Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3[edit]

Template:Lombard-Pápa TFC squad[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. Izno (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pápai FC last played in 2015, which makes a current squad template no longer needed. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Defunct team. Nigej (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Defunct team....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - defunct clubs do not need a 'current' squad, as they do not have one. GiantSnowman 18:10, 4 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).

Template:Tesla Mafia[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. Izno (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Sadly we don't seem to have any content about it, so it needs to go. Just noticed that there was an article Tesla Mafia but no more. Nigej (talk) 21:10, 3 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).

Template:Transcluded table as list/example table[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; deleted as G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Transcluded table as list}} was deleted a year ago and this has been left behind. Unused.. Nigej (talk) 21:04, 3 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).

Template:Tribal religions in India[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. Izno (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with only 3 links. There is a parent article Tribal religions in India but {{Religion in India topics}} seems a better way forward with a section "Other paths". Nigej (talk) 20:53, 3 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).

Template:Typo Team News[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 move to Wikipedia:Typo Team/Typo Team news per the objection of someone who wants to use it. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"News" from the Wikipedia:Typo Team that's been blank for over 8 years. Nigej (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep Hey, no news is good news! But seriously, to be honest I completely forgot this exists after it was removed from the main project's page by another editor. I still think the idea could be useful and I may start using it now that it's been brought to my attention again. So as creator, I suggest keeping but I'm really not opposed if other's see if differently. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Blank template with no purpose after eight years. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This delete is factually untrue. There's a difference between "no purpose exists" and "it's not been used for its purpose," which is to have a way to communicate with the other Typo Team members. And given that I just said, I might start using it again, saying it has "no purpose" is ignoring that. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, subpage it given the project objection. --Izno (talk) 18:35, 9 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).

Template:TCAward[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. Izno (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relates to Wikipedia:Triple Crown. Clearly unused and can be deleted. Nigej (talk) 19:29, 3 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).

Template:T&O topics[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. Izno (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Sort of a navbox on trauma and orthopedics. Probably not needed. Nigej (talk) 19:11, 3 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).

Template:Hindu Nationalism[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 relisted on 2022 February 10. Izno (talk) 19:15, 10 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).

Template:Welcome all to Wikipedia[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. Izno (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fork of {{Welcome to Wikipedia}} hard-coded with a single username. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely inappropriate. Can serve no useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm also looking warily at WP:Welcome message. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly needs deleting too. Nigej (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also delete WP:Welcome message as another duplicate. Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 3 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).

Template:Introductory pages[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 userfy. Consensus here is that it is a duplicate of {{basic information}} and thus not necessary, but that the creator is welcome to use it for improvement purposes. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a newly created templates that seeks to collect introductory pages. However, it includes a bunch of pages that I wouldn't consider all that useful for newcomers, e.g. Wikipedia:Database reports, and other questionable choices (e.g. the first link is to WP:Welcome message, a newly created page that's a mishmash of a non-standard welcome template (there's no standard welcome template) and a fork of Help:Introduction. For a beginner just looking to know where to start, this template is not helpful, as there are a whole slew of pages in the Starting guides, Intro pages, and Tutorials section, all but guaranteeing confusion and choice paralysis.

