Template:Highland League map
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
template no longer used on or required for any article pages Boothy m (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Nayeon
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON with no directly related articles for this to be a worthwhile navigational tool. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Jihyo
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON with no directly related articles for this to be a worthwhile navigational tool. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Spam blanked
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my reasoning on simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Template:Spam blanked. It appears as a template that's saying "there's advertising here, if you want to look at it in the history." If spam needs to be blanked, it can just be blanked, without the need to encourage users to go the page history. --Ferien (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Shooting WR AR60Dec Men Qualification
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 16:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Presuming this has been already substituted on an article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 16:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and outdated navbox. All uses of this navbox have been replaced by Template:United Athletic Conference football venue navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Katipunan
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 16:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unused infobox which isn't needed as there is a more comprehensive infobox within the article for the subject. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 do not merge. A WP:SNOW cause (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Unreferenced section with Template:Unreferenced.
Other than missing the "Find sources" part, Unreferenced section serves the same purpose as Unreferenced with the section parameter on. And given the missing part, it's rendered a worse template for providing less useful options. Unreferenced's doc would need significant updates to mention the parameter and its usage (It currently reads as if that doesn't exist and should never be used, and I don't much see the point of that). If this request is rejected, then at the very least, Unreferenced section should be updated to include "Find sources". QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Its more simple to just type in: ((unreferenced section)) than it is to remember the parameter. In my opinion, this template makes things easier for editors (Why fix what isn't broken?). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As someone who uses ((unrefsect)) all the time, unless there's a way to redirect that so that functionality isn't compromised in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniago (talk • contribs) 13:16, August 19, 2023 (UTC)
- It only takes replacing the space in "Unreferenced section" with a pipe. Not that hard to remember methinks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose On lengthy articles, the unref-section may be placed multiple times, so that template (as-is) provides a useful function. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I thought this was a separate template and was gonna propose wrapperifying, but this is alread a wrapper, a useful one at that, no reason to delete. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 18:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm not commenting on the wording of the template, but I see no reason to delete it as it's just a wrapper anyway in practice. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It ain't broke, so don't fix it. Works just fine as is for all purposes mentioned above. Textorus (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment don't care if they're merged or not but agree that "find sources" should be in both. J04n(talk page) 20:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Textorus. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Ain't broke. Don't fix. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. How many hundreds of nonsensical sui generis syntax quirks do we expect editors to memorize in order to perform basic tasks? The proposal here, as I understand it, is that
((unreferenced section)) (which currently works) would be broken on purpose, to force people to type ((unreferenced|section))? How are they even supposed to learn that this is the way to do it, by reading the documentation of a non-obviously-related template (((unreferenced)))? jp×g 23:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - What if there was a section that was unreferenced? I believe inserting a bunch of
((Citation needed)) tags would be tedious (depending on the section's length) and it would just look weird. Instead, keeping ((Unreferenced section)) would keep an unreferenced section neat instead of a bunch of ((Citation needed)) tags. Waterard water?(talk | contribs) 04:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per the above. Nothing to be gained from deletion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: there's a virtue in things being simple and intuitive, and the current system wins on those grounds. I can't see any real benefit from the proposed merge. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as pointless: they are already merged. This pair of templates have a long history of being merged and de-merged, sometimes BOLD, sometimes discussed on a talk page, sometimes at TfD.When originally created at 05:17, 3 January 2005 (UTC) by Aero34 (talk · contribs),
((Unreferenced section)) used a <div>...</div> as its basis. Subsequent changes from a simple div, to a table within a div, to a non-enclosed table are not detailed here.It was fully merged, becoming a redirect to ((Unreferenced)) at 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC) with this edit by HereToHelp (talk · contribs); that was reverted at 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC) by Mahagaja (talk · contribs). This was done again at 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC) by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) acting upon this TfD (result: speedy close), and reverted at 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC) by Jeepday (talk · contribs). Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 2#Merge and Redirect, after speedy close of TfD is relevant here.[reply]The non-redirect merge (to transclude ((unreferenced|section))) was first carried out at 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC) with this edit by Melsaran (talk · contribs) and reverted at 12:36, 8 September 2007 with this edit by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs). It was converted to use ((ambox)) at 20:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC) in this edit by Ms2ger (talk · contribs).[reply]It was again merged (to transclude ((unreferenced|section))) at 08:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC) with this edit by MZMcBride (talk · contribs); undone at 18:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC) by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs); redone at 11:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC) by MSGJ (talk · contribs).[reply] It was de-merged again at 23:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC) with this edit by SilkTork (talk · contribs); and that edit was reverted at 12:28, 17 December 2012 with this edit by myself. Another de-merge occurred at 02:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC) with this edit by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). A discussion in May 2016 at Template talk:Unreferenced section#Unreferenced section and Unreferenced did not change the situation. The next merge occurred at 14:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC) with this edit by Amakuru (talk · contribs) following this TfD (result: Revert ((Unreferenced section)) to previous version), and that is essentially the situation that we have today; although this relevant discussion resulted in no action.I notice that ((Unreferenced section)) has not been tagged for the present TfD, although ((unreferenced)) (which it transcludes) has been tagged. THerefore, since one already transcludes the other, there is nothing to merge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:12, 20 August 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).
Template:KRL F.C. squad
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 16:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An unused and out-of-date squad navbox. Does not meet the merits for navigation with the rest of the template being just text. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Marksuserpage
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to ((User page)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-1
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 12:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the templates in this series were nominated for deletion as being unused. Consensus was fairly clear but I thought that it made more sense to have a single template rather than 15 different ones all basically performing the same function, so I created Template:RCTS-LocosLNER. It has the same information, and all that would need to be changed (via template wrapper substitution I suspect) would be changing ((RCTS-LocosLNER-X)) to ((RCTS-LocosLNER|X)), with all other parameters being the same. Primefac (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 12:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to improve the page for this cult and IMO this navbox is wholly unnecessary.
It links
- the two cult leaders (one of whom does not have a page and may not be independently notable enough to ever have one; I'll do more research and see)
- a notable composer who was a high ranking member (not a 'leader' though)
- a town the cult killed people in (that has one sentence about the cult on its page),
- a book that analyzes cults (but from my reading does not analyze this cult in the specific in any depth)
- a non-notable French politician who may have had some involvement in a 60s version of the cult that I haven't found any other information on, who also doesn't have a page
- an author who is disputed to have founded the cult, who also doesn't have a page
This template is not cohesive or helpful (most of the proper entries are linked in the body of the page) and I doubt there will ever be enough Wiki pages related to the cult to justify it.
Should be deleted IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.