Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 7 March 9 >

March 8[edit]

Template:Birth name[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:Nee. ✗plicit 11:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was being used on two articles, Bill Clinton and John E. Arnold. For the former, it created an unnecessary notes section which was redundant given the fact that Clinton's name change is mentioned in the first article section about his early life. For Arnold, just the reference is enough. Really unnecessary to have a template just to make note of a person's name. The same could be said if this was used on articles about women who changed their last names after getting married. Would be pointless considering how many women do change their name after getting married and such transclusions would be overkill. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This would be the same case for {{'s}} which is used after italics. Once could argue that the characters 's can just be set directly and thus removing the transclusions. Do you have any rough statistics as to how many articles use "ne" directly [and could also be a transclusion? (I'm not suggesting we transclude, but wondering about the numbers.)] — DaxServer (t · c) 21:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
390 articles use the link to the birth name article with the ne text. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is fine. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2022 (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:B class destroyer[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:A and B class destroyer. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox which has been subsumed into {{A class destroyer}}, which now covers A and B. Nigej (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Frietjes. I see no reason to engage in 65.92.246.142's broader restruting just because an unused template was found. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 9 March 2022 (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:Pavas-Curridabat Railway[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route-map for a Coast Rican railway service. Nigej (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I created the template in 2019 after a couple of similar route diagrams I also created were moved from the rail transport article to templates by another user, so I proceeded to follow what I thought was the convention for this route, but the other ones have now been deleted, and in the end, the diagram could have been always in the main article because they are not used elsewhere, so I would support deleting this template, but keeping the diagram/contents in the article. Or if now that it has been reused it can be kept as is, that's fine too. --Roqz (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roqz: the settled practice is that route diagrams should be separate templates because even a single mis-typed character can otherwise render an entire page as incomprehensible. Useddenim (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether this should be a template or not aside (I'm on the "not" side), this template is redundant to the table immediately after it in the article. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is in use; whether it's redundant to the text in the article is up to the editors of the article. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2022 (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:COVID-19 pandemic data/India/Tamil Nadu medical cases[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 11:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of individual cases in Tamil Nadu. Surely too detailed to be useful. Nigej (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2022 (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:COVID-19 pandemic data/India/Lakshadweep medical cases data by district[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 11:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The others in this series were deleted here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 27#COVID-19 data by district in each Indian state. Nigej (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2022 (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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Kyrgyzstan medical cases chart/sandbox[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. ✗plicit 11:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sandboxes for {{COVID-19 pandemic data/Kyrgyzstan medical cases chart}} and {{COVID-19 pandemic data/Mainland China medical cases chart}}. Nigej (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No strong opinions either way, but sandboxes usually aren't deleted without good reason, as keeping them is harmless. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason to delete a valid sandbox page. This would set a bad precedent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the moment there are being used by their main template unless someone wants to add them. But we should probably discuss the issue of these COVID data templates with the COVID-19 Project. A lot of these were created for legitimate reasons, but so many have been left unused or were merged within the related articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiCleanerMan Sandboxes are not supposed to be used by their main template. They are a place for experimenting with changes to the main template without affecting pages that use the template. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That I'm aware of. But these haven't been used in terms of edits in over a year or nearly two years. By used by their main templates, I meant being trancluded directing users to test out potential changes without causing major disruption to the main template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your probably right. I've nominated a lot that I think were clearly of no use, so that at some point we hopefully can see "the wood for the trees". Maybe we're getting to that stage now, although when you look at a lot of the articles there's even more "culling" to be done there. Nigej (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiCleanerMan and Nigej, please provide a valid TFD reason. Sandbox subpages are nearly always valid and useful, and they are likely to be used, as sandboxes often are, for template testing and development. They do not violate any guidelines or policies, and they are not redundant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the usual one that unused templates can be TfDed and can be deleted by consensus here. Nigej (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No clear reason to delete sandboxes of existing templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 9 March 2022 (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:Evaldemo/2[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 14:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subpages of Template:Evaldemo. /2 was marked as deprecated. Gonnym (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2022 (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:HTC Wildfire series[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 14:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in one draft article. {{HTC Android devices}} seems to be preferred. Nigej (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2022 (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:DAS[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 14:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused wrapper from 2008 of {{days ago}} with short=yes. Nigej (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2022 (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:DEHistory[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 14:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware template from 2005. Sort of a cross between a sidebar and a navbox. Nigej (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2022 (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:Db-Aziz 0026[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 14:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless wrapper for {{retired}}. Nigej (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2022 (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:Dec2roman[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 14:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{Roman}}. