Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Edit partially-blocked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Potential misrepresentation of policy, particularly WP:PROXYING and WP:BP. Nominating at TfD because of debate as to whether T2 applies at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Partial-block_edit_request. Courtesy ping @Pppery, Can I Log In, Primefac, AntiCompositeNumber, and TonyBallioni:. Aasim 23:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is currently no consensus if this template is allowed. TfD is probably not the correct venue; RfC is probably next on partial-block edit request. I won't comment further right now. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC) I'll also note that as of 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC), we only have 144 partial blocks, so until this template gets publicized and more get partially blocked we have a LOOONG way to go before its levels are equal to that of {{edit interface-protected}}. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – rather than deleting this, we should put it into general use. People get blocked all the time from editing a particular article, but they are still allowed to edit the talk page and request edits. Reasons for this include edit warring, other forms of disruptive editing, or having a conflict of interest. – bradv🍁 23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not a bureaucracy and all. Valid use case. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Okay I've made up my mind. Think of it as an ArbCom or community 30/500 topic restriction. All non-xcon users are "partially-blocked", or topic-banned, if you interpret it that way, and can use {{edit extended-protected}}. Page protections are "partial-blocks", or once again, topic-bans, and can use the respective edit request template. Why treat individual partially-blocked editors differently? Now for banned editors who are allowed to use the talk page, that's a different story. It also introduces a conflict since you could use page-blocks to enforce page-bans. If you broadly interpret the they have independent reasons for making such edits. part of WP:PROXYING, the endorsement of an edit-request is an indepedent reason. Ok now I'm just talking about the banning policy and possibly straying off of this TfD. Note that I will continue to rework the template and its documentation since it's just a copy of the COI edit request template {{request edit}}. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 03:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even though I haven't personally seen this template go into practice, the idea is very promising. Editors with a COI or without sufficient permissions if the page is protected can't edit the page, so they are encouraged to make an edit request. This p-block template would be functionally the same as a regular edit request template. WP:PROXYING does state that Wikipedians cannot make edits for banned/blocked editors, quote, unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive, which the blocked editor can prove directly inside of the edit request. If there's an issue, or the editor doesn't prove that, the request would be declined. If anything, this template would be better for the article because independent editors can review the edits. That would decrease the chance of spawning an edit war, or other types of disruptive editing. Even though the template is niche now, I think it would be very useful once we have more blocks in place (as Can I Log In points out). Besides, if partially blocked editors are still allowed to make edit requests without the template, where's the harm in letting them make edit requests with the template? –ToxiBoi! _(public) 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bharatiya Janata Party/meta/symbol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @TheImaCow with the reason "unused template subpage" FASTILY 23:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I do wonder if we should broaden speedy deletion criteria to include unused template subpages. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:12TeamBracket-NCAA6-reseed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @User456541 with the reason "Unused template" FASTILY 23:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:12TeamBracket-AFC-NFL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @User456541 with the reason "Unused template" FASTILY 23:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:12TeamBracket with 3rd place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @User456541 with the reason "Unused template" FASTILY 23:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 2020 June 30. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Heads_of_state_of_France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BLP unsourced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is useless due to the BLP policy. This should redirect to {{subst:prod blp}}. Redirect this to that template. –User456541 19:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on why this template is "useless". It's not the same thing as the proposed redirect target. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: See WP:BLPPROD. All BLPs without sources should be proposed for deletion under BLPPROD. –User456541 19:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD is narrower in application than this tag - for example a page with a Twitter link is technically ineligible for prodding, but is still unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't; we have {{BLP primary sources}}, {{BLP self-published}}, and {{unreliable sources}} for cases like that. Adam9007 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring here to having a Twitter link in an EL section, meaning none of those tags would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also {{BLP no footnotes}}. Adam9007 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This template is important for subjects that are notable but require a reliable source. I wonder how it even got here Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This occurred to me ages ago, but I haven't been able to do anything about it due to its protection. Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An external link is technically a source? Any sources, reliable or not, is a source. Look at the New Page Patrol flowchart. If you really think it should have such a tag, the closest I can think of is {{Unreliable sources}}. If it really shoudn't deserve an article, DRAFTIFY, BLPPROD, PROD, or AfD. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 03:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I Log In, Yes, an external link is a source if it supports material in the article. The last thing we need is multiple definitions of 'unsourced'. The waters are already muddied enough, what with BLPPROD having two separate requirements depending oin the circumstances. All of this stuff should be kept as simple, clear, and concise as possible. To my knowledge, the only reason this and BLPPROD were ever separate is because BLPPROD used to apply only to BLPs created after a certain date, and this tag was meant for BLPs created before then. Since the date requirement has been removed from BLPPROD, this template has been redundant (at least when used to tag an entire article, as opposed to just a section or sections). Adam9007 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. This can't be deleted as long as there are unsourced BLPs, at least some of which do not qualify for PROD, e.g. kept at AfD despite lack of sources. Once you've fixed that, I agree with the core premise. Guy (help!) 06:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment {{BLP unsourced section}} transcludes this template. Many of the articles apparently transcluding {{BLP unsourced}} may simply be unreferenced in certain sections, and therefore pass BLP criteria. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 06:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 6580 uses. (edit conflict) Can be used with a "section" parameter, which of course is not the same as BLPProd in any case (see e.g. Henry Rollins or Nick Cave). Which means that the initial position of the deletion nomination is fundamentally flawed. Fram (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JzG and Fram.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but discuss on the template's talk page whether its use should be discontinued in favor of PROD for entire articles. {{BLP unsourced section}} is useful and could be made into a standalone template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This template was useful until this 2017 discussion removed the clause preventing PRODding of pre-2010 BLPs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the full version is also used on Draft articles, which are not eligible for BLPProd but should be sourced anyway. Fram (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless it is decoupled from {{BLP unsourced section}} and like uses, where the proposed redirect would be overkill. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If the "BLP unsourced section" was made standalone then once existing usages of this template in mainspace have been dealt with there should be no reason to use it anymore. For draft articles it may be better to have a different template that states not to move to mainspace until sources have been added. However, this template is still being added to articles even when alternatives should be used instead. In the Category:Unreferenced BLPs from June 2020 almost all those which have not been tagged for deletion have either references, authority control or external links (even if only IMDb or similar), so could be tagged differently. I suspect this template will continue to be used because it is quick and easy for editors who either can't be bothered, don't feel confident enough, or for other reasons are not using the suggested alternatives. EdwardUK (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beth Dunkenberger has no references, has one external link, and that link produces a 404 error. Is it BLPprod eligible? Is it sourced? This template is very useful for people wanting to draw attention to this basically unsourced BLP without knowing whether BLPprod would be acceptable or not. Fram (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EdwardUK: I suspect this template will continue to be used because it is quick and easy for editors who either can't be bothered I suspect laziness is more rife than we care to admit: only a few days ago, I encountered an editor who obviously hadn't read WP:BLPPROD (and also had no intention of doing so!) policy and simply insisted that 'reference' and 'source' mean inline citation (i.e. external links and presumably also general references do not count as sources). I actually had to ask an admin to step in and explain things to them, as it was blindingly obvious that they had no intention of listening to me. I strongly suspect they would have done the same had it been this tag. Adam9007 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of a problem article – is this dead link still a source when it can't be used to verify anything? For this article an archive copy is available and a search suggests other sources which can be added so it can be replaced with a different template, but without reasonable experience or knowledge of the subject would editors feel confident dealing with this along with all the other issues in this article, (rewriting, assessing notability, and on finding new sources knowing if these are reliable, significant etc.), and do they have the time if they already have other tasks or articles to work on, when it could be tagged so that other editors can help. Ideally this particular template should not be used, but it is clear to see why it is. If the template is kept for now there are a couple of changes that could be made – improving the documentation with a bigger clearer message and with alternatives to prod blp, (e.g. add a source and use a different template) and also a message that appears only in preview (similar to the "page using infobox with unknown parameter" warnings) could be added as older editors may still be using this template without ever checking the documentation or being aware of the 2017 decision. EdwardUK (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless it is decoupled from {{BLP unsourced section}} and any other related articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep this nomination makes no sense since BLPPROD can't be applied if sources have ever existed in the article, regardless of quality. Praxidicae (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Praxidicae, This nomination is for {{BLP unsourced}}, not BLPPROD. Adam9007 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007 Thank you, I can read. The nomination statement implies this should be deleted because any time this applies articles should be blpprodded instead. Which is why it's utter nonsense to even propose deleting this for the exact reason I pointed out above. Praxidicae (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, So we should have two definitions of 'unsourced'? One for BLPPROD and another for this tag? That just muddies the waters and makes the other tags redundant, as I pointed out above. It'll also lead to improper BLPPROD taggings, as some editors will insist on the latter definition of 'unsourced' regardless of what BLPPROD policy says. Adam9007 (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't. You misunderstand this template. In fact, I have an entire section dedicated to it on my normal userpage so I can look at unsourced blps (or poorly sourced blps) and either clean them up with sourcing or nominate them at AFD. You're trying to wikilawyer something that really doesn't need to be wikilawyered. It's a maintenance category for items that do not qualify for a blpprod for any number of reasons but are ultimately unsourced. And finally, I said my piece, my mind isn't going to change so please stop pinging and badgering me here, we've been through this before and we are not going to agree. Praxidicae (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, If it doesn't qualify for BLPPROD, it's not UNsourced, not matter how poorly sourced it is (remember, BLPPROD still applies if links do not support material in the article). You're suggesting that we have two definitions of 'unsourced', and that just makes things needlessly confusing. As I pointed out above, this tag was for unsourced BLPs that were not eligible for BLPPROD because of the grandfather clause (which no longer exists, so the full version of this tag is now pointless). I'd also point out that if I remember right, the documentation for this tag said to use BLPPROD for newer BLPs, so clearly they were both going by the same definition of 'unsourced'. Adam9007 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, deprecate, make several changes and clear the backlog, but then delete. Many of the articles do have sources so could be retagged with other templates. It should not be needed for new articles which if unsourced can be moved to draft, improved or deleted. The documentation should discourage the adding of this template in favour of any of the alternatives, not just blp prod. Also it would be useful if the other blp templates had the find sources options added to them. EdwardUK (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And can we just snow this. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep May be necessary. