Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amadeus1999 (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 18 May 2022 (→Template:GoToRandom: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 15 May 17 >

May 16

Template:GoToRandom

Appears to be redundant to {{Random page in category}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Get Austria location code

No transclusions except in a VPT discussion thread. It appears that the templates and other pages necessary for this template to function have been deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Gandzasar Kapan

Only two links to articles. The stadiums the team plays in. Everything else is either a link to a redirected category or the main article about the football/soccer team. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Garda rank insignia (1922)

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gandzasar F.C. squad

Unused and out of date football squad navbox. There is a roster at FC Gandzasar Kapan with no links to articles. Until there is significant interest in creating and maintaining articles about current players on this second-tier team, this navbox is not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Game row

No transclusions in article space. Proposed and rejected in 2007. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GameTrailers

No transclusions of this external link template created in 2007. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GWTblock

No transclusions. Appears to have been used one time. Presumably, this template's function is served by a different template, or it is out of date and no longer applicable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should be careful deleting this as unused. This is a template that is intended to be used in block log messages so that it displays to blocked editors when they attempt to edit. Such uses do not show up as transclusions in the "what links here" special page. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GSKsidebar

Sidebar with no transclusions in article space. Proposed and quickly rejected in 2013. Not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GR A ref

No transclusions. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GHBH

Redundant warning template with hard-coded editor name and inscrutable page name. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future year

Appears to be redundant to {{NEXTYEAR}}. Replace with that template and delete or redirect this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future citation needed

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2011. Does not appear to meet any need. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to {{citation needed}} and {{needs update}}. If an article contains unsourced speculations they should be tagged as needing a citation or deleted. If an article contains outdated information it should be tagged as needing an update. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Full Brown Cabinet

No transclusions. Appears to be redundant to {{Brown Cabinet}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ft in to cm

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. This template's function is probably provided by {{convert}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forever Neverland World Tour

One transclusion in a draft article. Copy this infobox code directly into that article, then delete this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For Public Good Party

No transclusions. Replaced in articles such as List of political parties in Taiwan with {{party color}} and associated modules (e.g. Module:Political party/F). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For Aluka website

Used only in one editor's sandbox. Appears to be an experimental fork of a welcome template. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fnote3

These templates have apparently been deprecated for a long time (see this discussion and Wikipedia:Footnote3), and diligent editors went through a few years ago and replaced them with appropriate templates. It's time to finish the job and delete these templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Floatquote

Used only in one talk page. Subst and delete. Other quote boxes work fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Basically unused, decorative quotation boxes haven't been used in articles for years per the manual of style, uses tables for layout which is bad for accessibility, many alternate templates available etc. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fighter

Used only in one editor's sandbox. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ficha de país

Used only in one editor's sandbox. No documentation, template name is not in English. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Feminizmo ir lygybės asociacija (FILA)

Used only in one editor's sandbox. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb in3 header

Used only in one editor's sandbox. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Functionality appears to be provided by other templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Falsifiability

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⚡ 21:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, except in one editor's sandbox from 2006. No documentation or categories. Subst and delete, I think. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it. In fact it will be easiest if I do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poof!  Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:39, 16 May 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).

Template:Fake dubious

Redundant to {{Dubious}}. Replace the single transclusion with that template and then delete this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 This is a fake version of the dubious template that doesn't sort the page into clean-up categories and the like, for use in documentation and discussions just like {{fake CN}}. The single use of it is a message on a talk page, so replacing it with a real template would not be appropriate. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template has one transclusion and no documentation. If {{dubious}} assigns categories when the template is used outside of appropriate spaces, that should be easy to fix so that it can be used in talk space and template documentation without categorizing those pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FIL-Luge name

No transclusions of this external link template created in 2009. Appears to not be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FF4npcbox

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CT Color

No transclusions. Module:Adjacent stations/Casablanca Tramway will do the job if it is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LNER 2018 color

All transclusions have been updated to use Module:Adjacent stations/London North Eastern Railway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Userbox/Actor-NetworkTheory

No transclusions. Unused soft redirect. The only incoming link is a notice that the page has been moved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F/2

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 Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These subpages contain proposed changes to their parent template, discussed in 2008. These test subpages are no longer needed and should be substed and deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 16 May 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).

