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) 01:55, 16 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:MLABIO and related 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. Izno (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These clunky article-section-creation templates were created by an editor who has since been topic-banned from India/Pakistan-related articles, including related individuals, political history, etc. The editor has also tagged their talk page as being retired from Wikipedia since October 2022, so it is unlikely that they will ever be used again, if they were ever used. Unless another editor shows up here to let us know that they are actively using these templates to create articles, we should delete them. They were a poorly conceived and poorly implemented idea when they were created and remain so today. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per my comment below. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 22:56, 8 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:Template link with sorted parameters
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).
I fail to see any situations where this template would be useful, it seems like this template was made because the creator figured out that you can mess around with template parameters in lua, rather than because it actually solves a problem or addresses a need.
This is basically the template link with parameters ((tlp)) template, but where the parameters are automatically alphabetized with LUA prior to being displayed. I don't see how this extra functionality is actually useful. These template link templates are used primarily for displaying snippets of wikitext as part of discussions and documentation, in those situations you would want to display the template exactly as you wrote it out. Even if automatic sorting of parameters was a good idea "alphabetical" is highly unlikely to be a sensible choice for most templates, would you display a date formatting template's parameters in the order "Day, Hour, Minute, Month, Second, Year"? The use case in on the template's documentation page seems contrived to say the least, where is "this template accepts four unnamed parameters, I've given them numbered identifiers in a ridiculous order and now need a template to sort them as part of a documentation page" ever going to occur? 192.76.8.66 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those cases where in lack of a deep understanding of how wikitext parameters work the poster IP address relied on the template's title as the only source of information. The ((tlap)) template is simply a more general form of the ((tlp)) template that adds the feature that editors don't need to escape the equals sign (i.e. ((=))). If equals signs are escaped this template behaves exactly like ((tlp)). Yet, the possibility of not escaping the equals sign has a cost: in wikitext the order of named parameters is always lost (there is no way to reconstruct it), and that is why we have an alphabetical order with named parameters – and that is also why the template has its current name. The template's title does not tell us that “ordering parameters” is the template's main task, the template's title simply reminds us that we always lose the order of named parameters. What should one do if they write their parameters already in alphabetical order? They should definitely use this template unless they want to escape the equals sign! Compare writing
The only case in which ((tlap)) becomes useless is when users for whatever reason do not want an alphabetical order (the date above could be a good example). But even in that case, ((tlap)) can be used with escaped equals and it will behave like ((tlp)). --Grufo (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you've said here directly contradicts the documentation you wrote. If the purpose of the template isn't to sort parameters then why did you call this "Template link with sorted parameters" and tell people on the documentation page that they should not escape the equals sign in parameters so the template sorts them.
This deletion nomination has nothing to do with me apparently lacking a lack of a deep understanding of how wikitext parameters work (I do understand how templates work, thank you very much) I nominated it for deletion because it is useless, a sentiment shared by another editor here. If you use the template with non-escaped equals signs as you describe in the documentation page it mangles the input and puts the parameters in an unhelpful order, if you use it with escaped equals signs as you describe above it duplicates the function of another template. "This can save you from typing brackets as long as you always type your template parameters in alphabetical order" is a niche use case in the extreme. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close Disruptive IP has started this discussion and per Grufo. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan What on earth are you doing? Why have you deleted and struck my comments from discussions [1]? Why have you reverted my copyediting of my own comments [2][3]? Why did you speedy close this discussion? On what basis are you accusing me of being disruptive? 192.76.8.66 (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I've reverted the improper striking out of this nomination. We already have enough templates for formatting template invocations - we don't need yet more ways of doing the same thing. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your only concern is that “we already have enough templates for formatting template invocations” then let's delete ((tlp)) and make it a redirect to this template, because this is the more general form in which the ((tlp))-like usage is only a particular case. Doing so will have no effects whatsoever on the pages that already use ((tlp)), as these already escape the equals sign (the parameter order will be preserved). On the other hand, if someone misused((tlp)) and forgot to escape the equals sign, then the redirect will restore the lost parameters – and I am pretty sure such errors exist in the vastity of Wikipedia. --Grufo (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree with that proposal. ((tlp)) is a widely used template with a simple, well tested Lua module backend. This template is completely unused outside of documenting it's own existence, it has a complex Lua module behind it which is unfinished, and no one has made a good case for the "automatic sorting of named parameters" functionality actually being useful. