Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 3

< March 2	March 4 >

March 3

Template:MAGA Patriot Party/meta/color

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) 23:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MAGA Patriot Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; this party does not exist. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MAGA Patriot Party does exist, it has been reported on by various news outlets, and has filed with the FEC. See citation ^[1]. The party was removed from the "List of political parties in the United States" without my knowledge and for no apparent reason. With the news coverage the party receives, I felt it viable enough to be put on the list. Trump is not affiliated with the party but the party follows his ideology (colloquially known as "Trumpism") and supports "DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC." in fundraising. The party is based in San Antonio, Texas. Parker newlin
Delete Creator added MAGA Patriot Party to List of political parties in the United States and this was part of that process. It was subsequently removed from the article. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#MAGA Patriot Party. Not sure it's a real party currently so best to remove at the moment. Either way what's the evidence that this is the appropriate color to be used? Nigej (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 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:Makeeditnotice

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) 22:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Makeeditnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; niche and simple enough to not warrant a template (button exists at Wikipedia:Editnotice). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 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:2020–21 Nigeria Professional Football League summary

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) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020–21 Nigeria Professional Football League summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single-use, can be easily merged with the article per consensus at WT:FOOTY. 198.102.151.243 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & delete into 2020–21 Nigeria Professional Football League where it ought to be. Nigej (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 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:Biden cabinet

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 Template:Biden personnel, Cabinet-level child-template. Izno (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biden cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Biden personnel, Cabinet-level child-template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Biden cabinet with Template:Biden personnel, Cabinet-level child-template.
Both of these navboxes present the same information. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:Biden personnel, Cabinet-level child-template. Unnecessarily long name and presents the same information. Template:Biden cabinet is formatted in line with other cabinet templates. Kyjama (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template:Biden personnel, Cabinet-level child-template per Kyjama. Corky 05:50, 10 March 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:Cabinet of Joe Biden

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) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cabinet of Joe Biden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Outdated, probably would only ever be used in Cabinet of Joe Biden which already does this in a similar format (but not as a template, as it's unnecessary to split off). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do so support deleting it, i made it as a copy for the trump cabient but id support deleting it, i forgot about it lol. Phillyboy123 (talk | contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillypaboy123 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Biden cabinet or Template:Biden personnel, Cabinet-level child-template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 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:Table Population Town

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. This may take a bit of time to implement. Izno (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chart Population Town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Table Population Town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used in articles, and they pull outdated data from "Database Population Placename" templates. Note deleting this would also imply deleting all pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Database Population, which I'm not going to add to this nomination for brevity (they are not used in any articles either, currently). Some of those were previously nominated before here, though the situation has changed slightly - neither of the parent templates (the ones I nominated) are used at all. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As unused and not within scope of the template namespace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future generations, the list of templates deleted but not nominated is below.

Extended content

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:UpdatedDYKNom

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:UpdatedDYK. Izno (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UpdatedDYKNom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:UpdatedDYK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:UpdatedDYKNom with Template:UpdatedDYK.
These appear to be duplicates, with the only difference being that UpdatedDYK uses the ivory message box (which imo is better for a talk page notice), whereas UpdatedDYKNom uses tmbox. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original editor of the newer one of these, and I can see from the history I was editing the other one at the same time. I just compared them as they were then (July 2006) and they were quite similar then as well. Frankly I have no idea why I created the second one at that time, and I think merging them is probably a good idea. So I support such a Merge. Sdkb, thanks for the notify. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 4 March 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:Refsubst

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) 16:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Refsubst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Reflist should not be substed in the general case as it introduces significant wikitext into the source, even with safesubst as this template is littered with. This also has not been maintained relative to the core template. Lastly, I'll be adding templatestyles to Template:Reflist soon (and removing it from Common.css), and I would rather not have templatestyles tags littering the mainspace anymore than it does for various other reasons. (There is a workaround for that last by introducing {{ifsubst}}, but the CSS will no longer apply as .reflist will no longer be in Common.css.)