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: Are you only nominating the documentation page, or are you nominating Template:Dec2roman too? GoingBatty (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: Oops. Hadn't realised I was in the doc page. Have added the one I intended. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2022 (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:DecadesAndYears US state[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 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused century related templates. Nigej (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2022 (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:Decade list[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 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template for producing a list of decades in a particular century. Nigej (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2022 (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:DeeRae Ceriesse[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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted as CSD G2. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical content. Nothing is mainspace. Suggest deletion. Nigej (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2022 (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:Deepak bhagwat[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 G3 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical content. Nothing is mainspace. Suggest deletion. Nigej (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2022 (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:DefBoyProductions LLC[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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted, CSD G2. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short description of a company. Nothing is mainspace. Suggest deletion. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2022 (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:DemogFR[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) 22:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, except in two user pages, to display the population of places in France at various census dates. See eg Biarritz#Demography which uses an alternative approach using {{Historical populations}}. Nigej (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2022 (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:Dentistry trophy box[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) 22:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Trophy box" of a couple of articles improved in 2005/2006 as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry/Current Collaboration. Difficult to image any interest in it. Nigej (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2022 (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:Members of the Swiss National Council/Schaffhausen[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 14:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Navbox with no blue links and no main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2022 (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:Members of the Swiss National Council/Thurgau[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 14:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Navbox with no blue links and no main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2022 (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:Members of the Swiss National Council/Neuchâtel[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 14:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Navbox with no blue links and no main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2022 (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:MEXint[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 14:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This appears to be a test that was made in 2016 (discussion link). It looks like the main template, {{jctinit}}, has been improved to include the features that motivated this template's creation, so this one is not needed. See this Mexican highway page, where {{jctint}} appears to be working fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2022 (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:2005 America East Conference baseball standings[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 15:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Do not appear to be usable in any existing articles. The college baseball teams listed in these templates sometimes do not have individual articles for the teams, and their individual seasons are unlikely to be notable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2022 (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:2019 Prince Edward Island provincial election/Belfast-Murray River[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) 22:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Content exists in a reasonable form in 2019 Prince Edward Island general election, so these templates are not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all - the templates are normally transcluded into the articles on the electoral district and any notable candidates, render somewhat different information depending on which article they're in, and are part of a very large system of templates (with about 12,000 transclusions for the base template) ensuring consistency of presentation across Canadian election articles. The table in the main article does not include information on vote swing, vote change from the previous election, and campaign expenditures (which wasn't available when I started making these but should be by now). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to these templates being kept if they are transcluded in articles at the end of the normal TFD discussion period. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The information is already on the respective article as part of the article. No need for more single-use templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they are not transcluded. If they do happen to be transcluded by the end of this TfD in only 1 article, then subst and delete. Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the information is already present in the election article doesn't invalidate these templates in and of itself, because the information also has to be present in the articles about each individual electoral district (tracking its historical election results across the entirety of its existence) and the MLA who represented it (tracking his or her electoral record across the duration of his or her career in politics) — and the entire purpose of using templates, instead of hardcoded tables, in each pair of relevant articles, is so that Wikipedians can't mess stuff up by editing the tables in contradictory ways. The lack of transclusions on this batch wasn't because the templates are inherently "useless", it was simply because the process of actually applying them to the relevant articles for their intended purpose was never completed — but that has now been done, and each of these templates now has two transclusions each, on the electoral district and on the MLA who won the vote, exactly as they're meant to be used. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it hasn't been completed exactly. The 2019 electoral officer's report has more info on voter turnout and on campaign expenditures and limits, and as is to be expected the official results differ from the initially posted results in a lot of cases. I've updated Stratford-Keppoch just now and will do the other 5 later today, plus there's the other 22 districts (each with at least 2 transclusions, more often 3 since this was a protest vote election and most incumbents were not re-elected) to do. Much easier to do these corrections on 27 templates and transclude to the 54 or more articles than to update each article individually. Plus, the CEO reports are available going back to 1966, if anyone's feeling ambitious. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant "completed" in the sense of "the templates have been added to the pages that they were meant to be added to", not in the sense of "all the information that could possibly be placed in the template is already there". After all, the beauty of templates is that if you change the template after it's been transcluded into articles, the change automatically propagates to the relevant articles through the template. