Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 28 March 2 >

March 1[edit]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom/Scotland medical cases April 2020[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 23:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have substituted these monthly tables into the annual {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom/Scotland medical cases 2020}} and {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom/Scotland medical cases 2021}} templates, so the monthly tables are no longer used. Nigej (talk) 07:33, 1 March 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:Negros Island Region[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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. The region was abolished in 2017. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:41, 1 March 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:PDCTeam/core[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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was used briefly at {{PDCTeam}} but now unused. Nigej (talk) 08:39, 1 March 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:PE E Pomona[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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route-map for the Pomona Line which redirects to Upland–San Bernardino Line and which uses a different route-map. Nigej (talk) 08:43, 1 March 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:PPAP-Join[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 11:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation template for the "new WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada." which was created in 2006. Little prospect of further use. Nigej (talk) 08:52, 1 March 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:Pančevački most railway station[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 11:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused station layout (Serbia) without an article to link to. Nigej (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to Matija (creator) for future use. Useddenim (talk) 19:18, 1 March 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:Pavas-Curridabat Railway[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 relisted on 2022 March 8. ✗plicit 11:15, 8 March 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:Photo montage/Horizontal[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 11:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template no longer used at {{Photo montage}} which now uses Module:Photo montage. Nigej (talk) 09:27, 1 March 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:Polygamy map[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 after substituting into the main article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map, covered by Legality of polygamy. Underlying image not much changed since 2011, so perhaps out-of-date. Nigej (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing my vote to keep per Don's vote below. Upon his restoration of the map to the mainspace, it provides informational value. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I restored the map to the Legality of polygamy article, where it saves the article. The rest of the article is horribly incomprehensible flag-junk; it is truly an awful article if the map is not there; recent deletion of the map from the article was inappropriate and I have restored it. The map provides means of understanding something in the world. It is sourced by the rest of the article which identifies legal status in each country and U.S. state, although perhaps the article has not much changed since 2011 and some tag at the top of the article could be appropriate. The map apparently should be presented with a label saying it was valid as of 2011 or 2015 or whenever all the information in the article was valid, or with a footnote saying the status for Myanmar has changed legally in 2015 to a different color for that nation. Deleting the map there is inappropriate. Trying to lock in a "win" for incomprehension by having a TFD to permanently eliminate the map is not the way to advance the article. Please do see and comment at discussion at Talk page of article, at Talk:Legality_of_polygamy#Source_and_Accuracy_of_Map. Offhand I think this TFD should be closed due to that ongoing discussion and ongoing process of improving that article. --Doncram (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC) 22:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The map is unsourced and it has been removed several times from the article. It is not even sourced correctly to the text of the article. For example: where are the sources for the countries listed in the legend as "Polygamy illegal, polygamous marriages constitutionally banned" vs those listed as only "Polygamy illegal"? And, as it has been pointed on the talk page of that article "Issue under political consideration" is not an appropriate category for the legend. Laws are under consideration all the time all over the world. A map should show the current legal status; if/when a law is changed, the map is changed too. Also, in some countries (including India) polygamy is only legal for Muslims - this must be reflected on the map. The map is contested and unsourced; it fails WP:V, and therefore can't stay.2A02:2F0F:B3FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C223 (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to Doncram: "Trying to lock in a "win" for incomprehension by having a TFD to permanently eliminate the map is not the way to advance the article." I don't know whether this is why the map was nominated (rather than the fact that it grossly fails WP:V), but it's good to assume good faith and not to (indirectly) question the ethics of editors. 2A02:2F0F:B3FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C223 (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reson given in support of the map is that: "I restored the map to the Legality of polygamy article, where it saves the article [...] The map provides means of understanding something in the world."
