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/Delete.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete all Fails
WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—
Bagumba (
talk) 05:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete ESPN Nevada, Keep Sports Radio Stations in Nevada. No need to merge what is already included in Sports Radio Stations in Nevada. As far as NAVBOX #4 is concerned, there is a Wikipedia article on the subject, it is merely divided into subsets for the purposes of navboxes so they are manageable and more relevant to the reader.--
Tdl1060 (
talk) 06:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
It's a stretch to call a generic article on
Sports radio or a general article on the state
Nevada as being close to a "Wikipedia article on the subject". That is how
WP:TCREEP continues.—
Bagumba (
talk) 06:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Bagumba: I'm interested to have that discussion, but the volume of templates affected would be staggering—more than 750 plus another 400 or so on the television side with the same rationale. At that scale, what would be the best way to rule on the whole subject at once? Certainly that would be the largest TfD of all time?
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 08:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Sammi Brie: I'd advise to start with a few smaller logical subsets first, and gauge the feedback. Often mass-bundled nominations are railroaded by a few pages that might have legitimate
WP:IAR reasons for an exception or two, resulting in an early no consensus that could cloud the situation.—
Bagumba (
talk) 08:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I have listed this discussion on
WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions.
Stereorock (
talk) 14:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete ESPN Nevada Don't think it needs merging, just deleting.
Nigej (
talk) 15:59, 24 December 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).
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).
Delete per nom.--
Tdl1060 (
talk) 04:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I have listed this discussion on
WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions.
Stereorock (
talk) 14:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Basically reductant to the sports ... template.
Nigej (
talk) 16:02, 24 December 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).
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 12:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Nigej (
talk) 20:30, 20 December 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).
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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to a new template {{bib color}} with {{red bib}}, {{yellow bib}}, {{yellow and red bib}}, with a parameter to select the color. Improve with an actual transparent bib PNG (a transparent hole shaped like a bib) on a black background, instead of just being a colored box. --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 20:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Leaning delete. Since I have no idea what the usage is for, I've checked the other colored bibs listed above. Looking at pages like
2006–07 Biathlon World Cup and
2009–10 Biathlon World Cup – Mass start Men it seems the image is used instead of the number "1". If that is the only use-case that is a horrible design and falls under
WP:JARGON. In those situations the template should be replaced with the number "1".
Gonnym (
talk) 22:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Surely all these bib templates fail
MOS:COLOR too. "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information"
Nigej (
talk) 05:58, 21 December 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).
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).
Empty navbox.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 23:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: The rule of thumb at
Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox, not set in stone, suggests a five-article minimum for navboxes, but largely leaves it to common sense and consensus. Suffice it to say, you can't have a navbox with no articles. --WCQuidditch☎✎ 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Not sure as to why a random IP editor removed the links, but it's clearly not needed anymore. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 15:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of the numbers of stations in said formats. Also, nominator has not indicated they have done anything to improve or add to this template.
Stereorock (
talk) 03:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. While formats are always in flux, the navbox Sports Radio Stations in Maryland is sufficient. As far as improving or adding to the template is concerned, it appears that all of the sports stations in Maryland are either CBS or Fox Sports affiliates, with one part-time affiliate of SportsMap, so there is nothing to add.--
Tdl1060 (
talk) 04:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—
Bagumba (
talk) 05:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Fails nearly everything about a navbox.
Nigej (
talk) 20:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I have listed this discussion on
WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions.
Stereorock (
talk) 14:10, 21 December 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).
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 00:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: WEAV may market in part to Vermont, but it is officially located on the New York side of the border. In any event, one article does not a navbox make. (It wasn't always this way, but for whatever reason the only all-sports stations trying to serve Vermont in any capacity these days are stations in markets bordering other states and located in those other states; the stations in Vermont proper that were in the format have all either changed format or gone out of business. Other than that, the closest thing to a sports station in Vermont these days is
WDEV, and outside of game broadcasts, it is only sports at night and Sunday afternoons, with the balance of the schedule being news, talk, or music programs.) --WCQuidditch☎✎ 00:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Not enough links for a navbox. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 15:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of the numbers of stations in said formats. Also, nominator has not indicated they have done anything to improve or add to this template.
Stereorock (
talk) 03:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—
Bagumba (
talk) 05:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Fails nearly everything about a navbox.
Nigej (
talk) 20:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I have listed this discussion on
WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions.
Stereorock (
talk) 14:09, 21 December 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).
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 00:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Insufficient links to merit a navbox (1).
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 23:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Navboxes are intended to navigate between related articles. The rule of thumb at
Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox, not set in stone, is that there should probably be at least five articles in a navbox, unless common sense and consensus say otherwise. Common sense would certainly suggest that (three links to) one article doesn't cut it. (There was a second station here for a while, but that probably wouldn't suffice, either.) --WCQuidditch☎✎ 00:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as there are only about 30 or so stations in Rhode Island, and another station could move into the format.
Stereorock (
talk) 03:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails NEAN. One link doesn't aid in navigation. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 15:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—
Bagumba (
talk) 05:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I have listed this discussion on
WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions.
