Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 6

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 03:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. This placeholder template is simply a soft redirect to the actual userbox, which lives in the correct namespace. I converted it to a redirect but was reverted, so here we are at TfD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 6 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although the template must replace the reference, no one actually uses the template. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:45, 6 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. Izno (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This type of comprehensive listing of every article on a person from c.200AD China is better done as a category. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:36, 6 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 relisted on 2021 December 14. plicit 03:03, 14 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 03:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main template Template:Countdown to anniversary was redirected to Template:Countdown in 2018. The Countdown template was made in 2010 while the Countdown to anniversary template was made in 2015. I don't think Countdown to anniversary/29 of February is needed as it can be done with Countdown, making it redundant. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:26, 6 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).

Unused Rut templates

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

The result of the discussion was delete. plicit 00:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rugby union templates for sides that no longer compete or no longer compete/didn't compete at a level that would qualify for notability for players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:08, 6 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 02:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused draft banner (except in one talk page). Seems Template:Draft article is the standard version used. Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 6 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; deleted as G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 20:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. Appears to be an abandoned experiment, about 18 months old. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concurred. Can be deleted. Rustyshackelford (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:39, 6 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 23:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. Contains only a File: invocation with a caption, which should be done in an article anyway. There is no template code here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 6 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 23:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links from discussion pages. Misleadingly uses the documentation for {{template link}}. Appears redundant to {{template link}}, possibly an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 6 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 00:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chzz has been blocked for almost 4 years and the last edit to User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback was in 2012. This is no longer needed. Gonnym (talk) 17:31, 6 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 relisted on 2021 December 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 17 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. Izno (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:42, 6 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 13:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After recent deletions, only one item is left, leaving nothing to navigate between. Geschichte (talk) 11:38, 6 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 no consensus. Izno (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant from the Tfd on October 25 where the previous templates for the characters of Turkish show Diriliş were deleted and substituted, the same should happen for these six. This falls under Fancruft in my view and should be treated as such. And none of these templates are not the standard navigational templates despite being categorized as such. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some are transcluded on the List of Diriliş: Ertuğrul characters articles. I don't see a better parent article for substituting these. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:43, 13 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 13:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect. Platonk (talk) 04:37, 6 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).