[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 17 February 19 >

February 18

[edit]

Members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussions like Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 17#Template:FBA 1927. These fail much of WP:NAVBOX. The members elected in a particular year have nothing really in common, no more so than any other arbitrary grouping of the members. Articles for one member almost never mention those elected in the same year. We have List of members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences etc and Category:Members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences which are more than adequate. I have excluded the {{Founding members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences}} from 1955 which may be a notable group. Nigej (talk) 05:56, 18 February 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/Equatorial Guinea medical cases chart

[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. These have remained unused since 2020 and long-standing practice is to delete such templates. Potential future use is not binding; that alone is not sufficient. Should these be needed at some point after COVID blows over (either in a week in or in a century), restoration requests may be honored. ✗plicit 05:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused tables and charts of cases and deaths, all abandoned in 2020. Nigej (talk) 06:24, 18 February 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:Reversi diagram alt text

[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 05:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused following deletion of related templates, eg {{Reversi diagram}} Nigej (talk) 06:32, 18 February 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:Settlement in Ukraine

[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 05:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User only made three edits and the creation of this was one of them. Serves no useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 06:39, 18 February 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:Soccerbase match

[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 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Soccerbase external link template. Other similar ones are used, eg {{Soccerbase}}, but it seems that this match feature no longer works. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 18 February 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:Kano lists

[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 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and surely too trivial to be useful. Nigej (talk) 07:37, 18 February 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:Kansastasks

[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 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kansas/to do now redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kansas, which seems to make this template useless. Unused. Nigej (talk) 07:42, 18 February 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:Ladakh 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 delete. ✗plicit 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Most of the blue links point to different sections of Ladakh (Lok Sabha constituency) and many of these sections don't exist. Nigej (talk) 07:48, 18 February 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:Siaha 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 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{Saiha District}}. Nigej (talk) 08:19, 18 February 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:Tambapanni monarchs

[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 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar covered by the first part of {{House of Vijaya}}. Nigej (talk) 08:59, 18 February 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:Tehsil-wise-map-of-Jhelum

[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 05:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map of the Jhelum Tehsils. Covered by {{Neighbourhoods of Jhelum}} and images like File:Tehsil wise map of Jhelum.jpg are used directly. Nigej (talk) 09:08, 18 February 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:CountriesVisited

[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, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and broken userbox which was already converted. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 18 February 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:GoldJigsie

[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, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover cruft from a disruptive editor who has been indefinitely blocked. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 18 February 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:Beauty pageants in Laos

[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 14:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with two links which both redirect to the same article. Nigej (talk) 13:25, 18 February 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:Miss Universe UAE

[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 14:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for an event that hasn't actually happened yet. Nigej (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A navbox needs to have a few links, so even next year this will not be needed. Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:10, 20 February 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:Research team member

[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 14:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused banner created back in 2005. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If even its creator isn't using it then there probably is no need for it. Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 24 February 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:North Station timeline

[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 14:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:36, 18 February 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:Wikipedia's sister projects (single column)

[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 14:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to Template:Wikipedia's sister projects and Template:Sister project links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and redundant to the others. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 24 February 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:Russian district 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. ✗plicit 14:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not used anymore. Abandonded by creator. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 24 February 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:Indo-Aryan languages/doc

