Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 17 December 19 >

December 18 edit

Template:ESPN Nevada edit

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/Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:ESPN Nevada with Template:Sports Radio Stations in Nevada.
Insufficient links; redundant. All articles in ESPN Nevada are in the broader sports stations navbox. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ESPN Nevada, Keep Sports Radio Stations in Nevada. No need to merge what is already included in Sports Radio Stations in Nevada. As far as NAVBOX #4 is concerned, there is a Wikipedia article on the subject, it is merely divided into subsets for the purposes of navboxes so they are manageable and more relevant to the reader.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a stretch to call a generic article on Sports radio or a general article on the state Nevada as being close to a "Wikipedia article on the subject". That is how WP:TCREEP continues.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bagumba: I'm interested to have that discussion, but the volume of templates affected would be staggering—more than 750 plus another 400 or so on the television side with the same rationale. At that scale, what would be the best way to rule on the whole subject at once? Certainly that would be the largest TfD of all time? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sammi Brie: I'd advise to start with a few smaller logical subsets first, and gauge the feedback. Often mass-bundled nominations are railroaded by a few pages that might have legitimate WP:IAR reasons for an exception or two, resulting in an early no consensus that could cloud the situation.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ESPN Nevada Don't think it needs merging, just deleting. Nigej (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2021 (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:ESPN North Dakota edit

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) 18:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient links to warrant a navbox. KMSR is no longer ESPN Radio. Both stations are in {{Sports Radio Stations in North Dakota}}. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Basically reductant to the sports ... template. Nigej (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2021 (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:BotFuture edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 18 December 2021 (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:Blue bib edit

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) 15:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to a new template {{bib color}} with {{red bib}}, {{yellow bib}}, {{yellow and red bib}}, with a parameter to select the color. Improve with an actual transparent bib PNG (a transparent hole shaped like a bib) on a black background, instead of just being a colored box. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. Since I have no idea what the usage is for, I've checked the other colored bibs listed above. Looking at pages like 2006–07 Biathlon World Cup and 2009–10 Biathlon World Cup – Mass start Men it seems the image is used instead of the number "1". If that is the only use-case that is a horrible design and falls under WP:JARGON. In those situations the template should be replaced with the number "1". Gonnym (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Surely all these bib templates fail MOS:COLOR too. "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information" Nigej (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2021 (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:ESPN Maryland edit

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) 18:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empty navbox. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The rule of thumb at Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox, not set in stone, suggests a five-article minimum for navboxes, but largely leaves it to common sense and consensus. Suffice it to say, you can't have a navbox with no articles. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure as to why a random IP editor removed the links, but it's clearly not needed anymore. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of the numbers of stations in said formats. Also, nominator has not indicated they have done anything to improve or add to this template. Stereorock (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While formats are always in flux, the navbox Sports Radio Stations in Maryland is sufficient. As far as improving or adding to the template is concerned, it appears that all of the sports stations in Maryland are either CBS or Fox Sports affiliates, with one part-time affiliate of SportsMap, so there is nothing to add.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Fails nearly everything about a navbox. Nigej (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2021 (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:Sports Radio Stations in Vermont edit

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 00:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient links to merit a navbox (1). WEAV does not even transclude this navbox, instead using {{Sports Radio Stations in New York}}. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: WEAV may market in part to Vermont, but it is officially located on the New York side of the border. In any event, one article does not a navbox make. (It wasn't always this way, but for whatever reason the only all-sports stations trying to serve Vermont in any capacity these days are stations in markets bordering other states and located in those other states; the stations in Vermont proper that were in the format have all either changed format or gone out of business. Other than that, the closest thing to a sports station in Vermont these days is WDEV, and outside of game broadcasts, it is only sports at night and Sunday afternoons, with the balance of the schedule being news, talk, or music programs.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough links for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of the numbers of stations in said formats. Also, nominator has not indicated they have done anything to improve or add to this template. Stereorock (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Fails nearly everything about a navbox. Nigej (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2021 (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:Sports Radio Stations in Rhode Island edit

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 00:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient links to merit a navbox (1). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Navboxes are intended to navigate between related articles. The rule of thumb at Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox, not set in stone, is that there should probably be at least five articles in a navbox, unless common sense and consensus say otherwise. Common sense would certainly suggest that (three links to) one article doesn't cut it. (There was a second station here for a while, but that probably wouldn't suffice, either.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are only about 30 or so stations in Rhode Island, and another station could move into the format. Stereorock (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NEAN. One link doesn't aid in navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2021 (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:NBA predraft/doc edit

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) 15:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA predraft is up for deletion; this is a subpage of that template. Whiteguru (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2021 (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:Mainstream Rock Radio Stations in South Dakota edit

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 2021 December 25. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:12, 25 December 2021 (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:Mainstream Rock Radio Stations in Ohio edit

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 2021 December 25. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:12, 25 December 2021 (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:Smooth Jazz Radio Stations in Massachusetts edit

