Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 14

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still no transclusions five years after the previous TFD closed as "no consensus" with only two contributors to the discussion. Clicking on the image takes you to an external web site, which is a bit of WP:EGG violation, IMO. This functionality would be better implemented as a gadget or script or an external page that people could link to, like the copyvio tool. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 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) 22:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Most of this content already exists at the single article in which it would be useful, Vanderbilt University Law School. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 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) 21:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, or documentation. All substantive edits were made in 2007. This appears to be a template copied from Norwegian Wikipedia and then incompletely translated into English. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 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 redirect to Template:Uw-attack. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, does not appear to have been substed. {{Db-negublp}}'s documentation says to use {{Uw-attack}}. Since this template's name matches Db-negublp I suggest redirecting this one to Uw-attack. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 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) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no main article. These articles could conceivably live in a category together, but they do not appear to be tightly related enough for a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 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) 21:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links for this navbox. No main article. Fails WP:NAVBOX. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 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; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 12:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused set of tabs. User:GKFXtalk 20:48, 14 January 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) 21:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate of Template:WikiProject_Status. User:GKFXtalk 20:46, 14 January 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) 21:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and unlikely to be used as it's dated 2020. User:GKFXtalk 20:44, 14 January 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) 21:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Kept in 2010 because people were familiar with it but presumably that is no longer necessary. User:GKFXtalk 20:41, 14 January 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) 21:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article stub in a template. Content is also present at User:Jot70320/sandbox in more complete form. User:GKFXtalk 20:37, 14 January 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) 21:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template to display the date after tomorrow. User:GKFXtalk 20:29, 14 January 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) 21:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been replaced by Module:SelectServiceAward. User:GKFXtalk 20:19, 14 January 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 most and no consensus for color scheme, but feel free to renominate it if you would like to see it merged with the main documentation page, or deleted completely. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplates of {{documentation}}. The first two colour tables seem to be identical, not edited substantially since 2014, and slightly outdated (e.g. header underline colour is wrong). Ruler subtemplate is not part of how documentation is done on this wiki, it should be removed if template doc pages are imported from other languages. The rest look like they just used to be used by {{documentation}} and now aren't. User:GKFXtalk 20:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The TemplateStyles page for Template:Documentation can be found at Module:Documentation/styles.css. SuperDragonXD (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unused; Subst and delete Template:Documentation/color scheme as it is now only used in the /doc. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 21 January 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) 16:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented template to assist with synchronizing sandboxes with the the live template. I think the idea is you type {{subst:documentation/sync}} in the sandbox and save it, but it is quicker to type {{subst:msgnw:../}} and achieve the same thing without a template (or just copy-paste). User:GKFXtalk 19:52, 14 January 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 12:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a selected article for a small portal (789 page views in the last 30 days) is a very meaningless feat, and yet the banner is placed at the top of a talk page and is larger than most other banners. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom—particularly in terms of the banner blindness. User:GKFXtalk 19:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, this is not a template and should go to MfD instead. On the merits, delete per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 11#Articles featured on portals templates * Pppery * it has begun... 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not a template? It's designed as a template with parameters and it is used as a template by transcluding it. It's also used in mainspace talk, making it not a project sub-page. The only difference is the incorrect namespace used. Gonnym (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a template because it's not in the template namespace. It is my position that TfD should only be used to discuss pages in the template and module namespaces. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful, and I agree with the banner blindness concerns. The procedural issue, in my opinion, should be ignored. It looks like a template and quacks like a template. If it weren't deleted, a page move to the Template namespace would be pretty uncontroversial. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:29, 20 January 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 12:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been a normal discussion message instead of a banner. Since this process seems to be dead (last active at 2010), I propose to remove completely from talk page and then delete. Gonnym (talk) 11:29, 14 January 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 12:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been used since its creation in 2009. 28 (talk) 04:32, 14 January 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 00:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 00:07, 14 January 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 00:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 00:06, 14 January 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 00:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 00:05, 14 January 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 00:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 00:05, 14 January 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).

Electoral district constituency templates

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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 Withdrawn. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 00:05, 14 January 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 03:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 00:03, 14 January 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 03:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unused. Probably unfinished. Currently basically a copy of {{Infobox constituency}} with the word "constituency" changed to "legislative district" so there's no sense in keeping it. If there is a requirement for these words, the constituency infobox needs modifying, we don't need new ones all the time. Nigej (talk) 10:29, 14 January 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 03:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 00:02, 14 January 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).