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 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see the content from the template(s) was moved to the article Demographics of Asian Americansinthis edit, by the nominator. That transclusion preserves the data that would have been lost if the template was just deleted. That said, I don't get why this was done, as the template was being used in the wikilinked article, mentioned above. So it only became unused with the actions of the editor who is calling for the deletion. I can see the logic in the actions, but don't see why the actions were necessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because single-use templates are generally discourgaged on Wikipedia. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2019 (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 and replace with {{Infobox crater data}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete per nom. {{Infobox crater data}} can be used here instead if only |globe= data is being passed. --Gonnym (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2019 (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).
Unused template which seems to be part of the set of other Fb templates which are being deleted. Gonnym (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 11:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2019 (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. Nyttend If you wish to re-purpose the template as a navbox, no reason you cannot still do that. As it currently sits, this template should be substituted and deleted. (non-admin closure)Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One transclusion. Per the template's introduction, it was created to separate the template from the article England to protect it from vandalism. However, this template has not been edited since 2010, and it is not even transcluded in England; it is transcluded in Geography of England. If vandalism ever becomes a problem again, the page where this information is can be protected, especially considering that vandals can still affect whether a template is transcluded or not. Per this information, substitute and delete as unnecessary to be a template. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and completely repurpose. (I'm happy to do the work.) I agree with what's said above, but at the moment I believe we don't have any navboxes linking these largest-conurbation articles, and a navbox linking the metro areas currently on this template would be useful. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:21, 19 February 2019 (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 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 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).
Unused, but even if it were used I would nominate it for merging with Module:URL{{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Since Module:URL returns "{{URL|example.com|optional display text}}" when its arguments are empty, but Module:URLWD returns "{{#invoke:URLWD|url}}" (i.e. nothing, so that an infobox will suppress the row), the different functionality will require some modification to Module:URL. However, that extra functionality will be trivial to implement, so we could then delete Module:URLWD without losing anything. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For background, this module was created as a result of the discussion at Template talk:URL #Infobox input may vary, same output preferred where I responded to a request from DePiep for a function that "accepts all input forms, then reformats it as needed into good {{URL}}". So it's not true to say that this module is unused, since that discussion is quite significant in terms of the potential use of something like {{URL}} in infoboxes. I made a version of Module:URLinModule:URL/sandbox that should allow {{URL2}} to meet the same needs as Module:URLWD does. if we can gain consensus for the deployment of that sandbox into the Module:URL, then this Module:URLWD can be safely deleted. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion nor knowledge regarding this TfD, but I acknowledge the logic RexxS describes. -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Update:] I've updated Module:URL with the functionality of Module:URLWD and repointed {{URL2}} to use Module:URL. If that change sticks over the next few days then there is no need for Module:URLWD. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2019 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bot task that once used this module finished running a year ago. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: You can just userfy this to my userspace, if you like. I prefer to retain it because I may run future bot tasks based off of this code, if I'm asked to. ~ Rob13Talk 03:00, 19 February 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Data page with no corresponding lua module (Module:Wikidata is something entirely different) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2019 (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 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 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).
Unfinished module, which in its current state returns nothing. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember what I was doing with the module, so I support deletion. — Eru·tuon 03:01, 19 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 27 February 2019 (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 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally created this module (translated from fr:Module:Utilitaire) as one of the necessary supporting components for translating fr:Modèle:Bibliographie. The latter has been supplanted by {{cite Q}}, so this module is no longer necessary. I suppose if it becomes useful for something else, an admin can always undelete it. Peaceray (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2019 (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).