I would not be against turning this into a simple subst of the tag (that is, subst of <references/>), but this template's name + subst ends up being longer than that text at the end of the day, which makes that an unfortunate offering. Izno (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of this template was to provide more customization options (such as setting the list type and number of columns) for those cases where the bare <references /> tag has to be used, such as when a page is exceeding the WP:PEIS limit frequently (I will note that mw:Help:Cite strongly discourages using wrapper templates around <references />, but weaning us off of that would require it to support setting the list-style-type). However, if your intent is to remove the reflist class from common.css, that would just leave this template with the ability to set the column width, which we frankly never should be doing since the <references /> tag now uses responsive column widths by default and mw:Contributors/Projects/Columns_for_references says that fixed columns should be deprecating or removed for accessibility reasons. To make a long story short, I support deleting this template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably have a {{reflist begin}} and {{reflist end}} for cases where we are concerned about expansion limits. That would relieve at least one of them (argument expansion). --Izno (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Not a bad idea, since it will fail more gracefully if the templates don't render (at least the references themselves would show). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{reflist begin}}/{{reflist end}} do indeed appear to be a better solution for this template's intended use case. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 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:WIR-23

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. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 12:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIR-23 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and the event already happened, so unlikely to be used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of a suite of templates, deleting would lead to confusion. If it's unused, it's simpler and less confusing to simply mark the template as unused since going from -22 to -24 without having -23 when there was a -23 meetup. It could also be bot-deployed on the articles associated with the edithaton. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lot of the subtemplates into the core {{WIR}}. There's no reason to be tracking this many. --Izno (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's 193 of these afaict sweats feel free to nominate them for merging and I'll support that. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Izno. Surely this has got completely out of hand. Nigej (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nigej, It may seem "out of hand" to you, but it's been useful to those of us who participate in these editathons. WikiProjects are free to decide how they want to track things and this is what we chose to do. Pinging Rosiestep and Victuallers as founders of WIR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The wrapper may be useful when the particular WIR is ongoing, but once it's finished why not replace it with the actual WIR text and get rid of the wrapper. You're up to 191 now and the 190 old ones are basically just gathering dust. Nigej (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, you may decide how to track things, until the community decides that the way you are tracking things is suboptimal or disruptive (WP:LOCALCON). Having 200 templates that are indeed gathering dust post-editathon is an issue. I doubt anyone would want to stop you tracking which articles were worked in each editathon, but if we're going to compare this to other projects, then this is basically equivalent to having 200 kinds of Template:WikiProject Video games. Clearly suboptimal for all parties. A template that looks more like {{WIR|200=y}} would make a lot more sense. --Izno (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Having 200 templates that are indeed gathering dust post-editathon is an issue" I'm going to put a big fat ^{[citation needed]} on that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which part was confusing? That it is an issue or that they are gathering dust? I presume not the second, so it must be that you like having 200 templates that do the exact same thing in the template space. I do not, and our templates can do better. Anything else for your sarcasm today? --Izno (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I ask, what exactly is the issue here. What article or project are harmed by those? The existing system is clear, and works well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective the issue is that WIR is a means to an end - we're building an encyclopedia and this is part of it. We're not in the business of collecting old templates or congratulating ourselves on how clever we've been in the past. Copy out the interesting/useful text but the templates themselves are not useful. These templates are currently in Template namespace, ie part of the encyclopedia, when they should be archived somehow into Wikipedia namespace like other projects. Nigej (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep template is added to the articles created during the editathon. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Headbomb and Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep History is history. These are our archives. You don't delete or burn old versions of important documents or replace them with updated versions. As the nominator notes - we are up to 191. That's 191 Women related editathons that we are up to!!! (or 190 if we ignore editathon number 23 - which we don't intend to .... ever). Victuallers (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all. Lets use our tools sensibly, and not create (nor perpetuate) redundancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 5 March 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:WIR-28