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

The result of the discussion was keep and transclude Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The template documentation is in the template page, and attempts to transclude this /doc page in the standard way by multiple editors have been reverted. See Template talk:Indo-Aryan languages for the reverting editor's rationale; consensus is against them, even locally, but the editor is persistent. This /doc template contains nothing different from the in-template documentation, so it can be deleted, since a single editor's local opposition makes it unusable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If that's going to stop the three templates appearing in database reports and prompting people to come and "fix" them, I agree with deletion. The doc subpages contain only the boilerplate code and categories, which were copied from the main template pages, so there's nothing to preserve here. – Uanfala (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added a second /doc page to this nomination. See Template talk:Old and Middle Indo-Aryan for more of the same Quixotic discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Added one more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with content added (moved) from parent template. Regular documentation pattern. As multiple editors have argued (when moving the content into the /doc page, before being reverted), there is no sound argument to make the exception except by wikilawyering & microarguing. Must say, I have never seen such documentation setup being enforced (with deaf ears for general & good practice). I am not looking forward to have thousands of similar templates being edited into having doc inside (now that would be a burden). Then, once this TfD decides consensus to apply regular /doc usage (by Keep), any revert can be labeled vandalism/editwarring and so be acted upon. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been discussed before. But here's a summary:
    • The use of subpages is done for one or more of these reasons:
      • To allow the docs to be edited by anyone if the template itself is protected. This is not relevant here, because those templates have never needed protection and it's unlikely that they will ever do.
      • For performance reasons: so that edits to the documentation of a widely used template don't force reparsing of all the pages that use the template. This is not relevant here, because the templates are all small and their documentation consists only of categories and a boilerplate piece of code, so it gets edited only rarely (if ever).
      • To prevent people editing the documentation from accidentally messing up complex template code. This is not relevant either: those templates are navboxes, and so their code is simple (if you try editing them you'll see that the documentation is in fact the bit that looks the most complicated).
    • This absence of meaningful benefits of doc subpages for these templates has to be balanced against the presence of costs:
      • With a doc subpage, it is not always easy for a normal wikipedian to figure out how to edit it (mind you, these are navboxes, the people editing them are the people who edit in the topic area, they don't normally do templates).
      • With more pages there come a higher maintenance burden (e.g. if the template is moved, the doc will break and it may not be obvious to normal editors how to fix it).
      • The doc subpage is guaranteed to have fewer watchers than the template. This makes it more difficult to notice and revert disruptive changes to it. This consideration has higher relevance here than for many other backroom areas of the encyclopedia, because these templates, being navboxes, are directly reachable (via the {{vte}} links) from mainspace. The results of undetected vandalism to the documentation will be visible to readers, not just to editors.
    Also, the guidelines at WP:DOC allow both options, so if you'd like the use of them to be treated as vandalism, then you'd probably need to at least get the guidelines changed first :) – Uanfala (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these bullets is convincingly forcing us to keep doc in parent template, and in certain very specific situations at that, and against regularity. All(!) maintenance/burden/risk/performance bullets mentioned here are secondary to stable, easy-to-edit setup (iow, these are supportive at best, but never replacing any "anyone can edit" pillar). Also, of course, having two forms of editing is not helping any editor. The view-edit-talk links are stable and accepted as editor-friendly, even throughout mainspace. And I note that "discussed before" is not an argument: TfD exists to establish (new, possibly changed, strong) consensus. Single-form and stable regularity is what helps editors. (Note that deletion would require rediscussion of hundreds/thousands of such template/docs, still while no new guideline is being created). -DePiep (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understood correctly, your point is that all templates should have doc subpages because that will allow the display of the "[view] [edit] [history] [purge]" links at the top of the blue documentation box. If that is the case, then the solution is to tweak Template:Documentation so that it displays those links in a consistent fashion regardless of whether the documentation is on a separate page or not. I don't think it's a good idea to solve such layout/formatting issues by the creation of tens of thousands of new pages that will otherwise be a clear net negative to the project. – Uanfala (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "clear net negative" here. There is one editor arguing that for these three templates, the standard mechanism for documentation pages used by template pages should not be used. At the discussions linked above, consensus is against that editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no "standard" mechanism: both options are allowed by the guidelines and both are widely used. I don't see any "consensus" against the status quo: both in the previous discussion and here, I only see you, DePiep and one other editor claiming that subpages are a Good Thing, full stop, and should be forced on all templates. – Uanfala (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    re: this is procedural not argumental. This is a disingeneous 'reflection' of my arguments. It does not address their substance. I am not panning the derogative "only" statement now, a priori assumption is it is incorrect (eg, see earlier discussions). -DePiep (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and transclude. In case it is unclear from my nomination, I think that these subpages should be kept and used in their parent template pages, per standard usage in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use. Update if necessary. This is my considered and ongoing opinion when it comes to /doc pages. No crystal ball means never knowing when template protections might become an issue, so I have always preferred separate doc pages. Really? editors won't be able to figure out how to edit them? Maybe a few, but that's not a good reason to ban usage. Also, gentle reminder that admins and page movers can move subpages when they move template pages, so they don't usually get left behind. And if they do get left behind, it's an easy fix. Reasons to delete and not use these are too trivial for words! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 23:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and transclude, doc pages are useful. Frietjes (talk) 20:41, 25 February 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:Quaternary climate

[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 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar from 2010. Seems unlikely it'll ever be used. Nigej (talk) 18:32, 18 February 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:RENFE-Barcelona R1

[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 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, from 2006. Relates to R1–RG1 (Rodalies de Catalunya) in some way, but its usage is unclear. Perhaps an abandoned idea. Nigej (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Module:Adjacent stations templates should be used anyways. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 20 February 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:RMCOTWArticle

[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 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music collaboration of the Week. Unused. Won't ever be used. Nigej (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 20 February 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:RO-B

[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 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relates to Romanian counties. We have 18 of this style of template, these 7 are unused. There are some 40 counties, so the others don't have a template of this style. The ones that are used, put a little flag in County parameter in the infobox at eg Iași. Pașcani manages with plain text which is perfectly adequate. Nigej (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dealt with the flag templates, but is there a country flag family of templates for counties? Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found anything apart from this series. I think that normally just the name is given. Flags for the country are much more common. Nigej (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem that there are country data templates for sub-divisions of a country, see Category:Subnational country data templates. So probably the correct thing to do is convert all the county templates at Category:Romania county templates to use the correct template. Gonnym (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That said, these are unused, so delete. Gonnym (talk) 06:46, 23 February 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:Railway stations served by South Western 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetic list of railway stations. Already covered by {{SWT Stations}} which allows selection of individual lines. Nigej (talk) 19:35, 18 February 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:Rapid transit in North America

