Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 11:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. Some other template appears to be preferred to this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:37, 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).
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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rolling Stone Top 100 number-one songs of 2019 resulted in redirecting all of the articles linked here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:51, 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).
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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub-template of Template:Village pump page header. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 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).
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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as Template:Subatomic particle has been changed to use a module. Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 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).
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 11:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail templates. Creator said they were from a failed conversion effort. Gonnym (talk) 14:29, 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).
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 14:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. I checked half a dozen of the articles listed here, like Frashër, and they all use more specific navboxes for the relevant municipality. Categories are also divided in the same way (see Category:Administrative units by municipality in Albania). This navbox does not appear to be usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:33, 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).
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 14:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. Template created in 2020; no edits to the page since then. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 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).
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 14:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, or documentation. Unclear where this template would be used. Created in 2017 with many edits, and then apparently abandoned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 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).
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 14:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Navboxes, including {{House of Habsburg after Ferdinand II}} and {{Austrian archduchesses}}, appear to have superseded this sidebar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 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).
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 14:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. If this template is usable, someone should document it and, ideally, transclude it somewhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 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).
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 14:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. Appears to have been created for a WikiProject task force that has not been active since 2014, so it is probably not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 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).
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 14:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The more comprehensive {{Violence against women}} sidebar appears to be preferred on relevant articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 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).
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 14:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2009. Two discussions about it from 2009 say that it was no longer working at that time. It appears that people have figured out how to navigate between /Archive pages using other means. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:45, 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).
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) 21:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This is a roster navbox for a seventh-tier English football team, which (I think) means that most of the players will not be notable enough to have their own articles. There is a good roster at Nuneaton Borough F.C.#Players, and current players with their own articles will have links to the team's page from their infoboxes, from their article's lead, or both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 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).
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) 21:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Appears to be useful only on two articles about the district and the town, but it does not appear to be wanted there. If articles for the mandals are created at some point, this navbox could easily be recreated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. Created in mid-2020. Appears to be an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 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).
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:Peacock inline. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Peacock inline with Template:Peacock term.
This redirect was removed in 2019 but there really is no reason to have two templates for this. Seeing as how the banner is Template:Peacock, Template:Peacock inline should probably be the inline version name. The categories will also need updating. Gonnym (talk) 18:55, 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 March 22. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 22 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double with Template:Express Entertainment TV The Banner talk 19:44, 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, abandoned project (context) Letcord (talk) 19:45, 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Based on the discussion at Template talk:Sfnp/archive 1, it appears that this subpage's functionality was merged into the parent template in 2011. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:23, 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template for a website (www.tenisromania.ro) that is unofficial, out of date, broken, and contains no data not available on the official ATP, WTA and ITF tennis websites which we have widely-used external link templates for. Letcord (talk) 21:45, 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).

Tennis player timelines

[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) 23:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These timelines duplicate info already in prose and tabular forms in player season articles, e.g. 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season. They are also difficult to understand at a glance, and those with text become completely unreadable on narrow screens as the text merges over itself. Consensus was found to delete three of these in a recent discussion. Letcord (talk) 23:22, 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).