Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 21

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 00:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A largely unnavigable navbox that includes schools under the Mastery Transcript Consortium international group of schools. However, whether it needs to be revised or made into a subpage of the creator until it's ready can be discussed. Not opposed to these two options. But perhaps all the schools should be listed on its own article than on a navbox that includes all schools under this association. The reasoning being that sometimes articles can help better transclude the school articles than a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Basically just a list of schools. It's really article content, and if it's required it should go in Mastery Transcript Consortium or as a separate "List of" article. Fails much of WP:NAVBOX, since the schools are basically not related to each other (except by being in this consortium), the schools don't generally refer to other schools in the consortium, its not WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (if it was a proper navbox it would be included in every school article). Per NAVBOX: "If the collection of articles does not meet these criteria, the articles are likely loosely related. A list, category, or neither, may accordingly be more appropriate." Nigej (talk) 07:36, 22 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 23:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD documentation templates that seem to no longer be used. User:GKFXtalk 23:07, 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. plicit 23:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with no articles relating to Keir Starmer outside his own. The rest are just links to article sections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:04, 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. plicit 23:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of the Evo Morales navbox. The navbox is already transcluded on a number of articles relating to Morales and thus, a sidebar is redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. My own preference is generally for navboxes over sidebars and I think that's what our readers expect nowadays. Nigej (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2022
  • Delete per nom + Comment. I created the sidebar; if preference is for navboxes, I say go ahead and delete it. I believe the sidebar might have more information and may be better organized than the navbox so I'd ask for an editor to take a look at the former and transclude relative articles from the sidebar before its deleted. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:44, 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 relisted on 2022 January 28. plicit 23:54, 28 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 23:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused interactive map and one that's probably not necessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 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. plicit 23:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article content in template space, but not necessary as the articles for this subject has the same table format, but as part of the articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:40, 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. plicit 00:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not updated since August 2018. A non-defining arbitrary selection. The players are unconnected except for being the "Top ten Egyptian male squash player" on that date, making the navbox of little use for navigation. Nigej (talk) 20:27, 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).

ICC Player of the Month

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

The result of the discussion was delete. plicit 23:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a monthly award is not defining, so we don't need templates to try and link these players together. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 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. plicit 23:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Out of date by almost two years. This content appears to be maintained locally at UCI Men's road racing world ranking. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 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. plicit 23:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used only in the /doc page where it should be subst. No reason for this to be in its own template. Gonnym (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent TfD: /2022_January_14 -DePiep (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How 'arbitrary' colors? -DePiep (talk) 06:21, 24 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 23:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub template of Template:History of the People's Republic of China. Gonnym (talk) 15:13, 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. plicit 23:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub templates of Template:Historical populations. Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 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 relisted on 2022 January 28. plicit 23:51, 28 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) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timelines that aren't used at Ford Falcon (Australia). Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We've seen this style before and they rarely seem to work. Just confusing. Still can't really work out what they are. They clearly aren't designed for navigation. Nigej (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think these are particularly useful. If a graphical representation were helpful, it would be better off integrated into the Falcon article than as a template. --Sable232 (talk) 00:35, 25 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) 13:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Sisimpur, none of these shows (with articles) are original shows to this network which would mean there is no reason for this template to be used on any of these articles (for the same reason we don't have categories for non-original programming). This means that we are left with two links, the network and that one show which is not enough for a navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 15:00, 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. (WP:SNOW) (non-admin closure)AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All articles linked through this template are now redirects apart from the main article. Basically has now become a replica of Template:Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest and therefore the template is no longer needed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:58, 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. plicit 11:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No actual transclusions. Has been blanked since 2014. The information in these templates has been moving to Wikidata, and the parent article for this template is following that pattern. The template is no longer needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:07, 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).