Further, we already have {{Basic information}}, which describes itself in its documentation as Similar to the Template:Wikipedia help pages, but simplified (whether it's actually simplified is debatable, but it's certainly more simplified than this one). We also already have Template:Help:Introduction/navigation, used to help editors navigate between pages in the introductory series. Overall, consolidating our help resources is the number one challenge of our help system, and introducing this new, redundant, not particularly helpful navbox is a step in the wrong direction. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to {{Basic information}} as nom. It seems that creating redirects from all plausible titles is sometimes the only way to prevent stuff like this from being created. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to point out that the comment above is by the originator of this proposal. I fully respect all opinions and views on this; I'm simply noting that to provide full clarity. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{Basic information}} is sufficient and if it needs rewriting, rewrite it. Don't create an unnecessary new one. Nigej (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Serves a clear purpose as a resource to easily find a large variety of resources that were not grouped together previously. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome the suggestion above regarding navboxes in general, that suggests if it needs rewriting. rewrite it. I would suggest exactly the same course of action in regards to this navbox. I see no reason why we cannot have a positive, mutually beneficial discussion, that would help to resolve any problems with this item. I think this navbox can hopefully be useful to others, and I would be glad to willingly accept all of the helpful feedback, input and points above. --Sm8900 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that there's no need for two. We don't need Introductory pages and Basic information. The correct approach is to make changes to Basic information, discussing changes where necessary to form a consensus. It looks to me as if you're trying to hijack the system with your own ideas. Nigej (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nigej: i very much appreciate your thoughtful reply, fellow editor and Wikipedian. ok, but how on Earth does coming up with an original idea for a navbox, creating it myself, and doing all the work, and then posting it in several highly visible venues here at Wikipedia, constitute "hijacking" the system in any way? As you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looks to me that you're doing rather too much self promotion, that's all. Like posting your template to Jimbo Wales. Wikipedia is essentially an anonymous activity, however some editors do object to their work being copied without attribution. Someone looking at the edit history of {{Welcome all to Wikipedia}} might get the impression it was your own work, when it just a copy of something else. These sort of things can annoy people. Nigej (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I appreciate your reply, and will keep your points in mind. "annoying" is fair enough as a comment. "hijack" just seemed a tiny bit strong, that's all. as far as self-promotion, I saw it as the opposite; posting something publicly, seemed to me to be one valid way to try to seek community input on a new template. if I hadn't posted it anywhere, then people could say I was self-centered, for not seeking out other editors' input, right? just saying. and as far as the edit history goes, ok, true, but isn't that the nature of any newly-created item?
    and also, as far as copying another item, well, yes, that was indeed an existing item previous to this. I simply felt that the unique blend of formatting, visual icons, and useful info meshed with useful links, made that item worth promulgating to a larger audience, and to the community at large. so that was my main thought.
    I do truly appreciate your reply, I am glad to hear your input, and I do truly appreciate and enjoy this interchange. I appreciate you engaging on this. please feel free to comment further any time, if you wish. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete is fine, per nom. --Izno (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno:, ok, sorry, but what is the objection to this navbox? curious to hear your views. also, why is this item seemingly so objectionable to some editors? isn't this an example of following WP:BOLD? --Sm8900 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD is not carte blanche to do whatever you want without criticism or concern about what you've done, only a sufficient explanation to be the first person to do it.
Having duplicate navigation is simply bad for the user. The current navigation should be improved directly instead. Or, as in the nom, sometimes the scope of the created template is bad for the users who should get the most out of it. If this is actually introductory, it shouldn't include pages not designed for the introductory user. Izno (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: ok, fair enough. as you pointed out; "If this is actually introductory, it shouldn't include pages not designed for the introductory user.". Ok, I fully accept that. so based on that, do you think we could please discuss some ways to improve this, rather than simply deleting this? I am fully open to any and all of your points on this item. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to keep this as a copy in your user space to work on, usually no one will object for good faith contributors and contributions.
But, because one of the issues is significant overlap/duplication of intent with a navbox which already exists in wide use, I do not think it is appropriate to keep it in template space.
What you should look to do, rather than defend the existence of this template, is persuade the editors of those already-existing templates to add the links you think are missing, and possibly spin up a template to contain those that you cannot convince others to add there. Showing others what you think would be better might be one way to use the copy in your user space; another is to put together the template you think would fill in some holes. Izno (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I appreciate your reply. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. I'm also not convinced of the need for this template and I don't think it's ready to be in template space as an unfinished experiment, but since the creator intends to continue working on it I see no harm in moving it to user space. We give users a large amount of latitude over what they can keep in their user space, and ideas from this template could potentially be merged into {{Basic information}}. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:51, 14 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).

Non-medaling Basketball squad navboxes[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. Izno (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Squad templates for non-medaling Basketball teams. Previous consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 6#Template:Angola Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 29#Template:Slovenia Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship (and at other TfDs noted in these articles) was that these sort of templates should be restricted to medal winning teams. Squads are listed in articles like 2011 FIBA Asia Championship squads. Note that this is not a complete list. Nigej (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable teams. They didn't win their respective tournaments or championship they participated in. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:06, 4 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).

Template:US Air Force Installations in the Central Command[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. Izno (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three unused maps. Were used at List of United States Air Force installations but have been replaced with inline versions. Nigej (talk) 17:03, 3 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).

