Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kickers Offenbach squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:TFD#REASONS #2: redundant to template:Kickers Offenbach, which was created in 2016, a few weeks after this one was WP:XNRed to Kickers Offenbach. Paradoctor (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted, template has been dezombified. Paradoctor (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - absolutely not redundant, it's totally standard to have a club template and a club squad template, see Category:Association football club navigational boxes and Category:Association football squad navigational boxes by country respectively - quick example is {{Manchester United F.C.}} and {{Manchester United F.C. squad}} but there are literally hundreds/thousands others. There is no reason to delete this squad template which navigates between sufficient blue links. Really odd nomination, and I'm shocked that @WikiCleanerMan: has supported so willingly. GiantSnowman 08:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't aware of this convention. I only noticed this situation because I found a transcluded redirect creating mischief.

  I would retract, but I still wonder why we should keep a template unused since 2016, i. e. WP:TFD#REASONS #3. Paradoctor (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Upon further notice before Snowman's vote, the squad navbox has not been updated in a long time and the squad list on the main article is up to date and has enough links we can add to this navbox. This navbox is not redundant to the main team template. I have updated and added the navbox to the main article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. There is no consensus that use of this template defies MOS:ICON. Accessibility and comprehensibility concerns can be addressed by other means beside deletion, including alt text. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This template is used less than 250 times in {{Infobox college football player}} and in-article tables, where it does not align with the bullet points at MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS. You can see an example of its typical use at Quinn Ewers. This usage could be easily replaced with the word "redshirt". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good solution 136.58.84.30 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the redshirt icon. Not sure about the reference to only being used 250 times. Perhaps I'm missing something. I see it all the time. 2601:5CF:4200:67A0:3725:A2C8:5E0C:E182 (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is used 236 times per [1]. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine. I think the redshirt icon should stay too. 66.215.49.212 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the icon is a simple way to represent the concept and should stay as well.

Now that the 1-year transfer sit-out is over (and once the entire COVID class with extra eligibility leaves), it will be a helpful and straightforward designation. 2601:280:5D02:37B0:8D7F:AED0:5BD8:1C10 (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it should be left because it is simple and understandable and adds a splash of color needed on a grey page. 146.200.77.147 (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the reference to only being used 250 times. Perhaps I'm missing something. I see it all the time. This is addressed below between myself and Bagumba, where it was discovered that File:Redshirt.svg is used 14,554 times. So it turns out this template accounts for less than 2% of the usages of the redshirt icon appearing on English Wikipedia. Left guide (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine. It is only used around 250 times because after graduating/going professional it’s no longer used on their page. I’d imagine it was used on 1000+ pages over last 5 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.133.66.120 (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the template looks good, and the low transclusion count is due to it only being used for active American college football players. I don't see any harm in keeping it. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the icon looks good, and is a concise way to show a redshirt player. As someone else mentioned, the reason it’s only used 250 times because it doesn’t apply after they finish their college career, but hundreds of new redshirts happen every year.

Perhaps a solution would be to make the icon clickable, and direct visitors to a page explaining the redshirt process. 67.245.18.115 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clickable doesn't solve the accessibility problem, nor does it satisfy MOS:ICONS#Do not distort icons. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is actively starting this year and is no longer considered a red-shirt. This should be removed from his page. 2607:9B00:5612:2D00:2F9A:3193:9B87:CAF5 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He absolutely still is a Redshirt Senior playing or not and Redshirt status is relevant for followers of college football. 107.220.89.156 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not the template remains in place, the information should be communicated using text for greater accessibility, both to those who browse without the benefit of images and those not familiar with the term in the context of U.S. college sports. (I know the image is linked to the appropriate page, but there's no visual indication of this, and it's not a typical use of links for images on English Wikipedia.) Using an icon could be an additional way to convey the info in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Its use is consistent and useful. --Bobak (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is an accessibility fail to boot. Izno (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Izno. Also, was this discussion advertised on some external site somewhere? Steel1943 (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the icon is a good visible description of the terminology used in American college football. Bob305 (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Whether or not it's deleted, someone needs to go through and add "Redshirt" in each place where the template is used in order to comply with accessibility standards.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a relatively simple bot request, I imagine. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this is a valid useful visual icon for labeling redshirt college athletes where necessary and helpful. Left guide (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that this template is "valid" does not give a reason why it should be an exception to WP:MOSICON. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, if it's necessary to refer to WP:MOSICON in order to justify keeping it, then I'll quote its section MOS:DECOR as follows:

      Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation.