Template:ExtendedComment

No transclusions. This template fork does not appear to have been adopted more than a year after its creation, even by its creator. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Experimental template

The community appears to have standardized on the more flexible {{Template rating}} for this purpose. I propose redirecting this template to that one, with appropriate replacements of the handful of transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EuroFXStart

No transclusions. Created over a year ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethernet parameters

Apparently created for use in a user draft that has not been edited since 2008. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had plans to expand on it and use it elsewhere, but my life took a different course. OK to delete. itpastorn (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Essex-Orleans Vermont Senate District, 2002-2012

Single-use template that appears to be article content, but is not used in any articles. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eprint reference

No transclusions or categories. Appears to have been replaced by the much more functional {{Cite arXiv}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EpTab

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 Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used in a single user sandbox that has not been edited for two years. Subst and delete this straightforward table header. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead Great Mercian (talk) 17:29, 16 May 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).

Template:DGRC

No transclusions of this single-source citation template. Created in 2010. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DESA

No transclusions in article space. The only transclusion is in a list of example templates on a WikiProject page. Created in 2008, appears to have been abandoned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cyrillic

The use of this talk page template does not appear to have motivated actual edits, as over the past decade since it was added to some 3 dozen talk pages, I just removed about 2 dozen (leaving some dozen with it). Either this should be made a main page template in the vein of {{Arabic script needed}} (preferably without loss of the specificity of this template) or it should be removed. Izno (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It could still be needed somewhere, but I would support it becoming a main page article. Great Mercian (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (Edited by Great Mercian (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos

This template should be replaced with the base version (Template:WikiProject Nigeria) as it doesn't allow usage of any other banner value (and modifying it to support them is just an exerise in maintenance burden). As a consequence it also causes pages to use the same banner more than once (see Talk:Ronke Odusanya) Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The banner template Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos survived a speedy deletion in 2017 and aids the categorization of uncategorised new or existing Nigerian articles to the Nigerian WikiProject while simultaneously including them to their related sister WikiProjects of the remaining states of country. To the best of my knowledge, at the time of this discussion, there are at least two Nigerian states with these sister templates, i.e. Rivers State and Lagos State. Your observations are based on this article Talk:Ronke Odusanya and others affected and I agree that it is unnecessary to use the two templates at the same time. However, I opine that this issue does not warrant a nomination for deletion as it can be corrected by removing the repetitive templates from the affected articles' talk pages. However, you also need to be aware that I have been involved in the categorizations of numerous articles using only these sister/state banner templates of Lagos State:Template:WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos or
WikiProject iconNigeria: Lagos Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lagos.

and Rivers State:

WikiProject iconNigeria: Rivers State Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Rivers State work group.

