Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 8

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. (Author requests deletion.) Daniel (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template was removed from use in its parent template in 2011 (at its previous template name), and that parent template has been fine for ten years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 8 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 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Navbox with no main article and only one other link to an existing article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:34, 8 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 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The more comprehensive and better-named template at {{Alpha Prime Racing}} appears to be preferred. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 8 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 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. Four blue links, five red links, and there is a simple list at the main article, CSM București. It appears that Category:CSM București is doing the job of this sidebar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Just 4 sections in 3 different sports. Realistically the only likely navigation is between the two handball teams, and that's already provided by a hatnote in those 2 articles. So no need for the template. Nigej (talk) 21:25, 8 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 merge to Template:FIAV. plicit 00:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:IFIS with Template:FIAV.
They are nearly similar and noone understand why there are both of them. W like wiki good to know 20:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It appears that {{FIAV}} was created in 2007 with the images, and the six-part grid was added later. In 2010, {{IFIS}} was created, even though it appears to duplicate the functionality of FIAV. I do not see any discussions about this apparent redundancy. FIAV has 419 transclusions and appears to be more complete; IFIS has 75 transclusions and should probably be converted into a redirect. Some tweaks may have to be made to the 75 transclusions of IFIS, and case-sensitivity of the parameter values may be an issue during the conversion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: yes, I also realised that the problem was maybe just different file names of the symbols, some start with IFIS some with FIAV (see: commons:Category:Vexillological symbols). So renaming these files would be reasonable. Or is it better to upload copies with new names? Maybe not, this would create new redundancy in commons!? But actually there are allready "redundancies" like File:FIAV reconstructed.svg and File:IFIS Reconstruction.svg. --W like wiki good to know 21:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to merge, all of those details can be worked out. They should be pretty easy; I don't see any technical issues that would block a merge. Redundant files can be deleted once they are no longer needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The files are used in other wikies, so one should leave redirects not to break the articles. Wikisaurus (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be "reconstructed" or "reconstruction", and so on? It can not find official names, although there is Unicode proposal and it says "reconstruction"... Wikisaurus (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer as above. If there is consensus to merge, we'll figure it out. No big deal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:50, 9 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 00:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No updates to this roster navbox since 2019, and the team has been dissolved, so there is no possible place for a "current roster" template to live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 8 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).

"Rut X" 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 result of the discussion was delete. plicit 00:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a procedural nomination for the templates listed here; following this discussion (permalink), in which the {{Rut X}} templates were replaced by {{Rut|X}}, mainly to avoid the necessity of having a template for every team. This replacement has been performed, so all that's left is to rubber-stamp the deletion of the individual team templates. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simple cleanup. The templates are now permanently unused so serve no more use. Category:Rus templates by country should probably also receive the same treatment. Gonnym (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rus templates are different to Rut templates (Rut templates are for teams, Rus templates are for stadia) so I wouldn't delete at this stage as they haven't been updated yet and are all still in use in their original form, but Primefac is aware and will likely do the same changes for this when he has the time to do so. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However Category:Rut templates and it's subcategories can be nominated if the result of this discussion is delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; should this TFD be closed as delete, the category and its subcategories can be deleted via WP:G8. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 9 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 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation. Created in mid-2020, and does not appear to have been used after almost two years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:22, 8 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 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Has been replaced by the more comprehensive {{NUTS-RO}} in the articles that it links to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 8 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 keep. plicit 00:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Was apparently used at Derbyshire for a while, but this article content has been replaced with actual in-article content instead of a template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 8 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, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. This content appears to be formatted better in articles like Sesshō and Kampaku. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 8 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 no consensus. There seems to be some indication that splitting, merging, or otherwise modifying the existing templates is necessary, but no one seems keen on outright deletion or straight merging through any of the proposed suggestions. There's no prejudice against any of the above (merging, splitting, etc) but it might take a bit more discussion on the related template's talk page(s) and/or involving the Chemistry WikiProject for their opinion(s). If one or more of these templates ends up disused or otherwise a consensus forms from subsequent discussions, there is no prejudice against renomination here. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Propose merging Template:Hexafluorides with Template:Fluorine compounds.
Propose merging Template:Fluorides with Template:Fluorine compounds.
Looks like the first is already covered by the second and the second is covered by the third. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
21:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:54, 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 00:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate of calphotos. User:GKFXtalk 09:49, 8 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, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template to apply an (arbitrary?) negative left margin. User:GKFXtalk 09:44, 8 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 keep. plicit 00:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Buddha with Template:Infobox deity.
The template has many overlapping attributes with the deity infobox, which is more comprehensive. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:37, 8 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 01:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. {{French National Assembly constituencies}} appears to be the preferred navbox; it is much more comprehensive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:33, 8 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 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The main article for this navbox is poorly sourced, with no reference to companies that trade in the exchange, whatever that might mean. The companies' articles do not mention that they trade in the exchange. I don't think that the articles listed in this navbox are verifiably tied together in a way that justifies a navbox for them. A category would work just fine, if there is some characteristic that they actually have in common. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:32, 8 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 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation, no incoming links. There is an equivalent map at Commonwealth realm, which is the logical place for this article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 8 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 01:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No main article for this navbox. These links (except for the NAIA link) appear in {{National Collegiate Athletic Association}} and in Category:College wrestling championships. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:26, 8 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 01:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No longer needed after the parent template was converted to Lua. This should be routine housekeeping. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 8 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 01:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No longer needed after the parent template was converted to use Lua. This should be routine housekeeping. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 8 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 01:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Covered much more comprehensively by {{Sit-in movement}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 8 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 01:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2015. Appears to have been superseded by navboxes, including {{The Marcoses}} and {{Martial EDSA}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created it while expanding the Communist rebellion in the Philippines article years ago. After a while I stopped watching that page because of constant edit warring on it and it seems like someone removed it. I think I can serve a purpose if someone includes more articles into it (or at least redlinks), otherwise just delete it.--Catlemur (talk) 08:46, 8 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 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While this template is tagged as transclusionless, I don't really think this is being used. The fact that it has no documentation or talk page is also a red flag. Gonnym (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it served a purpose in Help:Template until this edit 18:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC) by Kotniski.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:54, 8 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 speedy delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate. User:GKFXtalk 00:07, 8 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 speedy delete per author request. plicit 14:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subtemplate, seems to have been used for applying CSS vendor prefixes to box-shadow. User:GKFXtalk 00:03, 8 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).