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“No one has made a good case for the "automatic sorting of named parameters" functionality actually being useful”: Again you show poor understanding of wikitext parameters. If you do not sort named parameters in some way (not necessarily alphabetically) their order will change randomly with each refresh of the page cache. Therefore the alternative is between showcasing named parameters sorted somehow and not showcasing them at all. --Grufo (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I fully understand how it works and what is going on here, please stop with the "you show poor understanding" insults. "named parameters don't contain positional data" is fairly basic template knowledge. The proper alternative is that you escape the parameters you give as input to ((tlp)), as we have been doing for years, and end up with output where the parameters are sanely ordered. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addition. I forgot to mention an important point earlier. This template is programmed to reflect exactly the behaviour of ((Template link with numbered parameters)) (but of course without displaying the parameter numbers), so that in a documentation page it is easy to switch from one template to the other without major changes. No other template does the same. --Grufo (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to nominate that template for deletion too. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a solution looking for a problem. I asked when or where this would be useful, and got a response that was little more than "this allows you to avoid escaping the = sign", which in my mind is insufficient to have something this... weird, especially since it forces alphabetisation of named params. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Since it forces alphabetisation of named params”: This is a quite strange argument against ((template link with sorted parameters)); it would be a bit like nominating for deletion ((#invoke:sort list)) because it forces lists to be sorted. The template does what it claims it does, unless used like ((tlp)), in which case the two templates will behave identically. As explained earlier, this is just a more general version of ((tlp)). --Grufo (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a very many good times and reasons to not have alphabetised parameters (most of the CS1 and ((cite)) family of templates come to mind). As I have said before, someone typing out parameters are probably wanting to have them display in the typed order, which as you have indicated results in a use case that is identical to ((tlp)). Primefac (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per others. I don't think this is ultimately a win, unfortunately, and just adds yet another to the list of tl templates that we have. Izno (talk) 19:45, 15 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:IPA link/core
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) 18:05, 15 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:IPA chart/core1 and other subpages of a Template redirect
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) 19:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions in article or project space. These are subpages of a template redirect, confusingly, created by a now-indefinitely-banned editor. This appears to be a template that never got off the ground or was replaced by something better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing against the creator. SWinxy (talk) 20:40, 11 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:Chembox Thermochemistry/doc/parameter list and similar documentation or project pages
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) 17:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. If these are documentation, they should be merged or transcluded into documentation pages. If they are project pages, they should be moved to project space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are documentation pages which I subst into their template /doc pages. No reason to have this split between two or more documentation pages. Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they are all linked to by ((Navbox Chembox)) which are on all the doc pages. Maybe it should be cleaned up after DePiep left the Wiki. Maybe they are just a copy of the doc page - did the nominator check? Christian75 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
((Chembox Explosive/doc/parameter list)) should be transcluded or just copy/pasted into ((Chembox Explosive/doc)), as I suggested in my nomination. In that particular case, it is possible that the parameter list is already in the "Usage" section of the template documentation, but I haven't done a bit-for-bit comparison of each list. The creator of these pages made things overly complicated, and trying to read that editor's mind to try to figure out why and how they did the things they did never did work for me. They left behind hundreds of unused and abandoned template pages, so it's going to take some teamwork to figure out how to deal with them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I probably agree. I stopped touching the chembox templates because I had to discuss every single time I did minor things. Christian75 (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. FYI, if I am interpreting your comment correctly, it might help you to know that a contentious editor who liked to discuss every change to templates over which they perceived ownership has been indefinitely banned. You may be able to modify (and simplify, ideally) the Chembox templates without running into as much resistance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:51, 11 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).
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:Play-by-mail games2
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) 17:56, 15 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:WIG-2
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) 17:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Individual templates for these WIG events are no longer needed after updates to ((WikiProject Women in Green)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, but I'm pinging MSGJ (our recent WiG template editor) just for extra confirmation first -- Martin, is this proposal for deletion okay? Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would leave this as a wrapper but ((WIG|2)) works just as well so no real reason to keep it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, the rest of the set should be deleted for the same reason. Gonnym (talk) 14:08, 15 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).