Stereorock (
talk) 14:09, 21 December 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).
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).
Procedural close bundled into base template nomination --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 20:23, 20 December 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).
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 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 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).
Delete: The rule of thumb at
Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is that navboxes preferably should list at least five articles. The essay admits that's not set in stone, and common sense (and consensus) should prevail… and common sense would certainly suggest that (three links to) one article does not a navbox make. (Especially when there's already a navbox for Massachusetts jazz radio stations in general.) --WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
'Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of numbers of stations. Also, Jazz & Smooth Jazz are different formats with different formative.
Stereorock (
talk) 03:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—
Bagumba (
talk) 05:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Nonsensically specific. "Smooth Jazz Radio Stations in Massachusetts"! Not everything needs a navbox and surely this is a classic example.
Nigej (
talk) 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I have listed this discussion on
WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions.
Stereorock (
talk) 14:06, 21 December 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).
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).
Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of which stations are in said format.
Stereorock (
talk) 02:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—
Bagumba (
talk) 05:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Overly specific.
Nigej (
talk) 20:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I have listed this discussion on
WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions.
Stereorock (
talk) 14:07, 21 December 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).
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).
Only navigation is between two stations. Only adult hits station navbox in the entire United States.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 18:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of the numbers of stations in said formats. Also, nominator has not indicated they have done anything to improve or add to this template.
Stereorock (
talk) 03:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—
Bagumba (
talk) 05:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I have listed this discussion on
WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions.
Stereorock (
talk) 14:07, 21 December 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).
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 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 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.
Izno (
talk) 17:40, 25 December 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).
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).
Unused; Content merged with the main article
Curling at the 2018 Winter Olympics. Note: I created the template back in 2016, but did not use the "Author requests deletion" option.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk) 16:15, 18 December 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).
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 13:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Listing fails
WP:NOTSTATS that to provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Bulky table is
WP:UNDUE for these trivial stats. The rare cases where a particular stat may be notable for a specific player should instead be mentioned in prose with proper context to its significance. —
Bagumba (
talk) 13:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This template is completely trivial and not necessary.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk) 16:34, 18 December 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).
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 12:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
These 3 templates are wrappers
Template:Fvs however they offer no additional value and are an overkill since they are only used in 4 mainspace pages total. Current usages should be replaced with
Template:Fvs and the templates deleted.
Gonnym (
talk) 12:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom.
NiluXC (
talk) 21:05, 24 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:54, 25 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:49, 25 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:49, 25 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:48, 25 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:48, 25 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment the base template {{Course page wizard}} doesn't look like a wizard interface, and neither does this draft... --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 03:23, 19 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:47, 25 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:47, 25 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:47, 25 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Unused in mainspace and only has 4 talk or sandbox usages. The template itself was replaced with
Module:Val/units.
Gonnym (
talk) 09:57, 18 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment If one were to want the prior day's name, it would seem a template would be better than having the function stuck in an article --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 18:12, 22 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment If one were to want the last month's abbreviated name, it would seem template would be better than having the function stuck in an article --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 18:12, 22 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment that's not a proper replacement. That "replacement" should be encapsulated in a template if it were to be used in an article. --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 18:11, 22 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:44, 25 December 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).
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).
An abandoned experiment in the fourth quarter of 2016.
Q28 (
talk) 09:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
It's actually from 2011, not 2016. Regardless of it's age, delete all /old versions of templates kept around separately as redundant to the page history feature.
* Pppery *it has begun... 17:06, 18 December 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).
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).
Delete. Author here. Template Val was converted to LUA. Thanks, Pppery, for reminding me about my first Template. Before it was blanked, so long ago, It was not an experiment, but a highly successful tool for my years maintaining Template Val. —
Cpiral§
Cpiral 02:19, 19 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
This CSS is not used, and I don't think the need to keep this page.
Q28 (
talk) 09:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Izno (
talk) 08:11, 19 December 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).
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).
Jts1882, I would recommend naming/moving the relevant stylesheets to subpages of your sandbox module to make it clear that is their intent. I guess that's only styles-no-icon.css now, though you may wish to recover Goal/styles.css styles (I can assist with moving the previous history if you prefer since my work had nothing to do with yours).
As for that implementation, you don't need to have two separate sheets for it; in general, just have the no-icon version of CSS listed later (cascaded) and switch on the class name used depending on template parameter.
Izno (
talk) 08:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Is now implemented in the template. --
Izno (
talk) 08:08, 19 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
There is no need for us to reserve for historical reasons. This is an unused template and we don't have to keep it.
Q28 (
talk) 09:06, 18 December 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 11:45, 25 December 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).
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 template was not used.``^
Q28 (
talk) 09:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete (as creator). Redundant since the parent template was upgraded
[1] by me in 2019. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:13, 18 December 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).
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).
Hasn't been used to identify any blacklisted links used on articles.
Template:Blacklisted-links has and is currently used to do the same job. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 02:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Izno (
talk) 03:31, 18 December 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).