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).
Timeline in the form of a sidebar. Extensive text which makes it more like unreferenced article content than a navigational aid. We have an article Timeline of Jainism which is a much better place for this sort of content. Nigej (talk) 19:14, 27 January 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 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. With the creation of Template:Rugby squad role and conversion to using it, there is little more to this than a procedural motion to make sure there are no leftover issues. Seeing none, I am going to delete all templates of the /role/X variety as unused per the original nomination. Primefac (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(a) restore the previous status so the same positions are used instead of duplicating the entire list over 2 or more templates,
(b) or maybe split out the position or name and position lines into a separate template and then use that in both this and in {{National rugby squad player}}.
Dropping the #switch statement from {{Rugby squad player}} into its own template would actually simplify a few rugby templates, if I'm remembering correctly. At worst it gets rid of some janky #ifexist code in the nat squad template. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 27 January 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 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 per nom. A line from the template noted, padded out with unlinked tracks, all of which adds nothing to it's navigational use. Nigej (talk) 18:13, 27 January 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 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. If there are concerns about this subtemplate and/or its use, they can likely be brought up with WP:AVIATION. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what do you mean there's no "effort" ??? This is an article wizard. Did you notice that the preload template is different from the non-2 inputbox? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question (provisional keep). What do you mean by "not used"? Do you just mean that no mainspace articles link to it? That is normal with wizard templates. Or do you mean that nobody ever runs the wizard? If so, what is your evidence for that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by "unused" is that the template isn't transcluded on any pages (and didn't seem to be the sort of template that would be viewed directly). I can;t speak for Q28, but I think they meant the same thing. (and I have no clue what no actual effort means). Note that Template:WPAVIATION creator uses {{WPAVIATION creator/Aircraft}}, making this look to me like an abandoned experiment, not a functioning template. * Pppery *it has begun...18:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not be assessing the whole lot, establishing more clearly which do or do not serve any useful purpose, and then deleting all the unused ones? There is a subpage of the one currently under discussion, and a set with .0 suffixes too. It seems inefficient to pick them out one at a time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a subcomponent of a fully functioning article creator wizard that preloads appropriate infoboxes and creates suggested article structure, headings, and navboxes. Commenters who are claiming that it is not used anywhere seem to be unfamiliar with the fact that the article creation wizard is not transcluded in the articles at all and I would recommend looking at the template first, create a test page (type something random into the box and click the create article button) and see what the template does before proceeding further. (no need to save the gibberish article afterwards, just look at the output that is created.) RecycledPixels (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. What if we disable the suspect templates by moving them (say to draft space)? Then, people can try out the remainder and if they break, we can restore the critical one/s. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:13, 5 February 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 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).
No transclusions. This is an unfinished sidebar experiment; I had to remove a bunch of disastrous styling just to be able to see the template's content. It has a bunch of links to categories and templates interspersed with links to articles, some of which are not relevant. The linked articles have appropriate navboxes. I don't think there is a way forward for this sidebar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 27 January 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 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).
No transclusions, and inadequate documentation to explain the purpose of this template and how to use it. It appears to have been developed as an experiment to track usage or potential usage of wikidata information in templates, but it hasn't been deployed anywhere. If the creator wants to keep it around, I recommend userfying it, or transcluding it somewhere in order to show how it works. If it is kept, it should be documented better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 27 January 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 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. This isn't quite a soft deletion, but there is no prejudice against recreation should there be a demonstrated need for templates with these names. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. These appear to have been created in 2018 for use with templates listed in {{Table cell templates/doc}}, but they are not used, and without any documentation or examples, it is not clear how they would be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (for now) - I did some digging out of curiosity and found that these were in use until at least January 13th. To start, these template are more for television articles with examples being this for Template:Unaired and this for Template:Syndicated. In both cases, the same user made edits to changed these template to other templates, with Template:Unreleased replacing Unaired and Template:Varies replacing Syndicated. Currently, there are a number of discussions at Template talk:Table cell templates, with at least one being about recent edits made by that user, which muddles things a bit. Personally, I think both have the potential to be salvaged and used with documentation added, with Unaired having a better shot between the two templates. At the same time, both of the templates that replaced them are already listed in documentation and they might look better than the original templates used on those pages. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:49, 3 February 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 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).
Unused sidebar that was removed from the articles on 24 August 2011 with the comment "Removed navbox per comments at WP:AIR/PC#New sub-infobox idea in support of removing these types of templates". Nigej (talk) 15:16, 27 January 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 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).
Municipalities of individual Neuchâtel districts 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 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).
International women's cricket tours 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 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).
Subst and delete. No documentation, no categories. Unclear what it is supposed to do. I can't find a transclusion that looks reasonable at all, and most look terrible. This may have looked better in 2005, before changes were made to the template or to the MediaWiki software, but it looks terrible now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:14, 27 January 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).
Top ten male doubles tennis players 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).
This is a follow-up to a discussion at WT:TENNIS#"Top ten" lists and lists all the "top ten" navboxes for male doubles. There seemed to be general consensus there, that because they are poorly maintained they should be deleted. Personally I'm of the view that they have little encyclopedic value. I've selected the doubles list because they seem to me to be of less interest generally than the singles. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these are barely maintained and articles are better served by having a link in the external links section to the ATP or WTA site that updates daily. This includes not just doubles but all singles players as well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and delete all men and women's singles templates as well. These are largely unmaintained, and waste editor time mirroring info that can be found in greater detail in two clicks on the ATP/WTA websites. Sod25 (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unnecessary, the 10th best player in most countries is barely notable. And these aren't useful navigations between people. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful to find the active players of a country when somebody reads one of them. There are no other way to find the players who are still active (categories collects all of teh players of one nation, include active and non active.) OPES-FRM (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the point. These templates are for the current top 10 in the rankings, they don't provide a list of the active players from that country. Also note that these are WP:NAVBOXes "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." Navboxes are not used to provide lists of anything, they're for navigation. Nigej (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you don't understand, I do. The Top 10 players are all active, and most nations have pretty much all of them. I also often look for the next one on a player's article, I think many readers do the same. It is interesting to know the compatriots. In addition, the navbox also shows how good the person you are reading within his/her nation is. You can't read this information anywhere else on Wikipedia, just from here. And that is an important fact. It is true that their update is stuttering, but this is also the case for a lot of articles, this is not the specialty of these navboxes. OPES-FRM (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However see WP:NOTNEWS, we're not a news site. We're primarily an encyclopedia. Also this information is nearly always unreferenced. And worth reading WP:INTERESTING. The real question is whether this content adds to the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and the answer is, in my view, no, since it is soon deleted. We can keep a small amount of such information, but keeping 160 top-10s constantly up-to-date is really a waste of people's effort here. Nigej (talk) 11:42, 2 February 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 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).