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. The general opinion of those commenting is that the overlapping content should be removed from Template:2023 in American men's soccer rather than this template be deleted. Should further discusion (either at the template talk, WT:FOOTY, etc) determine otherwise, there is NPASR. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed that. I can if that's desirable, but it should probably be a new nom and maybe only after this one completes. Izno (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing I'm thinking about is whether I'd prefer these to be split off from the very large template to begin with. While I nominated this, I think there's a reasonable alternative path which is splitting the team season articles away from the big template. I'm a fan of navboxes which serve as constellations rather than everything in one navbox, because that way lies big navbox. Izno (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's definitely wise to obtain consensus here, and then nominate the others after this discussion has closed. GiantSnowman 20:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a duplicate. This is specific to MLS and the rest in the men's soccer navbox includes a lot outside of the MLS. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's duplicate navigation regardless. The one navbox ends up on all the same articles as the other. Izno (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you would have to nominate all the soccer/football leagues in the U.S. that have a navbox for the current season that are linked in the 2023 in American men's soccer navbox. And then nominate all the previous season's navboxes as well. Perhaps there needs to be a broader discussion about templates such as 2023 in American men's soccer which encompasses all links already featured in other navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the implication of my comment at 17:43. Starting the discussion with this nomination is as good as any. Izno (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But I don't think MLS season navboxes have any reason to be deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you think we should split up the large navbox instead and/or remove the content in those templates? The content is strictly duplicated, so one of them should go. Izno (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. We need a larger discussion involving the Football project. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The solution is simple and would be in line with other sports. The American soccer navbox should link the leagues. No team articles should be included. The team articles should be separated into their league specific navbox. This goes for prior years as well.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree that we should follow American sports norms here instead of international soccer, as MLS doesn't operate like those leagues. Since league membership is relatively stable without promotion and relegation, it makes more sense to be organized based on leagues rather than crammed into the bottom of the national navboxes. SounderBruce 05:15, 17 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:Periodic table/blind/2018
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) 17:55, 15 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:Periodic table/blind/2013
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) 17:54, 15 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:Periodic table/som-image
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) 17:52, 15 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:Up-arrow/doc
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) 06:00, 15 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:Track gauge/color legend
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) 06:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, and only one incoming link from a discussion page. Created in 2013. If this is documentation, it should be included in a documentation page. If it should be moved to project space as useful information, let's do that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 8 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).
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) 06:00, 15 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:Special page documentation
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) 06:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2021. Claims to be documentation for a page that does not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:34, 8 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:Screen reader-only/error
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) 05:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or documentation. Linked from a discussion in which the creator does not appear to understand the nuances of this template's use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I need to update the documentation to explain that the template can't be used in links. This page is no longer needed. Rjjiii (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's updated now. No reason to keep this page around. Rjjiii (talk) 07:28, 8 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).
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:SONint
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) 05:59, 15 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:RU squad player
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) 05:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2009. Probably replaced without discussion by the better-supported ((Rugby squad player)), which has existed since 2006. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Roachie (talk) 23:26, 14 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:RMTR
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) 05:58, 15 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:Plant Barnstar
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) 05:58, 15 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).
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) 05:58, 15 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:Nepalese rupee/ISO
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) 05:58, 15 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).
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).
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:Nbhairsp
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) 05:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Creating editor has been admonished to provide documentation and categories for new templates but has generally not responded. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:06, 8 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:J.League chairmen
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) 05:57, 15 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:Infobox song contest/Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015
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) 05:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or documentation. Unclear why it exists. Looks like article content; it is a simple File: invocation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Was originally transcluded at Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015, however that article has now been redirected, resulting in this template becoming redundant. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:15, 8 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:INCONSTTOP
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) 06:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Inscrutable template name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly useless templates created as part of an article semi-automatic production system for India constituency articles, see Template:MLABIO/doc. These templates are not useful and their function doesn't make a lot of sense - you delete a header in an article, and replace it with a substitution of this template, which puts the header back along with some unbalanced section tags, see also the related TFD for a template that replaced a references header with a references header [4]. The creator is topic banned from Indian politics, hasn't edited in months and this whole nest of templates is so poorly documented, confusing and generally useless that I doubt anyone else is ever going to use them. @Jonesey95: There's a whole range of these for different years, do you want to bundle these into the nomination? see Special:PrefixIndex/Template:INCONSTTOP and Special:PrefixIndex/Template:INCONSTBOT192.76.8.66 (talk) 20:40, 8 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:Empire of Brazil formation
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) 05:56, 15 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:Element cell/black-&-white-named
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) 05:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Created in 2020 by a now-indefinitely-banned editor. Recent deletions of one of the creator's dozens of other unused and abandoned template pages may have left this one with no transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:46, 8 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:Down-arrow/doc
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) 05:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. The parent template uses shared documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete documentation page. This is one of several very similar templates originally used to create images (with hidden content) in place of text. They now each emit the appropriate Unicode character and share documentation as they all function the same way. Rjjiii (talk) 02:06, 8 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).