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. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 12:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIR-28 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and the event already happened, so unlikely to be used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of a suite of templates, deleting would lead to confusion. If it's unused, it's simpler and less confusing to simply mark the template as unused since going from -27 to -29 without having -28 when there was a -28 meetup. It could also be bot-deployed on the articles associated with the edithaton. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Headbomb. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep History is history. These are our archives. As the nominator as noted - we are up to 191. That's 191 Women related editathons that we are up to!!! (or 190 if we ignore editathon number 28 - which we don't intend to .... ever). Victuallers (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all. Lets use our tools sensibly, and not create (nor perpetuate) redundancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 5 March 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:WIR-136

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. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 12:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIR-136 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and the event already happened, so unlikely to be used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of a suite of templates, deleting would lead to confusion. If it's unused, it's simpler and less confusing to simply mark the template as unused since going from -135 to -137 without having -136 when there was a -136 meetup. It could also be bot-deployed on the articles associated with the edithaton. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Headbomb. These are part of a group of templates used to keep track of editathons. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep History is history. These are our archives. As the nominator as noted - we are up to 191. That's 191 Women related editathons that we are up to!!! (or 190 if we ignore editathon number 136 - which we don't intend to .... ever). Victuallers (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all. Lets use our tools sensibly, and not create (nor perpetuate) redundancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 5 March 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:WIP/Preload

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) 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIP/Preload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used by {{WIP}} or as a preload, as far as I can tell. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to have something to do with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 11#New work box now at the top of the Project page (which I found by looking at the creator's contributions around the time they created this template), but I was likewise unable to find anything that still uses it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 5 March 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:No space joiner bold superscript middot no space non joiner

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. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 07:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No space joiner bold superscript middot no space non joiner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No uses; no incoming links; and less efficient than just typing the code ‍<sup>{{bullet}}</sup>‌. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also takes the prize for the most obscure name. Nigej (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and stupidly named. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 5 March 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:MTV Europe Music Award for Best World Stage Performance

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) 22:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTV Europe Music Award for Best World Stage Performance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:10, 3 March 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:MTV Europe Music Award for Best Rock

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) 22:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTV Europe Music Award for Best Rock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:09, 3 March 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:Grammy Award for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album

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) 22:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammy Award for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:08, 3 March 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:Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album

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) 22:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:08, 3 March 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:Grammy Award for Best Music Video

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) 22:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammy Award for Best Music Video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:07, 3 March 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:Nevers-Chagny railway diagram

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) 22:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nevers-Chagny railway diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; article this is for is a redlink. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:43, 4 March 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:Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance

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) 22:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:05, 3 March 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:Netflix original animated series and films

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:Netflix original animated series and films. Izno (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Netflix original animated series and films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netflix original animated works (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Netflix original animated series and films with Template:Netflix original animated works.
These contain the same information, though are presented somewhat differently. Having two is unnecessary. {{Netflix original animated series and films}} is more up-to-date while {{Netflix original animated works}} splits by "current" and "ended" shows.

Also, neither of these are used in article-space, though {{Netflix original animated series and films}} was created recently, so I'd assume it will be. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I created both and I forgot that I had already created the "works" one. Whoops! Feel free to merge, thanx. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RayneVanDunem do you have a preference for the manner in which they are merged? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:28, 3 March 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:Montserratian English

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) 22:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Montserratian English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; Montserratian English is a redlink. Such a niche English variety that we don't need a separate template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Island has a population of 5,000 or so. Can surely be covered by another variety. This whole area needs a massive purge: Pitcairn Islands English? population 50. Nigej (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The standard written form of English in Montserrat is British English anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused, may even qualify as a G8 speedy. Also @Nigej: and @Elliot321:, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_6#Template:Alderney_English. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:06, 6 March 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:Mongolian legislative election, 2008

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) 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mongolian legislative election, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, replaced by election box in 2008 Mongolian legislative election Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Results already in 2008 Mongolian legislative election in slightly different style. Nigej (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 4 March 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).

^ "FILING FEC-1490249".

[1] "FILING FEC-1490249".

[1]