Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 21

< August 20	August 22 >

August 21

Template:United States federal executive orders

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 merge to Template:United States federal executive actions. ✗plicit 23:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States federal executive orders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:United States federal executive actions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:United States federal executive orders with Template:United States federal executive actions.
Both templates contain the same links for the respective from President McKinley to Biden, "List of executive actions by" and then the name of the respective President. There are no articles for each president just for their executive orders. Thus, having the executive orders template is redundant in comparison to the action navbox. We have two navboxes for one purpose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom >>> Extorc.talk 18:12, 25 August 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).

Template:Ambidexterous Pole Vault World Records

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) 23:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ambidexterous Pole Vault World Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content on template space. Should find an appropriate article to be substituted on. If not, outright delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presumably someone, somewhere, decided this content was not useful and removed it from the article. We should not give article content a second shot at life because it was in a template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a hoax. It is the creating editor's only edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 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).

Template:Arab Swimming Championships (25 m)

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) 23:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arab Swimming Championships (25 m) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only a red link. No real chance of use. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dekete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 28 August 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).

Template:Campaignbox 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

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 2022 August 28. Izno (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Events at the 2005 Maccabiah Games

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Events at the 2005 Maccabiah Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links are red, no need for this template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all links are red, isn't that a sign that the articles should be built? I would understand deleting if all the links are non-notable, but I'd doubt that to be the case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not. Navboxes are created because articles for the topic exist beforehand. Templates are created after to navigate through articles. Not before. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be blue links, but the pages were recently deleted. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete it would make sense after the page deletions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:53, 27 August 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).

Template:FLO (group)

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FLO (group) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:TOOSOON. The group only has one article besides the group page itself.PopLizard (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay yeah, I did create to early. How about this: we don't add them until they release a debut album. How does that sound? Still new over here, so try to comprehend with me. – JuanGLP (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You need five links at minimum, not counting the title article link for the navbox for the template to be kept. It's a rule of thumb we go by even though it's not a policy. But delete, I added the group's category to their album article, but we only have two articles for the group. Until more articles are available in the future, then a navbox would be necessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created prematurely along with a WikiProject. Graham87 03:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cuz why not. Another project being abandoned. — JuanGLP (talk) 06:50, 25 August 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).