      That's essentially a summary of what this redshirt template does on roster charts of college athletes. Left guide (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I worry that you missed the definition of "decorative" that followed: "An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function." This icon makes it more difficult to understand an infobox and therefore hurts comprehension. Why would we choose this approach over the more accessible "Redshirt senior" etc.? What benefit does this icon provide over the simple word? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're totally misunderstanding my arguments. As stated earlier, I actually don't really care if it appears in the player infobox, and find your arguments calling for the icon's deprecation from player infoboxes to be possibly valid. I'm saying the template should be kept due to its use in team season articles, of which there are some; when briefly skimming over the 2024 Oregon State Beavers football team page, it's much easier to spot the multiple uses of the redshirt icons as symbols of the players' status compared to if the text "redshirt" was blended and camouflaged into the text that comprises the rest of the page, and this is similar to the usage at 2023 UCLA Bruins football team#Roster you agree with below. It provides additional convenience and efficiency for readers in a manner not easily replicated by text. Left guide (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The example provided in the nomination of its use in a player article such as Quinn Ewers may have some merit. However, my main argument for keeping the template is for its use on team season articles such as 2024 Oregon State Beavers football team, which is clearly compliant with MOS:DECOR guidelines and offers encyclopedic value to readers. If there's a case to be made for deprecating its use on player articles, then that can be hashed out on a project level at a venue like WT:CFB. Cherry-picking its "worst" usage in the nomination (which is presumably inadvertent and in good faith) is not a reason to delete the template outright which would be an example of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". The solution for a template being used inappropriately in some or even most (but not all) cases is to get editorial consensus for their removal, and then remove them. Left guide (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That example actually does not meet MOS:ICON because there is no "explanation of its purpose". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • When a reader clicks on the icon and is taken to the redshirt (college sports) article, they are presented with an explanation of the icon's purpose. Left guide (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The icon File:Redshirt.svg, though not through this template, is used by {{American football roster/Player}} and {{CBB roster/Player}}. See prominent usage at 2023 UCLA Bruins football team § Roster.—Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense, because I knew I had seen the redshirt icon appear on college football team season articles way more than the template transclusion list suggests. It looks like that's the de facto "standard" way of using it, being used 14,554 times. Left guide (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See, that is an appropriate place to use this icon. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Left guide. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, looking at articles like Amir Pinnix, you should just write "redshirt senior" instead of some decorative icon substitution for text. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Visible anchor link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chapter disambiguation pages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since this navbox template is intended to link disambiguation pages and to be transcluded in the article namespace, there's an issue with this template because it will have to violate at least one of the following two guidelines at any given time: WP:BRINT and WP:INTDABLINK. At the present time, the template violates WP:BRINT since there are piped links to redirects instead of linking directly to some of the respective disambiguation pages in order to meet WP:INTDABLINK, but in the process violates WP:BRINT since direct links to pages should be used (so that the viewed page appears as unclickable bold in the navbox when currently viewing that page.) In order to fix this issue, the only resolution I see is to delete this template and replace their transclusions on each page with respective {{Intitle}}, {{Lookfrom}}, or similar templates. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, the current setup of the template also violates WP:INTDABLINK since the links to the disambiguation page redirects are piped, but not in hatnotes; If the link is not in a hatnote, then the redirect is supposed to be linked to directly without link piping. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a somewhat reductive reading. The template is a navigation template, it's not performing a disambiguation function itself. Therefore:

Keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

PS I fixed the BRINT issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, but your edit introduced additional/different WP:INTDABLINK issues since you directly linked to disambiguation page titles that do not include "(disambiguation)" in them, and since this navbox is transcluded on pages in the article namespace. Again, this proves that it is impossible for this navbox to not have any WP:BRINT or WP:INTDABLINK issues, and I would not be surprised if an editor who watches WP:DPL or WP:TDD reverts your edit. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, the edit was reverted by The Banner: [2]. Steel1943 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the issues are with WP:BRINT and WP:INTDABLINK then just fix it. The template is useful in offering navigation between related pages, which otherwise requires additional wasted editorial time. I see no real argument here other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If the issues are with WP:BRINT and WP:INTDABLINK then just fix it." My argument here is that they can't be fixed. Fixing one breaks the other. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing a navbox on a disambiguation page until I ran across this template, and this problem probably explains why. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template isn't what's broken, it's the bot that is malfunctioning. The bot should be fixed. Or, the links that work perfectly fine with "(disambiguation)" at the end, can continue doing so. I fail to see how that was an issue. Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Maybe WP:BRINT??? Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What purpose does this template serve? I can see no meaningful use of this template. The Banner talk 18:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox can help you see what purpose a navigation template serves. Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. But this is a template to "navigate" among a certain type of disambiguation pages. Not based on content, but on the type of links. The Banner talk 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a reasonable likelihood that someone wanting to look at one chapter disambiguation page might want to look at others. I'm not 100% convinced by navboxes, but given that we have them, this is not a bad use case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

