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 2023 April 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Virtual_Boy (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(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 23:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CBB Seasons Cat Header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to ((Cat main)) and ((Navseasoncats)). –Aidan721 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (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 relisted on 2023 April 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Canadian_premiers,_1920s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Canadian_viceroys,_1920s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian_premiers,_1920s (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(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 23:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2013 Currie Cup Premier Division Log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2013 Currie Cup First Division Log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2012 Currie Cup Premier Division Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2012 Currie Cup First Division Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2011 Currie Cup Premier Division Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2011 Currie Cup First Division Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2010 Currie Cup Premier Division Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2007 Currie Cup First Division log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2004 Currie Cup Premier Division Log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2004 Currie Cup First Division log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 Currie Cup qualification log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to what's available at the respective articles. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 16:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused, and the tables could be transcluded from the article page. It also seems the rest in Category:South Africa rugby union standings templates is not used and can be added to this TfD (including the category). CRwikiCA talk 17:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (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 23:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template. Was substed by creator at User:E9/Wikipedia:WikiProject Creating a Project. No other obvious use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 16:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not used and no use. CRwikiCA talk 17:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2023 (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 23:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ProjectMember NoEmail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Was substed by creator at User:E9/Wikipedia:WikiProject Creating a Project. No other obvious use. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 16:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not used and no use. CRwikiCA talk 17:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2023 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mark Kermode's Best Film of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A single film critic's best film of the year is not a notable topic on its own (unlike, say, an award). And you could very quickly crowd up a film article with these; imagine if Everywhere Everything All at Once had such a template from every film critic who ranked it as their best film of 2022.—indopug (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NENAN and WP:CRUFT, navboxes have gotten out of control and this one offers no value on any movie article. CRwikiCA talk 16:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. we already discussed/deleted the Roger Ebert film of the year navbox for the same reason. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2023 (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 merge to Template:Diagnostic testing diagram. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Confusion matrix terms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Violates WP:SIDEBAR, especially paragraph about "Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles..."; see also previous discussion at Template_talk:Confusion_matrix_terms#Template_width (@FeRDNYC and Lord Belbury:). fgnievinski (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like all the articles that use this template also use Template:diagnostic testing diagram, which is meant to span the entire width of the page. Perhaps merging any non-overlapping content into that would be best. -- Beland (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Template:diagnostic testing diagram, but please notify the users that took part in the earlier discussion as well. CRwikiCA talk 13:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The use of the template on the pages where the template is used improves Wikipedia—it is clear, helps the reader, and serves a proper purpose. We should not delete this template out of a mere desire for bureaucratic consistency. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unnecessary crib sheet, or convert to ((sidebar)) if kept. Equivalent Wikipedia articles in other areas of mathematics don't appear to include crib sheets like this; Boolean satisfiability problem doesn't embed a large box defining basic terms like AND and XOR, Tangent half-angle formula uses a small sidebar of general trig links rather than spelling out sine and cosine in detail, etc. Belbury (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete per Beland. Izno (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Template:diagnostic testing diagram per Beland. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2023 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Blackpink solo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is unnecessary as there are already templates for each of the Blackpink members. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The solo songs were uploaded to Blackpink YouTube channel. Hurricane BP Member (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not a convincing reason to keep this template on Wikipedia. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 12:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I don't feel I know the subject matter well enough to opine one way or the other but your argument sounds sensible. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. We have other navboxes already doing the job. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackpink member solo songs are mentioned in articles as "solo single of South Korean singer, rapper, and Blackpink member" in Solo (Jennie song), "solo single by Korean-New Zealand singer and Blackpink member" in On the Ground, "solo single by Thai rapper and singer Lisa, a member of South Korean girl group Blackpink" in Lalisa (song), and "solo single by South Korean singer and Blackpink member" in Flower (Jisoo song). If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link articles about Blackpink member solo songs in the See also sections of the articles. Hurricane BP Member (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no because see also means directly related articles. Each solo song is not related to each and every singer because they happen to be a member of the group. That would be overadding articles. And your template is wrong to include solo songs of Blackpink members. Because we don't do this for musical group navboxes. Template:Blackpink includes everything related to the group and the members as part of the group. Not individually. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, already covered by Template:Jennie (singer), Template:Rosé (singer), Template:Lisa (rapper), and Template:Jisoo. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (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) 00:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox comic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox comic book title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox comic with Template:Infobox comic book title.
