Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 3

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mercedes-Benz engines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with only two links. Both articles are already listed on List of Mercedes-Benz engines. I'm sure there is no need for a timeline navbox for everything Mercedes-Benz-related. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mirza Fatali Akhundov State Prize of the Azerbaijan SSR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused medal template. Nothing but a link to the medal article and transclusion of the image of the medal. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nepal provinces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused provincial map of Nepal that just links to the articles of the provinces. Not needed when they are plenty of other ways to access those articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Louis Leakey family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused family tree. Best to navigate through Category:Leakey family and the sections of the biographical articles about their personal or early life that mentions the family members. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support This family tree is effectively a subset of the Template:Leakey family tree, so this template is redundant. However I think the reasons suggested for deletion above are spurious. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the existence of the template you pointed out until now. Calling it spurious is false. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase "reasons suggested for deletion above are spurious". If a family tree is unused, surely the answer should be to add it to the pages linked to in the tree, not delete the tree template. As to "Best to navigate through Category:Leakey family and the section of the biographical articles about their personal or early life that mentions the family members", this argument could be applied to all family tree templates for which there is also a corresponsing category. I think wholsale deletion of family tree templates meeting this criteria across wikipedia would be a mistake. While I support the deletion (or redirect) of this particular tree template, I do not support the reasons given in the nomination, as I think they are dangerous to wikipedia. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to {{Leakey family tree}} as a subset of that one, so is also the family tree of Louis Leakey with some ancestors -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Clickable world map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This is a valuable resource for an encyclopedia. Contrary to the nomination, the page is used, just not directly in any articles, and some articles have links to it. Importantly, the page receives an average of 71 page views per day, which means that readers are very likely using it as a means to navigate. Also not impressed with the use of a two-word rationale to qualify deletion of all of the work that went into producing this exceptional resource. This comes across as deletion simply for the sake of deletion, rather than considering the wider implications that said deletion would potentially have upon Wikipedia. Does everything in template namespace that's not directly used in articles need to be deleted nowadays? The answer is no. Deletion of this particular map would make Wikipedia inferior, rather than improving it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Even if it it not used at the moment the it can be utilized in the future by editors and can also be used as a reference point by editors also. - DownTownRich (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I confirm everything said by @Northamerica1000. The template has more than 2000 views in the last 30 days and is linked by three articles. Something tells me @WikiCleanerMan might be a bit overly eager of cleaning. AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Denali ImageMap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused clickable map of the Denali Mountain in Alaska. Been around since 2008 and linked in standard bracket format as opposed to template transclusion on several talk pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GermanyImagemap2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused map of Germany. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Leicestershire districts map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Insignia of UK/CDT/WJAC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused military insignia template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Insignia of ADFC/CDT/AAC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Insignia of ADFC/CDT/AAFC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Insignia of ADFC/CDT/ANC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused insignia military rank templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was move to userspace. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NSML (1885) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NSML (1900) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NSML (1907) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NSML (1908) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route diagram templates for the North Side main line, showing its historical progression. Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to user space I am the creator of these templates. They aren’t currently in use, but easily could be in an expanded history section of the North Side main line. These should be kept in some way for that future use. Lost on  Belmont  ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:METRORail University Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route diagram template for a light rail line that has stalled in the planning stages for a decade. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox government agency. ✗plicit 13:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Syrian ministries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox government agency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Syrian ministries with Template:Infobox government agency.
It offers same functionality as Template:Infobox government agency which is mostly used across articles. DownTownRich (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge No need for separate templates for each country. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @DownTownRich Agreeing with mr @WikiCleanerMan. Merge as per the rationales mentioned. Utkarsh555 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for reasons discussed above. —WildComet ^talk 04:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, easy WP:INFOCOL. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, After having a look at both infoboxes, I agree with this motion to merge them. It is kinda pointless having separate ones for each country. GCunknown (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Because this does not apply to {{Infobox government agency}} it would be better to not have this message on every page that uses it. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Merge Template:Syrian ministries into Template:Infobox government agency. AKK700 07:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — Differences between the two are merely cosmetic. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete and redirect to Template:Non-free fair use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recently created which duplicates Template:Non-free fair use (which Template:Fair use redirects to). Gonnym (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to the existing template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rlink2 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to {{Non-free fair use}} per {{fair use}} -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 13:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox in which all links go to recently deleted articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination - DownTownRich (talk) 23:04, 6 April 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).