It sounds like an otherstuff-argument, but the next step will be an navigation template for all surname-disambiguation pages? The Banner talk 11:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point right there: This navigation template should probably be replaced with a category my originally-proposed "from title" search templates. Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated stance per comments after the relist convincing me a category is not the way to go. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The template is clearly a useful navigation template, and none of the TFD reasons appear to apply. If there are problems with the content of the template, they should be fixed (the link to Chapter Eight stands out as different). If two guidelines are in conflict with each other, deleting this useful template will not fix that problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really don't think we should be encouraging navboxes of disambiguation pages. You could sell me on succession boxes for this specific case, or the suggested intitle etc as in the OP. Izno (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's some good discussion here, but at the moment there is not yet a consensus as to what to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, navboxes are for navigating between articles, not disambiguation pages. --woodensuperman 14:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:Inline cleanup tags, navigates between templates; Template:WikiProject Footer navigates between project pages. A completely incorrect statement. Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NAVBOX: Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. The fact that they are being used within other namespaces (and staying within thise namespaces) is by-the-by. In any case, as Ed mentions below, this fails most of the criteria for a good navbox. Look how inappropriate it is on Part 8. And consider how inappropriate it would be for a category too. --woodensuperman 12:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To add onto that, I think the key word there is "related"; in addition to disambiguation pages not technically being articles, there's nothing "related" about these pages other than their first word, and not even then since even that varies. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it doesn't measure up to the bullet points at WP:NAVBOX. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, navboxes are for navigating between related articles. if you are a reader on a disambiguation page, your next step is to an article, not to another disambiguation page. I could see this as a category grouping, but not a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 October 17. Izno (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 06:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IOS versions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A regular table used only in one article. Should be subst there and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template and the other two templates are too large to comfortably move to live within the article, plus this is a siilly reason to delete in my opinion. Templates can exist and only live on one article. Usually templates should only be deleted if they're completely unused, or violate a Wikipedia policy. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates that hold article content and are used in one article are a missue of template space, see the first bullet point at the guideline Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. So this might be a silly reason to delete in your opinion, the community guideline says otherwise. Additionally, if we look at the page information for both pages. The template has Fewer than 30 watchers (which does not mean 29, and can also mean 0), while the page itself has 585, which makes these content pages more vulnerable to vandalism. Finally, too large to comfortably move to live within the article, it's not, it's fine. Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The templates don't store article text though, they store information that can be moved to other articles when deemed necessary. That is why they were originally moved to template space in the first place. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 13:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and subsequent comments. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge with Template:IPadOS versions and include this template on the iPadOS version history article in its place (then delete the iPadOS versions template, if the conclusion is to delete de iOS versions template, the iPadOS versions template should probably be deleted by the same reasoning). It's odd in the first place that an entire different template and table was created just for this one to say "go look at that template" instead of just including the 3 cells that are different. If there really was a need to hide extra rows on the iPad article, then that could have just been a parameter for the template, although I'd discourage that. YannickFran (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address the fundamental issue this template has vs. Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template is arguably closer to a navigation then it is article text. The Wikipedia:Template namespace article itself uses a template for a similar purpose. Regardless, the comment was only meant to address the concern raised by Gonnym that the template is single purpose. YannickFran (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's navigation, it goes at the end of the article. But we both know it's not navigation. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally not how it works and you know it. Navigation can be placed wherever is deemed adequate, as very clearly shown by the multitude of templates that are primarily navigation focused, such as templates that deal with subjects related to the United States, or even the template used on the iPhone articles that link to other iPhone models. Please stop the disinformation. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 12:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what terminology we choose to use, this is neither a navbox or a sidebar. See Wikipedia:Navigation template. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were separated because of the fact that iPadOS is not iOS anymore and hasn’t been since 2019. They are not the same operating system. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to use the same template for two completely different operating systems. It’d be similar to if we put tvOS versions in the table…it wouldn’t make a bit of sense. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 12:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Copy into article and delete. This is single-article content that should live in the article. It is no more complex than many tables that live in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 06:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IPod Touch supported OS release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A regular table used only in one article. Should be subst there and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe the template should be kept, due to it being more complex than a regular table, it also allows more direct access in terms of being able to edit the table. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 19:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 06:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IPhone models minimal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A regular table used only in one article. Should be subst there and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change. Arguably the table in this template should be replaced with the one over at List of iPhone models and then replace the use of that table with this template. A change in name is probably also appropriate at that point though, because this isn't "minimal". YannickFran (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Formula Kite World Championship medallists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused as Formula Kite uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox UK place/height (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub-template. Can't find it used also in an insource search. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Judo at the 2024 Summer Paralympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sidebar as all links redirect to the same article. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cobaltore Onagawa squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. This is a Japanese fifth tier team, where nearly all of the players will be, and currently are, non-notable. There is therefore no point in a navbox. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless for navigation. --woodensuperman 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Unecessary. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 08:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:LDS Temple list/size-floor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused probably since this edit. Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.