Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 24

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. Primefac (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Parent article Paramilitary punishment attacks in Northern Ireland uses {{The Troubles}}. Not obvious why 8 people are included when countless others could be too. Nigej (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not unused. The template is intended to include all known victims, but this is only for "punishment" attacks and not other forms of Troubles-related violence (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's used now. The parent article says "Police received reports of 6,106 punishment attacks between 1973 and 2015.", so it'd be a long navbox. Nigej (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Navboxes are only supposed to list notable articles with wikilinks. The vast majority of victims are not notable. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I'm thinking that a "list of victims ..." article would be a prerequisite, otherwise it's always going to look like an arbitrary list. Nigej (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the template confuses punishment attacks with—in the perpetrators' parlance—executions. These eight people were all killed, but punishments were not always intended to be deadly, and indeed the majority were not (six-packs, etc). It's also pretty exclusive in terms of orgs; does anyone suggest that the OIRA, INLA or UFF never "punished" anybody? The template uses an unacceptably artificial definition of "punishment attack", while not being able to include everyone that RS state were subjected to it (as noted above: ~twice the number of people who died in the course of the war were "punished" during it). SN54129 14:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:37, 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).
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/Keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:US Rap Albums with Template:US R&B Albums.
Billboard consolidates R&B and rap-specific charts into one R&B/hip-hop chart as one subgenre is distillated from one another; as per WP:CHARTS. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 02:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Rap Albums. All the links are redirected to articles already linked in the R&B template. DBrown_SPS, I'd say be bold and redirect List of number-one rap albums of 2011 (U.S.) without the need for a merge request on your own. No one would revert as this page is the same as List of Billboard number-one R&B/hip-hop albums of 2011. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: I have just redirected the number one rap album 2011 archive to the R&B/hip-hop page upon your suggestion. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 02:15, 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).
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 11:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NODISCLAIMERS/WP:NOTCENSORED. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:37, 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).
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 11:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused basketball rosters. Content already at List of 2017–18 WNBL team rosters. Nigej (talk) 06:16, 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).
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! 05:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused roster for a minor Canadian ice hockey team. Not updated since 2019. It seems that generally rosters are not maintained at this level. Nigej (talk) 06:24, 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).
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. The author has been absent for about ten months, so it is unlikely to be worked on. They are free to request undeletion and userfication at WP:REFUND. plicit 11:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Despite the name, this is not a sandbox of an existing template. It is an experiment, and its intent appears to duplicate {{Massacres against Palestinians}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:54, 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).
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 11:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no categories, no incoming links from discussion pages. Only edits were creation in 2012. Appears to be an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:02, 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).
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! 05:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see we need a navbox to say that there aren't any. Must be better ways. Nigej (talk) 07:04, 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).
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 11:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template that has 1 link with the main link being red. Not useful for any navigation. Gonnym (talk) 07:04, 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).
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! 05:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 07:05, 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).
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! 05:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was something like a decade old idea for how to approach the balancing of fannish information with the generalist encyclopedia perspective we offer here that never really got off the ground. Hell, they're not even called Wikia anymore. Can't see why we'd keep it. El Sandifer (talk) 17:07, 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).
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! 05:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. Only substantive edits were in 2009. Presumably orphaned by preferred templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 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).
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! 05:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and out-of-date, surplus to Cristiano Ronaldo#Club which is maintained. Nigej (talk) 07:18, 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).
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! 05:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Only substantive edit was creation in 2010. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:19, 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).
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! 05:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Seems more like WP:OR than potential article content. Nigej (talk) 07:30, 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).
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! 05:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and duplicates one of the collapse templates, such as {{Collapse top}} or {{Collapsible list}}. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 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).
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! 05:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as it has been converted to Lua Module:SportsRankings/data/WBSC Women's World Rankings. Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may delete this as it entirely relies on the article you mentioned. You should look into Template:FIBA World Rankings/data as a similar issue is seen. Thank you!Sqldf03 (talk) 20:07, 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).