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Digital Combat Simulator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All the game titles redirect to the same page TheImaCow (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FC Rapid București seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, contains only red links TheImaCow (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FSCQuickLinks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, seems not very useful (anymore) TheImaCow (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Figure skating at the 2017 Southeast Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, contains only red links TheImaCow (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Farrah Franklin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The content is extremely lacking to justify its own template. Secondly, none of the singles listed here even have their own articles which, according to WP:Existing, can therefore not be included in templates. The only useful link is the Destiny's Child article where she was a member for about 2 years and even that's already covered on her main article. -- Lk95 13:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Frecciargento lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Frecciargento stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Appears to be an incomplete s-line implementation. I've added the also-unused station template. Mackensen (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GroupABasket15TorontoStandings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GroupABasketMen15TorontoStandings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GroupBBasket15TorontoStandings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GroupBBasketMen15TorontoStandings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of them are currently unused and empty. TheImaCow (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Helsinki Metro station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Higher education in Nepal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. It's also not ever going to be used the way it's setup now. --Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IDesignDeletionday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 1991 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 1995 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The results are already all in the corresponding articles, so the templates are all unused. TheImaCow (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and as the articles already use different tables. --Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Idlib demilitarization and frozen conflict period in the Syrian Civil War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Well, I have no idea what it's for. (Notice: Created by a blocked user.) TheImaCow (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is nothing. --Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:InChI URL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, seems not very useful (anymore) TheImaCow (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Indian general election results, 2019 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, already in 2019 Indian general election included TheImaCow (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IndustrialDesignDeletionday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Before the kingdom of Medes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. Even if it was used, there is probably a template already capable of doing what this does. --Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Pacific Dinning Car (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. This will never be used as Pacific Dining Car already uses {{Infobox restaurant}}. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Shahnameh characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and also oppose its creation and usage. Most of the character infoboxes have been merged over the last few years in various TfD. The working consensus is against creating these for every single "thing". --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox SON Season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. No idea what SON is, but whether it's sports-related or a recurring event, we have infoboxes for those. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Interurban CityTrain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Iraq national football team results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, all links redirect to Iraq national football team results. TheImaCow (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and unneeded. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 15:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 06:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Iso2UNregion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. Also, I'd be surprised if one of the various ISO modules such as Module:ISO 3166 doesn't support this (or can't support it with a simple edit). --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Joban Line graphical timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Julian Kushman (rapper) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content -- we really need a speedy deletion criteria fur such templates TheImaCow (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and empty template. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Karate1 Premier League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, only red links TheImaCow (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and not useful as it's only red links. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Karavali Wikimedians Outreach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Keanu Reeves (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. A navigation template is not needed for 1 link. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 18:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kidz Bop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All the links redirect to Kidz Bop TheImaCow (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pointless. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and unhelpful. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Gonnym: Yup, it was useful when I created it as all those albums still had pages. But through no fault of my own those pages were deleted and redirects made Americanfreedom (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Knego-salute (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pointless. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. This is article text and should be in the article if needed. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 T3 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kotschy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete looks like a test edit. Also, pointless --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. No reason to create templates for simple links --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As the category it's in suggests, it would be used in an author citation, but it should probably be deleted along with other members of the same category because there are better ways to keep track of author abbreviations. (Probably it was useful back when I created it.) — Eru·tuon 06:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kumu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, no meaningful content TheImaCow (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete looks like a test edit. Also, pointless --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and not a real template. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (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).