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) 21:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient links to merit a navbox (1 station). That station, WEIB, probably should be put in {{Jazz Radio Stations in Massachusetts}}. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The rule of thumb at Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is that navboxes preferably should list at least five articles. The essay admits that's not set in stone, and common sense (and consensus) should prevail… and common sense would certainly suggest that (three links to) one article does not a navbox make. (Especially when there's already a navbox for Massachusetts jazz radio stations in general.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of numbers of stations. Also, Jazz & Smooth Jazz are different formats with different formative. Stereorock (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsensically specific. "Smooth Jazz Radio Stations in Massachusetts"! Not everything needs a navbox and surely this is a classic example. Nigej (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2021 (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:Smooth Jazz Radio Stations in Florida edit

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) 21:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient links to merit a navbox (3 stations). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of which stations are in said format. Stereorock (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Overly specific. Nigej (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2021 (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:Adult Hits Radio Stations in New Mexico edit

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) 21:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only navigation is between two stations. Only adult hits station navbox in the entire United States. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of the numbers of stations in said formats. Also, nominator has not indicated they have done anything to improve or add to this template. Stereorock (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly specific. Nigej (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2021 (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:DailyBracketBot edit

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) 17:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BracketBot has not edited since 2016. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:08, 18 December 2021 (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:Database report edit

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 2021 December 25. Izno (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2021 (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:American pay television edit

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) 17:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad for a navbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:31, 18 December 2021 (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:2018 Winter Olympics Curling Schedule edit

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) 15:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; Content merged with the main article Curling at the 2018 Winter Olympics. Note: I created the template back in 2016, but did not use the "Author requests deletion" option. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2021 (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:NBA predraft edit

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 13:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listing fails WP:NOTSTATS that to provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Bulky table is WP:UNDUE for these trivial stats. The rare cases where a particular stat may be notable for a specific player should instead be mentioned in prose with proper context to its significance. —Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2021 (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:Fvs1 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 templates are wrappers Template:Fvs however they offer no additional value and are an overkill since they are only used in 4 mainspace pages total. Current usages should be replaced with Template:Fvs and the templates deleted. Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2021 (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:South Australian Legislative Council edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as Template:SACurrentMLCs is used instead. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2021 (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:TAFIW edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. haha... Q28 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2021 (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:Tfat edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete templates created to 2015. Q28 (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's used at WP:TFA any more. No objection either way. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 18 December 2021 (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:Usbk limited edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. An abandoned test in 2015. Q28 (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject status/Draft edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used.!, Q28 (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2021 (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:Course page wizard/draft edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least from what I know, the template is not being used. Q28 (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2021 (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:Sdiy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused，， Q28 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2021 (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:Scy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused，， Q28 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2021 (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:Sdy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused，， Q28 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2021 (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:Val/units edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in mainspace and only has 4 talk or sandbox usages. The template itself was replaced with Module:Val/units. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2021 (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:LASTWEEKDAYNAME edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is not used and has been replaced by {{#time:l|-1 day}} . Q28 (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2021 (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:LASTMONTHABBR edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used and replaced by {{#time:M|-1 month}} . Q28 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If one were to want the last month's abbreviated name, it would seem template would be better than having the function stuck in an article -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2021 (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:LASTCENTURY edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is not used and has been replaced by {{#expr:floor((2024-1)/100)}}. Q28 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that's not a proper replacement. That "replacement" should be encapsulated in a template if it were to be used in an article. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2021 (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:Ambox/old edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. At this point, all unused /old templates are sent to the deletion discussion. Q28 (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2021 (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 military conflict/old edit

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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An abandoned experiment in the fourth quarter of 2016. Q28 (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's actually from 2011, not 2016. Regardless of it's age, delete all /old versions of templates kept around separately as redundant to the page history feature. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:06, 18 December 2021 (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:Val/list/test edit

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; deleted as G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An abandoned experiment in 2015. Q28 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author here. Template Val was converted to LUA. Thanks, Pppery, for reminding me about my first Template. Before it was blanked, so long ago, It was not an experiment, but a highly successful tool for my years maintaining Template Val. — Cpiral§Cpiral 02:19, 19 December 2021 (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:Imbox/styles.css edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This CSS is not used, and I don't think the need to keep this page. Q28 (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Izno (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2021 (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:Goal/styles.css edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This CSS page is not used. Q28 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It and {{Goal/styles-no-icon.css}} are used with a sandbox module (Module:Sandbox/Jts1882/Goal )for the {{Goal}} template. The test sandbox has since been overridden. Not sure when or if it will be revisited. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jts1882, I would recommend naming/moving the relevant stylesheets to subpages of your sandbox module to make it clear that is their intent. I guess that's only styles-no-icon.css now, though you may wish to recover Goal/styles.css styles (I can assist with moving the previous history if you prefer since my work had nothing to do with yours).
    As for that implementation, you don't need to have two separate sheets for it; in general, just have the no-icon version of CSS listed later (cascaded) and switch on the class name used depending on template parameter. Izno (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is now implemented in the template. --Izno (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2021 (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:FARpassed edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for us to reserve for historical reasons. This is an unused template and we don't have to keep it. Q28 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2021 (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:Welcome student/draft edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013 obsolete draft was not used. Q28 (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2021 (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:EstcatCountry/checkuse edit

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; deleted as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template was not used.``^ Q28 (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2021 (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:Blacklisted link inline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Izno (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been used to identify any blacklisted links used on articles. Template:Blacklisted-links has and is currently used to do the same job. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2021 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_18&oldid=1088685182"