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. Izno (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This navbox appears to be full of WP:EGG violations, and the need for it may already have been met by Category:Lords Spiritual. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I created this navigation box in July and I have now transcluded the navigation box to the biography articles of the current Lords Spiritual. The box has bishops' titles as visible labels, because Lords Spiritual are called by their titles in the House of Lords. The navigation box includes only current Lords Spiritual, while the category Lords Spiritual includes also former Lords Spiritual. --Editor FIN (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've fixed the wrong use of piping links and is now used on articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:20, 9 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:Copyonly
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) 05:54, 15 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:Comics infobox sec/creator natcat
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) 05:54, 15 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:Coefficient of relationship table
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) 06:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or documentation. It appears that this table was removed from Coefficient of relationship, possibly because of IP vandalism, instead of just asking for the article to be protected. This is single-article content that should either be put in the article in some form, deleted, or moved to the user space of its creator for further development. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frankly, I'd rather have the content added back or transcluded, rather than exiled to user space. Mason (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the unvandalized version, and it's now transcluded. Mason (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subst to article and delete template. Even after being used this is a single used template. Gonnym (talk) 06:13, 8 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).
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).
No documentation, categories, transclusions, or incoming links from discussions. It may be useful, but without any clues to why it would be needed, it is impossible to know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe all the issues Jonesey95 identified have since been fixed. The template would have been appropriate for deletion at the time of the nomination. I had copied another template and made no improvements on it for 28 days prior to the nomination. Next time I'll start drafts in userspace. Daask (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 8 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:Bx3 RDT
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:Braille cell/overview
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) 05:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. If this is a project page, it should be moved to project space. If it is testcases, the content should be merged into the parent template's testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:30, 8 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:Box-drawing sample
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) 05:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, or categories. A few links from discussions, but I found nothing about why it was created and what its purpose might have been. I may have missed something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:29, 8 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:Block log link
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).
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created almost a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the logic that a template that might be useful shouldn't exist until someone has a need for it. The implication is that until someone who knows how to make templates has a use for a particular template, a hundred other editors who could have benefited from the same template if it existed are out of luck. Largoplazo (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicates several of the various ((user)) templates. (Why do we have so many.) Izno (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not needed when we have other user templates that can accomplish the same task. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 15 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:BS-replace
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) 05:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or documentation. Listed as a "work in progress", but not edited since 2012. This is part of a set of templates that apparently does not work correctly on mobile, according to Wikipedia:Route diagram template, so its existence is probably an attractive nuisance at best. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:25, 8 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:BSdist
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) 05:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, categories, or incoming links from discussions or other template documentation. Created in 2014. This appears to be an orphaned part of the "BSxx" set of route diagram templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 8 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).
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:Annual discharge of tritium from nuclear facilities in South Korea
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) 05:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This template is linked from three articles, which is a violation of MOS:LINKSTYLE's guidance: In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace. This content should either be placed in an article or deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 8 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:Active volcanoes, potentially active volcanoes, and dormant volcanoes
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) 05:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This navbox is probably too broad and should really be a category. See also Category:Volcanoes by status; the subcategory Category:Active volcanoes has 400 pages and 20 subcategories. Including all relevant pages in a navbox is a hopeless task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 8 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:21st-century hymns in German (wrong)
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).
No transclusions or documentation. Appears to have been superseded by, or to be redundant to, the all-purpose ((Navseasoncats)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - History: I wanted to create it, but was absent-minded, noticed immediately that I made a mistake, but had no time to fix, and then forgot completely. - I now moved that nonsense and replaced the redirect by the right code. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've edited the nomination as Gerda moved the template to a new name. Gonnym (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "(wrong)" version and keep the one non-"wrong" one. Gonnym (talk) 08:10, 8 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).
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:Long ton/t table
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) 05:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or documentation. The string "table" does not appear in the parent template's code, so this may have been superseded by template development, or it may be an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 8 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:Long fossil range/bar
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) 05:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or documentation. The string "bar" does not appear in the parent template's code. Possibly superseded by ((Long fossil range/bar 250)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 8 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).