[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 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Wrapper for {{USSubway}} with a few non-US systems added which are partly covered by {{Rapid transit in Latin America}}. Nigej (talk) 19:41, 18 February 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:Ray

[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 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comic book area is completely swamped with navboxes. This one is unused. Nigej (talk) 19:56, 18 February 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:Stations Map in Padang

[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 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railway layouts in Indonesia but there isn't any article content to use them. Nigej (talk) 20:52, 18 February 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:Games Workshop Worldwide Campaigns

[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 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox that doesn't navigate anywhere anymore because all the articles in it (with one exception) have been judged non-notble and deleted/redirected at AfD. of the three blue links here "Eye of Terror" was turned into a redirect and the section it is supposed to be targeting no longer exists, "Albion (Warhammer)" was turned into a redirect and now points to an article that only contains a name drop, and the last blue link is the sole page this template is used on. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 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:Number-one singles in Zimbabwe

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded in only one article, numerous red links, and links that do work all direct to the same article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:47, 18 February 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:Lorem ipsum/more

[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 23:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Content changed by Mathglot to say that this template is no longer needed after edits to the parent template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If Mathglot would be willing to comment about this template and about {{Lorem ipsum/joinreq}}, which is also unused, that would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tl;dr: the first is because of rev. 1037043393 of 05:54, 4 August 2021, which simplified the template code by deprecating the /more subtemplate which previously had been used to output paragraphs eleven through twenty. The other one was a design approach intended to be part of a solution for the upgrade to 'join' functionality ultimately implemented in rev. 1037367064 of 6 August, but the subtemplate was never used, not even in the sandbox and should have been G7'ed but I guess I forgot.
Gory details: The deprecation of the /more subtemplate was part of a series of changes to simplify the template from 7kb down to 2kb, and from a design with deeply nested if-conditionals, to no nesting, with no change to the output visible to the user. The template generates up to 20 paragraphs of output based on the value of |1=, of which only the first ten paragraphs are unique. If 11 or more are requested per the value of |1= they are just duplicates of the first ten, paragraph eleven being the same as paragraph one, twelve the same as two, and so on. The first simplification was just to export the actual lorem text to individual subtemplates, one per paragraph, so the control code in the main template is more compact and readable.
In earlier versions the main template output the first ten, and then called the subtemplate /more (see transclusion of /more near the end of rev. 850806862) to output paragraphs 11-20. I can only guess why the original template did it that way, but my guess is that either the deeply nested "if's" just became inscrutable and finicky to deal with and test past ten levels, or maybe something to do with the decision that past ten they didn't need to be unique anymore.
In any case, after the first simplification, it became easier to eliminate the nesting, and once that was gone, it became just as easy to read or modify the main template code whether it emitted ten paragraphs or a hundred. There was no more reason to have a subtemplate anymore just for paragraphs 11-20, so the main template was simply extended by adding another ten (non-nested) conditionals, which call subtemplates /11 through /20, which currently simply redirect to /1 through /10 (e.g., Template:Lorem ipsum/P15) facilitating a future transition to 20 unique paragraphs, if needed.
Subtemplate /joinreq was never used at all, not even in the sandbox (search sandbox revisions). It was created as a design approach that was ultimately abandoned in the upgrade to the 'join' functionality. In older versions of the tempolate, the 'join' feature was part of an overloaded value in param |3=, which was mostly used to define the 'suffix' functionality, but confusingly was used for 'join' as well. The new named parameter |join= was created as the dedicated param for this feature, with param |3= simplified to serving strictly as the 'suffix' param. The /joinreq subtemplate was never needed. Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added /joinreq to this nomination per the above explanation. Thanks to Mathglot for the comprehensive feedback. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 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:MMA box collapsible

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No documentation or incoming discussion links. Used only in a single user draft that has not been edited since 2013. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. Also per MOS:DONTHIDE there is no place for this at all. Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
substitute and delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 23 February 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:Blocking admin user

[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 G5 by Nick Moyes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless and inappropriate template, ostensibly aimed at Checkusers, created by a brand new user with only 1 mainspace edit to their name thus far, which would never by deployed by any self-respecting administrator or checkuser. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I haven't logged into Wikipedia in a while. Saw an email about this and thought I would put in my 2¢. Definitely think it's reasonable to delete this. I haven't participated in a deletion discussion for a while. Not sure if it's easier (or more correct process-wise) for the creator to delete something, or if it's easier to let the process play out. Kevlar (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have now deleted this per CSD G5 as I subsequently investigated this editor further and have blocked them for sockpuppetry (User:AlfredoEditor and others). Let's not waste time discussing something a blocked editor has created when we have a legitimate reason to delete it. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 18 February 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_February_18&oldid=1074023572"