Covering the same ground. ((Infobox comic book title)) is more widely used and is used on prominent articles such as Action Comics 1. MClay1 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the target seems more developed, but ((Infobox comic)) seems to have some other fields which may or may not be required. CRwikiCA talk 18:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading the comments below, it seems that the merge is not that easy and I withdraw my initial support for a complete merge. Although it seems ((Infobox comic)) is redundant, it needs to be changed into a variety of other templates. As there are only 114 transclusions, that is very doable, but can only done by someone that knows the topic. CRwikiCA talk 13:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Separate, you've got one for European and one for American here. They do different things. It's a bit similar to how we have an infobox for named horses and racehorses. Hiding T 13:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hiding, it would probably be helpful if you could expand the documentation. As a glance, it was very unclear to me where the differences are. ((Infobox comic book title)) surprisingly does not include ((Infobox comic)) in its list of "See also" templates (and Infobox comic has no such section at all). This would help a user know which template is appropriate. -2pou (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • More than happy to have a go at some point once I work the nuts and bolts of it all out again, I'm a long time out of this. Hiding T 22:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Infobox named horse is for horses that aren't racehorses. It's a clear distinction. Why do American and European comics need separate infoboxes? The example given in the Infobox comic documentation (Métal hurlant) actually uses Infobox comic book title. If we are going to have separate American and European infoboxes, which should other countries use? It seems like we could pretty easily combine the functions into one template that provides options for different styles of comic. MClay1 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's always hard trying to choose an analogy and explain stuff because the analogy is always wrong and I held off using this as long as I could because I knew it wasn't quite right. You can either trust me or not trust me, but as someone who has spent years on this I'd appeal to the closer not to merge it because it's not the right target for every instant of usage. Metal Hurlant isn't an example for usage, it's an example of European Comics. My time on Wikipedia is limited and sometimes I won't be able to make my point and realistically, having to constantly explain everything endlessly tires me out. Which is a me problem. But basically, in European tradition, historically, the term comic strip applies to both a comic strip in a newspaper and a comic strip serialised in an anthology such as Metal Hurlant. In the US there wasn't such a tradition, anthology comics kind of died fairly early, (which again isn't completely true but isn't germane and worth the argument). The term comic book is traditionally an American term, although Wikipedia and the media has influenced language usage and it's becoming more widespread in all traditions. But Metal Hurlant isn't a comic book, it's a comic. Well, actually it's a bande dessinee Actually, it's just too much for me. Have at it. I get you are only asking questions for clarity, and I get I said it's a bit similar, not a lot similar. My stress levels are rising. It's just a template. It doesn't matter either way. It would be nice to get it right, but hey, there's more to life. Hiding T 15:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If it alleviates any of your conerns, the process for merging templates isn't to just immediately redirect one template to the other. The functions of one template will be combined into the other and the old transclusions will be (or should be) carefully replaced. Some templates have been awaiting merging for a significantly long time, so there's plenty of opportunity to get it right. If there is a form a publication that ((Infobox comic)) represents that is better represented by a separate template to ((Infobox comic book title)), then it could be renamed and expanded. (While certain types of comics may be more common in Europe, they're obviously not universal and there will also be American comics that use the same format.) However, presently, I think it's just easier to have one template, the same way ((Infobox book)) is used for loads of different types of book. MClay1 (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Herein lies the problem. A number of these articles that use the template aren't publications, they are story-lines or strips, which are media separate from the medium. Comics is a newer scholarly field and there's a vast amount of original research involved in a lot of what's on Wikipedia which is influencing the wider world and then feeding back into Wikipedia. It's very interesting to have observed over the last 15 years and I'm sure there's a thesis there somewhere. But that's by the by. I understand the mindset that wants one template rather than many, but I don't agree that it is the right approach or the only approach. I also still think Template:Infobox comic book title is the wrong template to merge to. I don't disagree that this is a mess though. I'm wary of simply fixing it whilest this debate is open though. Hiding T 11:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy for someone to provide a better alternative, as long as it's not staying the same as it is now. MClay1 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If merging, someone has to check each transclusion to make sure that ((Infobox comic strip)) is not the more appropriate box. -2pou (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Repeat not a vote! But, seriously, don't merge to that target. In adding instructions it's not the right target. Let me work on it and work out what to do with it, and if there's someone with great template know-how let me know and I'll reach out when I understand what this is doing, but it's totally the wrong target for a merge. Honestly. Hiding T 10:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it totally wrong? You need to provide a reason. MClay1 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought I did further above in this conversation. They do different things. I'm trying to work out whether we need a template that does this, whether we need these articles, and which template is the best target to merge. The template seems to be a mix of three other templates so needs to be handled with care. Hiding T 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wouldn't this be better as an infobox for serialized fiction? There are other forms of serialized fiction besides the monthly/weekly comic -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah it's a good point, not sure though. Hiding T 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ((Infobox comics story arc)) could be the better target in a number of transclusions. Hiding T 15:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm a newbie really and have no idea about the coding or whatever but having edited a few minor comic articles but I do feel the comic infoboxes need *something* done to them as it's often quite hard to identify which works best for which page. If some sort of universal comic template that could somehow cope with the diverse formats the medium runs through would be ideal, but I'm guessing if that was possible it would be done already. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I sort of agree and disagree. They do need some sort of tidying and clearer instruction, but I'm not sure about having one template. I noted above that we have templates for racehorses and templates for named horses that aren't race horses, those aren't suggested for merger so it must be possible to have templates do separate things. But there is a mess here that needs sorting once this discussion is closed one way or another, sooner hopefully than later, probably drifting to no consensus? Hiding T 22:10, 9 April 2023 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nothing Technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox, I just removed three redlinks (navboxes are for existing articles after all) and one link that was part of Nothing (company). Three links left, nothing that can't be explained in other articles' text or see also sections. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am going to be blunt. I know there will be more things that this company will expand upon with their products and stuff down the road (and it may be the case). And honestly, I hate the kind of consensus that thinks that naviboxes should be deleted, especially if it's useful. I won't mind adding more down the road like companies and stuff that was linked to the company such as this is a new company, but I rather see something new to expand upon instead of forcing this navibox to be thrown in the trash, and force me or anyone to redo it from scratch. 20chances (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi 20chances, please Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You are WP:CRYSTALBALLing that you somehow know that this company will be expand upon. You hate consensus that leads to deletion because WP:ITSUSEFUL or there has been some WP:EFFORT in creating it? Well, I've removed the redlinks and the redirect, if you're up for, go create those and then this navbox makes sense. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've recently added an related article to a company that was in fact involved in the company. I'm also planning to make an another article related to Nothing OS down the road (EDIT: That Page is still under draft review but I'm looking into the details) so I'm hoping to look deeper into it. And I know you want to think that I'm a Crystal Ball, but I'm keeping an eye out on what it is going to be their next smart phone. The phone hasn't been fully announced but I'm not trying to fully declare it is going to be there but we'll have to wait on that. I already saved the entire page from dying, and I'm doing whatever I can to save this template. I absolutely hate to see content and templates become deleted and to be thrown to waste. 20chances (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The best option may to move it into user-space to retain it and recreate it when there is more to articles to include in it. CRwikiCA talk 18:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I already saved it to my sandbox when this nomination was made. I don't agree on having this deleted, especially as it might be useful for this article. 20chances (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Disparate products. Little use for navigation. Nigej (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if y'all want to think about deleting it, I still feel this template will be useful down the road when the company still keeps growing with their line up. I'll still keep adding on it. But still, I feel dismayed with the pro-deleted consensus. 20chances (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete, can be easily recreated if more phone/product articles are written in the future. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2023 (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 23:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sfendali railway station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Not needed as this small map works fine as part of the article space for Sfendali railway station. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not used, and appears to have little info. CRwikiCA talk 21:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep used and brings into line other stations within the Greek rail network... updating is nessasry and have started working on it--✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Emperor of Byzantium, I don't see it used/linked anywhere. What would the target article(s) be? CRwikiCA talk 13:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, duplicate of the map in Sfendali railway station#Station layout. if the map in the article is wrong, then fix it, but no need to put this diagram in a template. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2023 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Futsal club estcat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Beach volleyball club estcat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after replaced with ((Sport clubs (dis)established in YYYY category header)). –Aidan721 (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused after replacement with a more generic template to avoid duplicate code and it's associated problems. CRwikiCA talk 13:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2023 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2022–23 National T20 Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template with no clear other uses. Should be subst and deleted Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete single use template that could always be transcluded from the page if it would ever be needed in another article. CRwikiCA talk 13:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, now substituted. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2023 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

To be deleted. Misleading and not needed template redirect. Currently, used 84 times and all occurences to be renamed to: ((WikiProject Country Music)) Estopedist1 (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a redirect, WP:RFD might be the correct location for this. Nevertheless, I support this, as I would expect it to link to a country, and WP:COUNTRY links to a dab page (hence, country music is clearly not the primary topic). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as it is a redirect of a talk page template, I don't think you need to wait to start changing it to the actual ((WikiProject Country Music)) template. CRwikiCA talk 13:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as confusing, along with the others that don't have "music" in the title like ((wpcountry)), ((WP Country)), ((WikiProject Country)), ((Countrynotice)), and ((Countrybanner)). Frietjes (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and Frietjes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2023 (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).