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 11:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, out-of-date and surplus to List of England national rugby union team records. Nigej (talk) 07:33, 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).
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 11:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no piece of information. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 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).
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 11:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content already at 2019 Euro Tour season#Men's. Nigej (talk) 07:38, 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).
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 11:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished. Realistically this is overly detailed and unsuitable for use, even if completed. See List of George Floyd protests in the United States. Nigej (talk) 07:42, 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).
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 11:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article, it even has an infobox. Either needs moving to mainspace (although it looks unfinished) or deleting. Nigej (talk) 07:46, 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).
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 11:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful as the content is already at 2011 Moroccan general election. Nigej (talk) 07:52, 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).
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 11:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused "Purported genealogy" of Peter Mills (pretender). Probably overly detailed for a minor character. Nigej (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the creator of the template. 100 % support removal - I think Mills's invented genealogy is interesting but it's probably not of much encyclopedic value. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per author approval. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 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).
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 11:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old information, surplus to Sri Lanka national football team#Competitive record. Nigej (talk) 08:07, 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).
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 for the first two, delete the third. plicit 11:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covid-19 charts and table. Not updated since 2020. COVID-19 pandemic in Tajikistan has somewhat more up-to-date information. Nigej (talk) 08:13, 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).
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 11:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by Ethnic groups in London, although not in this detail, which is probably not required. Nigej (talk) 08:20, 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).
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 11:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content already at United States Army#Army commands and army service component commands. Nigej (talk) 08:23, 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).
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 11:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{Bodmin and Wadebridge Railway}} which is used at Bodmin and Wadebridge Railway and Disused railway stations on the Bodmin to Wadebridge line. Nigej (talk) 08:58, 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).
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 11:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Club inactive since 2020 and no longer part of a league, so no players for squad template - see news article Zanoni (talk) 08:59, 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).
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 11:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route map. Warsaw Metro uses different diagrams. Nigej (talk) 09:02, 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).
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 11:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing why this template is so much easier than just writing the five words in the template, so seems like a pointless template to me. Not sure how to tell how many times it's been used recently (as it's a substituted template), but I would imagine not many). It was kept in 2011 based on 1 vote by the creator, but I disagree that this is a useful template Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the standard user warning templates should be used instead of this vague threat template. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure there are a large number of 5-word phrases that are used more frequently used that this, but don't have a template. As noted all the standard templates have it hard-wired anyway, where required, so I suspect usage is minimal. Nigej (talk) 14:43, 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).
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 12:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Content already at Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale#Scale overview. Nigej (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).
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 12:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused list. We have List of population centres in Quebec but this isn't used there. Nigej (talk) 12:38, 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).
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 12:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as the project has stopped operations over 10 years ago. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 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).
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 12:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete list of episodes. Content is already at List of I Can See Your Voice (Philippine season 1) episodes. Nigej (talk) 12:44, 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).
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 12:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content already exists at List of Malaysian State Assembly Representatives (2018–2021). Nigej (talk) 12:52, 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).
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 14:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimeos. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 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).
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 14:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, or categories. No edits since creation in 2013. Appears to have not been adopted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 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).
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 14:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links. It looks like people have found other ways to meet this need. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 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).
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 14:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only one transclusion of any of the linking templates in this set, created in 2006. It appears that people don't mind copy/pasting the name of a WikiProject to create a link to it. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 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).