without solely using their base Nigerian WikiProject banners as it automatically adds them to the Nigerian WikiProjects. Deleting this banner template will cause disruption by automatically removing these numerous categorized articles from their state WikiProjects unless there's a means of solving the problem by keeping them there after deletion. Eruditescholar (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Evidently, one cannot do the job because these are state templates while the other is a country template. I'm fine with merging as long as an administrator can ensure that the affected articles are not removed from their state WikiProjects.- Eruditescholar (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then just set {{Wikiproject Nigeria|Lagos=yes}}, which is identical to what we have now. What's so hard about it? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I replaced them here, merging the two banners by merging the parameters. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extremely poorly made and rather pointless wrapper template that just invokes {{WikiProject Nigeria}} with the Lagos parameter set to yes. This doesn't pass through other parameters to allow you to set any of the other template parameters like a quality rating or importance rating, which breaks several important features of wikiproject sorting, using this on talk pages creates pointless duplicate banners, all the functionality this has is already built into the parent template, and just setting a parameter to "yes" is insufficient complexity to merit a wrapper. Frietjes has just orphaned this template by merging them all into the parent templates, so this is now unused and can be deleted with no loss. The arguments above categorisation make no sense, using {{WikiProject Nigeria/Lagos}} categorises the articles into the exact same set of categories as {{WikiProject Nigeria|Lagos=yes}} because they are the same template. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I only just revisited the rationale behind your vote: I don't know your own level of standards of template quality to rate it as "poorly made". However, the template has been successfully used to categorize articles to both the Nigerian and city/state WikiProjects simultaneously with the feasibility of quality asessments in terms of importance and class of any rank without any hassles. If a banner template successfully does the job it is intended to do, what else is needed? Why did it survive a speedy deletion attempt in 2017 if it wasn't relevant? Your implication that the template is "poorly made" only weakens your rationale because it means it needs improvement, not a nomination for deletion. Eruditescholar (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It survived a speedy deletion attempt in 2017 because you deleted the speedy deletion tag from it, despite this explicitly being against the rules of speedy deletion. From WP:CSD: For most speedy deletion criteria, the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it. Do you think that you blanking deletion nominations from a page you made somehow serves as evidence that it is useful? I don't know how you classify a template as "successful" but a template that breaks most of the functionality of the template it is wrapping and results in pointless duplicate banners being generated is not successful by any measure. The base template can already classify pages into both the country and city/state wikiprojects (and can do so without breaking everything else) so I don't know why you insist on holding that up like it's an amazing feature. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the deletion tag because it was akin to vandalism in my opinion at the time (I know better now) and I counted it as a regular edit that any editor can make on pages including those created by the editor in question. From that incident till date, despite the fact that administrators have the power to delete templates without any tagging, it has survived. Regarding the template features and functionality, the wikitext was copyedited from a similar template created by another editor. After testing, I decided to use it on all relevant articles because it achieved the purpose it was meant to serve. Your own definition of successful may differ from mine but getting results with a banner template is what matters most at the end of the day. -Eruditescholar (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging a page for speedy deletion under a criteria that was completely correct is not vandalism under any definition of the word. The fact that it survived the speedy deletion in 2017 is irrelevant and does not show that the template is useful, it would have been deleted if you hadn't broken the rules and de-tagged it. It doesn't "serve the purpose it was meant to serve", it results in pages being tagged with a half broken duplicate banner who's entire functionality already exists in another template on the page. Frankly I'm done here - this discussion is just going around in circles, you do not appear to understand why this has been nominated for deletion or, more generally, how templates work, and you keep wasting my time by repeating the same ridiculous arguments that fail to address any of the reasons this has been nominated for deletion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your reiterative complaints about my past revert in 2017 is unnecessary here because I have not maintained that the speedy deletion was vandalism in my previous comments. Since the banner template was created over 6 years ago in 2015, it has been used to categorize hundreds of articles effectively and an administrator would have deleted it instantly if it was damaging Wikipedia which begs the question: Why is this issue just being raised now, after all these years?-Eruditescholar (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one that keeps trying to use the dumb argument "this page hasn't been speedy deleted yet so it is immune from deletion"! The page has been nominated for deletion because there's an ongoing cleanup project to delete all the useless, duplicate, unused and broken templates from template space. And yes, it is harmful in a small way because it breaks the functionality of the wikiproject sorting template upon which it is based. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not made any dumb argument here because my explanations are backed by facts and I have not implied that the banner template is immune from deletion. I'm not against cleaning up or sorting because regular maintenance is necessary. For all I care, this TFD discussion can go in any direction. However, there are better ways to rectify a minor fault if it may cause more problems by significantly undoing several valid edits (which is potentially vandalism.) There's a big difference between a banner template causing extensive damage to disrupt knowledge provision for users and a minor fault that has only been detected by some editors.-Eruditescholar (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Pharmacology/Popular pages/Total

Unused very old page views for pharmacology pages. If this is wanted, it should be subst somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology and then deleted. If it isn't wanted, then just delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Popular pages/Total

Unused very old page views for Philosophy pages. If this is wanted, it should be subst somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and then deleted. If it isn't wanted, then just delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Nav/template

Unused sub-pages of {{WikiProject Philosophy}} (which aren't really sub-pages). Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Cell Signaling

All of these WikiProjects were converted into task forces of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology and are supported in Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology (except for RNA). These templates usages should be replaced with the main WikiProject one and when completed, delete these templates. Gonnym (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I can see why these templates have been nominated for deletion, however AFAIK any article assessment information from these templates has not yet been transferred to Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology (and indeed users still use the former WikiProject templates on new articles, despite the switch some years back). I know that WP:COMPBIO has a number of academic projects based on this article assessment information and using other tools which summarise this information (eg the 1.0 server, or Quarry), so I'd like to suggest that: (a) we ensure this (former) WikiProject-level data is not lost during the transfer Gonnym suggests, and (b) it is still 'mine-able' in the same way following the transfer, for all task forces of WP:MOLBIOL (eg, can we extract the same sort of data for a task force of a WikiProject? It's not clear to me that this is the case, but I'd be happy to be corrected :) ) Happy to discuss. Thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amkilpatrick I've tested the following: {{WikiProject Molecular Biology|class=C|importance=mid|COMPBIO=y|COMPBIO-imp=mid}} and the page was placed in the following categories:
C-Class Molecular Biology articles, Mid-importance Molecular Biology articles, C-Class Computational Biology articles, Mid-importance Computational Biology articles, WikiProject Computational Biology, All WikiProject Molecular Biology articles. Is something missing? Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks ok to me, I think. I expect if the WP:MOLBIOL template puts articles in separate categories as above, eg C-Class Computational Biology articles, this should be picked up by other tools with no noticeable difference (I apologise I'm a little ignorant to how these things work 'under the hood'!) Thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Asking questions is exactly the point of this TfD to make sure everything works as expected. I'm not sure how this tool works but it displays User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Computational Biology, which gets its data from the categories. Since the categories aren't changing, I don't think that the tool will need updating. Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping for further visibility @Evolution and evolvability:, @Seppi333:, @Alexbateman: Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while the parameters are already set in Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology, I personally would advocate for clean up and standardization of the parameter names before migration. I had to look inside the code to find |COMPBIO-imp= since the example in the documentation uses |MCB-importance= and there isn't a |COMPBIO-importance= while there are 3 other parameter names. There really isn't a reason to have 4 variations for the same parameter. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems logical to me too, but I'm not so familiar with template coding; maybe something Evo&Evo or Seppi can comment on? Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Sociology editing

