, unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:31, 24 May 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:Fake dubious
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to ((Dubious)). Replace the single transclusion with that template and then delete this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95 This is a fake version of the dubious template that doesn't sort the page into clean-up categories and the like, for use in documentation and discussions just like ((fake CN)). The single use of it is a message on a talk page, so replacing it with a real template would not be appropriate. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The template has one transclusion and no documentation. If ((dubious)) assigns categories when the template is used outside of appropriate spaces, that should be easy to fix so that it can be used in talk space and template documentation without categorizing those pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:54, 24 May 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).