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 23:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An unused navbox from 2020. The main problem with it is that there is no parent article. The navbox has a reference but what is required is an article (assuming that one is suitable). I'm not convinced that even then a navbox would be required, since the stations are not really "related", only in the statistical sense of being at the extremes in terms of usage. Nigej (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of busiest railway stations in Great Britain and List of least used railway stations of Great Britain are the main articles, which I've added to the template and seems to address the majority of the nominator's problem with this template. It hasn't been updated in a couple of years, but I'll flag that up at WT:UKT and I'm sure it will get done shortly as updating all the individual articles is normally done pretty quickly after each release of the statistics. The main articles go into detail, but given the amount of attention these statistics generate it seems very likely that people will be navigating between these articles based on their usage stats only. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue then is whether the stations are truly "related" (see WP:NAVBOX). Just being in the top 20 doesn't make them related. Why are no. 19 and no. 20 related, but apparently not no. 20 and no. 21. This is always the issue with navboxes that cover the top n. Nigej (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm supportive of most things UK Railwayss, but this is the sort of trainspotter nonsense that quickly becomes unencyclopaedic when the next year's passenger figures are not updated. Even update-to-date I think it's about as useful to me as a list of train stations beginning with the letter "W" that don't have coffee shops. More seriously, I believe that passenger numbers in station articles are updated automatically, so why not simply have sortable table containing every single UK railway station. That way we can find least used or most used simply by sorting the right columns (and of course see the ones that begin with "W") 10mmsocket (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add a bit of weight to my support of deletion. This article exists List of busiest railway stations in Great Britain and contains a lot more useful information. It still has to be manually maintained, but given that it duplicates the upper half of the template (together with much much more information) I really can't see what purpose the template serves. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CLN the existence of a category, list or navigation template is not a reason to create or delete any of the others - i.e. in this case the lists existing is not a valid argument for the deletion of the navigation template. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are valid articles, but not valid templates, as I don't see why anyone on one of these articles would automatically be looking for any of the other articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbitary - why 20 of each, and not (say) 10 of each? Or 30 of each? In short: what is so special about 20 as a quantity? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:04, 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).
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 23:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused list of "NFHS Basketball Top Scoring Games Since 2000". Better covered at List of basketball players who have scored 100 points in a single game. Nigej (talk) 17:53, 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).
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 G2 by Mike Peel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 21:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata version of the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: This was a test, I've deleted it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:24, 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).
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 23:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata version of the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 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).
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 23:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata version of the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 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).
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 23:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata version of the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 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).
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 23:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata version of the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 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).
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 23:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata version of the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 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).
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 23:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata version of the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 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).
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 23:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata version of the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 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).
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 23:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata version of the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 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).
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:Summoned by bot. Primefac (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Except one Request for comment comparing {{Botsummoned}} with {{Botsum}} in 2017. Serves the same function as {{Botsum}} (now {{Summoned by bot}}) & may be merged with it. This template is not substituted either (find "Bot Summoned" in source code). ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 19:17, 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. It's in Category:Pages with template loops, which I occasionally patrol, as I am now, and whose members I routinely delete as test pages created by editors who haven't yet figured out how templates work. Without prejudice to recreation as a functional template. wbm1058 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and broken template. Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 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).
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 but feel free to recreate it if needed in the future. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub template. Gonnym (talk) 19:18, 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).
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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 21:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and links to an error page on the Nitter website. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:20, 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).
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 23:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of {{Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyards}}. Nigej (talk) 20:26, 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).
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 23:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Template:Country data Antarctica already exists. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 21:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Template:Country data ICA (also unused) redirects to Country data Antarctica 2021. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 21:15, 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).
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 23:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Low likelihood of substantial use. No flag is linked to the template either, meaning in effect it operates the same as a regular link could. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 21:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as broken and not currently fixable. Nafplio is a real place that looks very pleasant, but the article does not show a flag, and without one, this template is not useful. It can easily be recreated if it is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 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).
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 23:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. I don't think it can be fixed by editing, because search results are provided at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/InspectionQueryTool/InspectionResults.aspx now, in which no ID is present. Trying the example given in the documentation results in an error message. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 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).
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 userfy. plicit 23:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and just duplicates Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Vietnam statistics charts. Was being trancluded on Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Vietnam navbox, but I removed for using improper transclusion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:08, 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).
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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 01:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template that links to a 404 error page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G7. When I created the Template it worked but doesn't now Dr Salvus 23:13, 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).
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 23:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, as Special:Contributions has a "edit count" link at the bottom. Rusty4321 talk contributions log 23:39, 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).