International women's cricket tours 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These were created in 2020 and are all unused except that the England one is used at West Indies women's cricket team in England in 2020. They are clearly unfinished, the content mostly dying out in the early 2000s. However, the main issue is that they replicate the "Home series" sections of already well-used templates in a somewhat different style: {{Australia women's national cricket team}}, {{England women's cricket team}}, {{India women's national cricket team}}, {{Ireland women's cricket team}}, {{Netherlands women's national cricket team}}, {{New Zealand women's national cricket team}}, {{Pakistan women's national cricket team}}, {{South Africa women's national cricket team}}, {{Sri Lanka women's national cricket team}}, {{West Indies women's cricket team}}. Unless there is some plan to use them instead of the existing ones they should be deleted. Showing readers two templates containing the same content is just likely to confuse. Nigej (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, the way I would expect these templates to be used would be like the men's equivalents i.e. that on the tour articles (e.g. Pakistan women's cricket team in the West Indies in 2021), we'd add the "cricket tours of X" templates to the bottom, rather than the "X women's cricket team" templates. Not sure why the tour information is in the "X women's cricket team" template, as that just makes them way more bulky (especially if they were up-to-date). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that could work, replacing two navboxes by just one more focused one could well be an improvement. Nigej (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These templates aren't new and were created ~1.5 years ago. Since the discussion started, they are still unused. If none of the keepers has any intrest in doing the work to make use of these, then this is clear indication to me that they should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I know what work needs doing, but am reluctant to update 10 templates and translcude them in 10+ places whilst this TfD is ongoing, as they may just get deleted anyway. Also, WP:NODEADLINE applies. There seems to be support for keeping and reworking these and the other templates, but I wouldn't expect anyone to put in all that effort whilst there's the threat of all the effort being a waste. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually WP:NODEADLINE, an essay, does not apply, anywhere, ever. Especially not when we are talking about templates created 1.5 years ago and are unused. That said, if you are going to put the work to make these usable, then sure, I'll change to keep. Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That they are only 1.5 years old is a good thing - if they'd been around for 15 years, I might be tempted to ditch them too! And I didn't know these templates existed until this discussion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These templates are not confusing, even if they come close to replicating existing 'home series' templates – they set out the links differently from the way the 'home series' templates do, and therefore perform a useful function. If they are not (yet) fully populated with links and being properly used on pages, then the solution to that problem is to populate them fully with links (including red links if necessary) and add them to pages, not to delete them. I agree with the posters who have observed that it is inappropriate to add them to pages while there is a debate going on as to whether to delete them. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Joseph2302's comments re. altering the information presented on the X national cricket team template and the ones up for discussion. Also, I'm happy to help with updating/transclusion etc. when a decision has been reached. Last year I went through and made articles for all missing full international tours, so there shouldn't be any red links to create, just need consistency with applying the templates. Also perhaps as we're updating the templates, we can come to a consistent decision on whether we use, for example "English women's cricket team tour" or "England women's cricket team tour" and move pages titles/create redirects accordingly (although perhaps that's a discussion for another place!) Mpk662 (talk) 11:28, 5 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).

Template:WAM Ambassador[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. Izno (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Wikipedia:Asian Month is still going strong but this particular aspect never seems to have got off the ground. Nigej (talk) 14:51, 3 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).

Template:M-Line[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 relisted on 2022 February 13. Izno (talk) 21:06, 13 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).

Template:UAE related portals[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 11:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Uses "Related portals" to list other related portals to the one you're in. Difficult to image any sort of use. Nigej (talk) 11:43, 3 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).

Template:Related portals3[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 11:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Seems to be the same as {{Related portals2}} but has "Related portal item small" instead of "Related portal item". Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Template:Related portal item small deleted that template so I'm assuming this won't work any more. Nigej (talk) 11:34, 3 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).

Template:UWRC November 23, 2015 editathon[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 11:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused banner. Other similar ones at Category:Cascadia Wikimedians User Group templates are used. Nigej (talk) 11:14, 3 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).

Template:US COA tablekey[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 11:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Looks the same as the earlier {{SCOTUStablekey}}, so I've no idea why it was created. Nigej (talk) 10:30, 3 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).

Template:United States Men Basketball Squad 2003 Pan American Games[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 11:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused squad templates for teams that finished 4th and 5th. Previous consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 3#Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 6#Template:Angola Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship was that these sort of templates should be restricted to medal winners. Nigej (talk) 08:45, 3 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).

Template:United States presidential election voter turnout since 1828[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 relisted on 2022 February 10. ✗plicit 11:46, 10 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).

Template:United States article count[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 11:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Counts up the number of articles in WP:USA. Unused Nigej (talk) 08:00, 3 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).

Template:United Nations General Assembly Committees[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 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar for use at United Nations General Assembly First Committee etc. Now replaced by "see also" section and {{United Nations General Assembly System}} navbox. Nigej (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (I created it a few years ago), its utility seems superseded by the referenced navbox. Brantmeierz (talk) 18:40, 3 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).

Template:United Kingdom MPs by Parliament header[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 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage replaced by {{Navseasoncats}}. See eg Category:UK MPs 1935–1945. Nigej (talk) 07:23, 3 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_3&oldid=1073153244"