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now, it looks like they are now all transcluded in more than one article. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2022 (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:FarCry CMS version[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) 22:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The relevant article was deleted, and this CMS is not listed on the List page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2022 (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:Lletra[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) 22:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No substantive edits (only maintenance edits) since creation in 2008. Does not appear to be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's used on a lot of pages now, and I'm adding more. I'm pretty sure it was used in the past, and I'm not sure why did it disappear from pages. In any case, it's used now. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, it looks like it is now in use. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2022 (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:NYCS Kings Highway[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) 22:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2022 (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:Na orange[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) 22:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Intended to be part of a set of table cell templates with icons and colored backgrounds, but this one, created in 2020, is not used, so it appears to be unneeded. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gives an X with an orange background rather than the usual red that {{Na}} gives you. Nigej (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2022 (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:NowikiAlt[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) 22:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2016, so it does not appear to be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2022 (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:Nutritionalvalue/test1[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) 22:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This was an alternate sandbox that was used in 2008 for development of a template that has since been turned into a redirect. The page is no longer needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2022 (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:Full echinoderm phylogeny[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) 22:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused evolutionary tree. Gonnym (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2022 (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:HURDAT reanalysis[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) 22:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cite template. Gonnym (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2022 (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:Pfam2pdb[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) 22:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template appears to have been used for a while in 2011 in Template:Infobox protein family, but it is no longer used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (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:Cyproterone acetate levels with oral and intramuscular cyproterone acetate[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) 22:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused medication template. Gonnym (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (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:Signcomments[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) 22:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2018, but it does not appear to have been adopted anywhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused and not required. Nigej (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2022 (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:SouthVietnam[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) 22:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. There is no need for this template, per WP:NOTCENSORED. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and many previous discussions in this area. Nigej (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2022 (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:Solomon Islands parliamentary election, 2014[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) 22:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as 2014 Solomon Islands general election#Results uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Content already exists. Nigej (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2022 (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:Metro Tunnel 2 map RDT[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) 22:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route map for a metro that doesn't exist. Nigej (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2022 (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:Swiss Federal Council composition[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) 22:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Izno (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subst/delete per nom. No reason for this single-use article content to be in a template. Nigej (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2022 (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:Limestone Way[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 withdrawn. Going to pull this back. Perhaps the fact these keep getting nominated indicates that they shouldn't exist in single-use templates. Izno (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Izno (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subst/delete per nom. Quite a short article so that this route map can easily be added there. Nigej (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is a valid reason to make this template an exception from the ten thousand or so other route templates that serve the same purpose. It is useful to have this intensely fussy code stored outside of the article, on a page where links to documentation about the route templates can be provided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend a Withdrawal or a Snow Keep based on this December 2020 discussion and the many previous discussions linked from that one. Nothing has changed since those discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the previous discussion, I said

    Subst and delete I've read through all of the linked discussions and not seen any actual valid arguments as to why RDTs should be stored in separate pages, only a ton of "we've always done it this way", arguments that could also be applied in favor of keeping templates like {{cite doi}}/{{cite pmid}}/{{cite isbn}} (which were all deprecated or deleted), and an apparent desire to own the content of RDTs by deliberately making them even harder for unfamiliar users to edit (in the 2016 Teahouse discussion). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

    My opinion has not changed since, and I still feel that this and all its brethren should be substituted and deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasons for keeping this route code in separate templates are detailed in my comment above, and in the previous discussions. I welcome a wider discussion about those reasons, but I do not think that a single TFD is a good place to have a discussion about the validity of an approach used by ten thousand templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a well-established principle that route diagram templates are maintained in the template namespace and that many if not most will be single-use with their parent article. If there needs to be an RfC to reify this outcome (or overturn it) then we should figure that out, but as Jonesy95 said this isn't the place to do it. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2022 (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/2022_March_8&oldid=1138372495"