This is currently unused with no indication if it was ever used. However, even if it were used, Template:In use should be used instead of having a template like this for each WikiProject. Gonnym (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia-Book selected for publishing

Unused and won't be used as there are no longer any Wikipedia books. Gonnym (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quick infobox

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh

No transclusions. This navbox appears to be a copy of {{Lok Sabha}} at a name that does not match the contents. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022–23 Southern Conference basketball standings

No transclusions. Appears to be unusable, since {{2022–23 Southern Conference men's basketball standings}} and {{2022–23 Southern Conference women's basketball standings}} both exist and are used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country table

No transclusions. This template was created in 2006 and TFD'd as keep in 2007 because it might be useful. Fifteen years later, it appears that nobody has adopted it for use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcome-suboptimal-nosign

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 Userfied and delete redirect. As I created this template, and this was primarily for my own use, and there are issues with it remaining in the Template namespace, I have moved it to userspace and had the redirect tagged for speedy deletion per G6/G7. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to fork Template:Welcome-suboptimal. If the template creator thinks something is missing from the template, they can suggest improvements on the talk page. Having numerous welcome templates makes it so improvements to these get lost and is a step backwards. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 16 May 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).

Template:Sofia Metro color

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Sofia Metro. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coord/doc/internals and other unused subpages of Template:Coord

No transclusions. Subpages, and documentation for template subpages, that no longer exist or are no longer used, now that the template has been converted to Lua. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ConvertStringToNumeric

No transclusions. Created as an experiment and linked from this discussion. The idea behind it was eventually incorporated into a different template. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia ad exists

Only used on about 70 pages. I don't think a template is needed to display this information at the top of a (WikiProject) talk page. There are multiple other ways to display this kind of information.

It almost definitely shouldn't be used on namespace 1 (Talk:) pages. Izno (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox judo competition event

Completely redundant to Template:Infobox sports competition event. Can be merged into that template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: The template has many functionalities that it's ancestor doesn't, that includes providing support of more types of games, supporting display of mixed team competition winner, improved wikilinks and enabling use of official DB links in the template — among others. The nomination looks like the nominator hasn't read the template's source code, nor looked at it's application in more than 400 articles. CLalgo (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Games related articles should use their respective Infoboxes, not sport particular ones. Also, DB links should be in the external links of an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all games have specific templates. More over, some templates such as {{Infobox martial artist}} do link to external DBs, so that point is mute as well. Thirdly,not all pages using the template are part of "games". This nomination should be withdrawn. CLalgo (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Pan American Games

Fork of {{Infobox Olympic games}}; redundant to {{Infobox games}} (compare) per previous TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep distinct events with distinct requirements. No need to delete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Used over at 48 articles for a specific event and doesn't fork the Olympic games infobox. Two different international games infoboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Used over at 48 articles" [SIC] is not a reason to keep a redundant template. The template creator's edit summary when creating the template was "create template based off template:infobox olympic games " - in other words, a fork. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 48 articles references it's specific use. 48 article about the Pan American Games exist. "Only 19 transclusions", as you stated from that original discussion. How could it be redundant now given the expansion of the number of Pan American Games articles? And if it's a fork of the Olympic games infobox, then why not merge both into the Infobox games template instead of deleting it? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • "How could it be redundant now given the expansion of the number of Pan American Games articles?" Because 48 is still a very low number; because usage stats are not in any case a measure of redundancy or otherwise, and because many of those instances were swapping one infobox for another (see the example I gave, above), very similar, infobox. What do you think should be merged from this template into another (and why was that not simply added there in the first place)? As two merging to other templates, neither of which are part of this nomination, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Both of the above keep arguments are either irrelevant or mere unsupported assertions. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_16&oldid=1088542558"