Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 28 November 30 >

November 29 edit

Template:Delaware's largest cities 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) 22:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates table in article Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 29 November 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:Electrical power distribution 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 redirect to Template:Electricity delivery. Izno (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused: no transclusions or incoming links. Appears to have been replaced by {{Electricity delivery}}. A bold redirect to that template might not be out of line, as this template has a reasonable name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 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:S-line/CPTM right/Line 13-Airport Connect and 44 other unused S-line templates 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) 00:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused S-line templates with over one year since the most recent edit. Nominating for deletion per this discussion; articles using S-line templates are being migrated to use Template:Adjacent stations. Also see the most recent related TFD, from October 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have notified all of the creators of these templates, but I have not tagged the templates individually with TFD notices. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:48, 29 November 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:Largest cities of Andorra 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) 05:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are all single-use tables which could be easily merged with the parent article. There is no need to keep the table outside of the article when it could be included in the article directly. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 29 November 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:Baltic Fleet Electoral District deputies, 1917 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 no consensus. See close at #Template:Caspian Electoral District deputies, 1917 below. A broader discussion of this template group as a whole may be needed. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltic Fleet templates can be deleted as the respective article already has the same information in table format. The rest should be substituted on the specific election article and removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election due to the article being extremely long as substitution may cause article size issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 29 November 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:Republic of China presidential elections 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 8. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 8 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:Minsk Electoral District deputies, 1917 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 no consensus. See close at #Template:Caspian Electoral District deputies, 1917 below. A broader discussion of this template group as a whole may be needed. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All should be substituted directly on the articles for the individual election results as that is the more relevant space and be removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election. All the information belongs as part of the article and not on a separate space as this is really article content and should be treated as such. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 29 November 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:Don Cossack Region Electoral District deputies, 1917 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 no consensus. See close at #Template:Caspian Electoral District deputies, 1917 below. A broader discussion of this template group as a whole may be needed. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All should be substituted directly on the articles for the individual election results as that is the more relevant space and be removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election. All the information belongs as part of the article and not on a separate space as this is really article content and should be treated as such. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 29 November 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:Viatka Electoral District deputies, 1917 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 no consensus. See close at #Template:Caspian Electoral District deputies, 1917 below. A broader discussion of this template group as a whole may be needed. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All should be substituted directly on the articles for the individual election results as that is the more relevant space and be removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election. All the information belongs as part of the article and not on a separate space as this is really article content and should be treated as such. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 29 November 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:Penza Electoral District deputies, 1917 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 no consensus. See close at #Template:Caspian Electoral District deputies, 1917 below. A broader discussion of this template group as a whole may be needed. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All should be substituted directly on the articles for the individual election results as that is the more relevant space and be removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election. All the information belongs as part of the article and not on a separate space as this is really article content and should be treated as such. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 29 November 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:Tambov Electoral District deputies, 1917 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 no consensus. See close at #Template:Caspian Electoral District deputies, 1917 below. A broader discussion of this template group as a whole may be needed. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Turgai Electoral District vote, 1917 template should be substituted onto its respective election article as it's single-use. The rest should be substituted on such articles and be removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election due to the article being extremely long as substitution may cause article size issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:44, 29 November 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:Samara Electoral District deputies, 1917 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 no consensus. See close at #Template:Caspian Electoral District deputies, 1917 below. A broader discussion of this template group as a whole may be needed. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only two are used on the respective election articles and should be substituted on there. The rest should be substituted on such articles and be removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election due to the article being extremely long as substitution may cause article size issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:44, 29 November 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:Kaluga Electoral District deputies, 1917 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on two articles and should be substituted on the specific election article and removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election due to the article being extremely long as substitution may cause article size issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:43, 29 November 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:Caspian Electoral District deputies, 1917 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 no consensus. While there was no participation at this particular discussion, those of similar templates above and below (Kaluga and Altai) have very similar nomination rationales and a consensus to keep. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Caspian template can be deleted as it doesn't contain enough information. The rest should be substituted on the specific election article and removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election due to the article being extremely long as substitution may cause article size issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:43, 29 November 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:Altai Electoral District deputies, 1917 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. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on two articles and should be substituted on the specific election article and removed from the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election due to the article being extremely long as substitution may cause article size issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: What is the technical basis for removing templates from the 1917 election article rather than substing? That article's specs look like this:
CPU time usage: 2.598 seconds
Real time usage: 3.034 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 15684/1000000
Post‐expand include size: 515313/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 18879/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 9/40
Expensive parser function count: 1/500
Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
Unstrip post‐expand size: 358878/5000000 bytes
Lua time usage: 0.766/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 6344031/52428800 bytes
I don't see anything "extremely long" about that. If the template does not need to be removed from that article, then Keep is probably reasonable, since the content is used in two places. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was implying that it may have been an issue, but substitution is still the preferred option, but in my view, it's better on the respective results articles for the regions. It's the more relevant space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer Keep - the templates are used in both the national summary and individual articles on constituencies. --Soman (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Election results tables should be treated as being article content and thus should be part of the article mainspace. Not on a separate space. The transclusions, in this case, have very little relevance since it's not about it being single-use or being in multiple spaces. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all these are used in multiple places so there's a benefit to keeping the data centralized instead of substituted into multiple articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:12, 1 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:Election box runningmate begin popular vote only 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) 14:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above group are all unused table election templates created by Piyyas almost a year and half ago. Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even know it has been a while since I checked on them, but I don't know why no one wants to use these templates, which they were created as extensions of the two original templates: Template:Election box runningmate begin and Template:Election box runningmate majority begin. Piyyas (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why these aren't used, but I'm assuming there must be other templates that do the same things. There were many other election table templates also unused. Some already deleted, others will be at TfD later on. Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:42, 29 November 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).

UCUM 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the deletion discussion for gram per cubic metre, this isn't a useful template. UCUM is a standard for exchanging information about units between computer systems, not a system of units itself. The fact that it can include essentially ANY unit means that having a template for the units it can exchange is meaningless. All of these templates are unused, and that is unlikely to change. PianoDan (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PianoDan Please do not list the same template twice. I have removed the repeated entry. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Thanks for the fix! PianoDan (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these templates aren't notable or not based on the comments of one particular editor. I can't see any reason why some fraction of these should be kept. Either they all should, or none of them. PianoDan (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Unused, and they'd only clutter up any page on which they were used. XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful, since UCUM is not a system of measurement. UCUM does have base units, but there is not really any reason why these should be listed outside the UCUM article itself. I haven't seen any evidence that base quantitites are relevant in UCUM, and doubt that we need a template for them. These templates were part of a larger effort to present UCUM as an analogue to SI. I've argued elsewhere that this was a bad idea.--Srleffler (talk) 06:28, 30 November 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:Unblock new 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) 22:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. is in the early stages of development since 2018 with no sign of progress. See also #Template:Unblock new/1 below. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 29 November 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).

Unused Estonia parish templates 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) 22:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navigation templates for parishes that no longer exist after administrative reform of 2017. See this link (in Estonian) for details related to at least some of the parishes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 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/template 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 MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming links, no transclusions. Appears to be an abandoned experiment from 2012. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 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:Cleanup list sort 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 8. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 8 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:Rls 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 merge to Template:Rugby league squad start but preserve rls as a redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Rls with Template:Rugby league squad start.
These three templates are various versions of the same template and should be merged together and/or redirected to {{Rugby league squad start}} to avoid confusion and decentralised formatting. Note that {{Rls start}} is pretty much unused and {{Rls}} is the primary template, so the choice to merge to {{rugby league squad start}} is mainly so that the final name is the most clear version (i.e. I expect everything to be merged to {{rls}} and then that template gets moved). Primefac (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge – Seems fairly cut and dry for a merge here, but I do disagree with the idea of making {{Rugby league squad start}} the primary end product. Although these templates were managed by the Rubgy League Wikiproject, it's worth noting that another primary user group for {{rls}} are the AFL Wikiproject, with AFL obviously being a different sport entirely. I'd say merge the other two into {{rls}}, then a decision can be made on a name which encompasses both sports at a later date if necessary. Empole1 (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this view – the articles where the {{rugby league squad start}} is being used, it would be appropriate that they should be transferred to the {{rls}} template. Storm machine (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac? Izno (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, as I have done for years, that we should default to using acronyms for templates where it's not immediately obvious. If AFL players are using {{rls}} (which does stand for "rugby league squad") then either the general name needs changing or the AFL players should stop using this. However, I have been out-voted in the past, and will simply pursue an RM at some point in the future for the entire rls family if the consensus here is to merge/redirect to {{rls}} for now. For the record, though, if the outcome of this discussion is "merge to {{rls}}" I see zero reason why the extant uses of the other two templates should be transferred to the [new] template; they're still valid template names. Primefac (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but per Primefac's original plan. I agree about the naming question. Preserve the rls redirect of course. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge but keep {{rls}} as a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 10 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:Faces of Death 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 14:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected all films into main film article, no longer of use Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 29 November 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:ALPB color 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 11:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sport color template Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 29 November 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:EU Railway stations 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) 14:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this template is particularly useful - all it seems to do is list one big station per EU member state using some unspecified criteria - is it supposed to be largest number of passengers? departures? something else? Either way, an uninformed reader who comes across this template might get the incorrect idea that Paris-Nord, Budapest-Keleti or Madrid-Atocha are the one and only "main station" in their respective cities which is very much misleading. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Main railway stations for a geopolitical entity can be left up to interpretation. No one would argue the railway stations featured on the template are not main stations in their respective nations, but it's best to have them featured on their respective country railway navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 04:59, 7 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:Election summary Myanmar 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 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election table template. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 29 November 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:Election summary begin two rounds 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 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election table template. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 29 November 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:Election box total no swing 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 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election table template. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 29 November 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:List of nuclides (1h~1m) 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 11:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above templates were started over 4 years ago by an editor that a month later stopped editing. They are all unused except in the creator's sandbox. Since they've haven't edited in over 4 years there is no point in moving this into their sandbox. Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 29 November 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:NBL Canada statistical leaders 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 11:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with a sea of red links and a few blue links. All blue links lead to two articles National Basketball League of Canada and List of NBL Canada statistical leaders by season, both of which appear in Template:National Basketball League of Canada Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 29 November 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 Pennsylvania alerts 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 06:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is not used. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:32, 29 November 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 Morocco/hide 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 06:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is no longer in use today. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:26, 29 November 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 Open Access/to do 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 06:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template should now be deleted because it is not being used. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:25, 29 November 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 Mauritius-ad 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 07:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary, this template is not used and should be removed. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{wikipedia ads|ad=240}} {{WikiProject Mauritius-ad}}

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 Connecticut/Example 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) 22:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template is not used, I personally feel that it should be deleted. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:23, 29 November 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 Computing/Categories 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 06:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for this template to exist because it is not being used. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:22, 29 November 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 Composers/Examples 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) 22:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary because it is not used. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:22, 29 November 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:Visual edit 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 06:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not used and useless. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really used in English Wikipedia. In Greek Wikipedia it serves as an icon on a help accordion.   ManosHacker talk 04:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The purpose of the English Wikipedia is not to provide templates for other wikis to use. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 29 November 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:Väätsa Parish 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 06:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used because the template has been replaced by another template. -- Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:19, 29 November 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:Use she 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 06:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted because it is not used. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also note that this template populates dated "Use she pronouns from month year" categories, which don't exist. If this had ever been used, then someone would have done something about that REDNOT violation. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 29 November 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:Use he 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 06:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could not be used. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. Also note that this template populates dated "Use he pronouns from month year" categories, which don't exist. If this had ever been used, then someone would have done something about that REDNOT violation. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 29 November 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:Unreferenced2 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 6. Izno (talk) 22:45, 6 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:UNDtest 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 06:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused and therefore needs to be deleted. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:07, 29 November 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:Unblock new/1 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) 22:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is using the template. Maybe we should delete it. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 03:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin note I have combined these three templates into one nomination, as they are in the same group. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It makes no sense to nominate the subtemplates for deletion separately. I've instead nominated the parent template for deletion, and when it is deleted the subtemplates can be G8ed. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can this be closed and bundled into the {{unblock new}} deletion request directly? -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 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_November_29&oldid=1060030764"