How can the map "save the article" and "provide means of understanding something in the world" when:
  • it is unsourced
  • it is blatantly incorrect/outdated for some countries (eg Myanmar)
  • it has a vague legend "Issue under political consideration" - what are readers going to understand from this
  • it oversimplifies the legal status: it does not show that in some countries (eg. India, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Lebanon - according to the article) polygamy is only legal for Muslims 2A02:2F0F:B3FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C223 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An argument for the map is that it is sourced to the text of the article. But it is not! The legend of the map differentiates between countries where the status is "Polygamy illegal, polygamous marriages constitutionally banned" vs countries where the status is "Polygamy illegal". This is not in any way sourced to the text of the article (or to any other source). 2A02:2F0F:B3FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C223 (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the map is appropriate for the article is a separate question for the article talk page to whether a template of the map should exist. Given this is a single use template and the content is essentially trivial to include, subst and delete without comment on the content. --Izno (talk) 23:41, 9 March 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:Polyhedra bowers name and image[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 11:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Category:Polyhedron templates. Nigej (talk) 10:10, 1 March 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:SSL[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 relisted on 2022 March 9. Izno (talk) 23:49, 9 March 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:ODM-checked[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 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused award-related templates. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 1 March 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:Tramlink 3 RDT[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 14:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tramlink route 3 and Tramlink route 4 were WP:BLARed in 2018 and these route-maps are no longer used. Nigej (talk) 15:09, 1 March 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:TransPennine North West[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 14:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route-map for TransPennine Express. That article uses {{TransPennine North West & Scotland}} for this part of the network. Nigej (talk) 15:15, 1 March 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:Transport for London lines[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 merge to Template:Transport in London. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty-looking but unused Navbox crowded out by {{Transport in London}} at one end and templates like {{Bakerloo line navbox}} at the other. Nigej (talk) 15:21, 1 March 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:Trinity Metro rail[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 14:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route-map. TEXRail and Trinity Railway Express use different route-maps which are perhaps less confusing than this one. Nigej (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: I see what you men: it doesn't successfully show the relationship (or difference) between the two services. Useddenim (talk) 16:05, 1 March 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:Tsugaru-Kaikyo Line[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 00:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Navbox for a Japanese line replaced in 2016, see article. Nigej (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: restored to parent article; had been deleted without an edit summary. Useddenim (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The navbox is outdated and the articles in it are replaced by navboxes that are already being used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:41, 1 March 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:Library color[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 userfy. ✗plicit 00:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused other than in an old user's sandbox. Subst there and delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I created the "library color" template back in 2017, when I was hoping/planning to coordinate with User:Smallbones and others in WikiProject Libraries to make list-articles about libraries. Individual libraries are often individually Wikipedia-notable and can certainly be included as items in regional list-articles. Like can be done for the elementary schools within a school district. The page User:Smallbones/Cape May Lib has a draft libraries list-article using the template. The template provides for a single color to be used in coordinated list-articles, where the color itself can be changed centrally if the editors working on the project want to change it. As is done in WikiProject NRHP list-articles about the 90,000 plus places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, which use template:NRHP color and other templates in Category:Historic site color templates. Smallbones, can you perhaps comment, please? --Doncram (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there is a decision here to remove the template from template-space, could it please be moved to my personal User space, i.e. to User:Doncram/Library color. Or if there is some problem with that, could the closer please notify me so that I could take a copy. I don't often participate or "watchlist" template discussions, so please ping me to get my attention. --Doncram (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify Holding short from boldly closing this myself, for now. Per WP:UPGOOD, user pages can be used for "Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future". Since that seems the only place where this is used in any case, it would make sense to move it there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 1 March 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:NCAA Division I-A football ranking movements[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 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down version of {{NCAA Division I FBS CFP ranking movements}} "to Account for AP and Coaches' polls only" but unused. Surely better to modify the main template if there is demand for this feature. Nigej (talk) 16:02, 1 March 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:MDAX companies[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 00:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary grouping ("selected" based on which criteria?); and most companies, besides the obvious of being listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (and, presumably, being German), don't have much of any relation, so this fails the purpose of navboxes, which is to link related topics together, not topics whose most significant relation is some random geographical proximity. For example, GEA Group and Rheinmetall, whose sole common aspect seems to be, indeed, the geographical location... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:09, 1 March 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:Party shading/Documentation template[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, except in itself and its subpages. The parent page is a disambiguation page, so this one is not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the disambiguation page is merely a list page, the subtemplates of that page are the functional templates (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Party_shading/). The documentation page is for the subtemplates, and not the base page. So it usable if it is placed on each of the subtemplate pages as the documentation link. (currently they seem to have old style unboxed noinclude sections that predate documentation pages) The documentation page takes a parameter "1" which should be color indicated on the the subtemplate. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given its disuse. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 9 March 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:Uw-engvar/doc[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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This /doc page is not usable, because the parent page uses the shared {{single notice}} template for documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 1 March 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:Val/sandboxlua/doc[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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Orphaned /doc page of a redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 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:Birth name[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 relisted on 2022 March 8. ✗plicit 00:03, 9 March 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:ExodusStation[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 00:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until a few weeks ago, there was an article on every Exodus station mentioned in the Bible, and this template was designed to navigate between them, in the same manner as the railway station templates. Most of these articles now redirect to Stations of the Exodus, so the template no longer works as intended. I suggest it should be removed from the remaining pages and deleted. Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've created a navbox and placed it on all related pages. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 8 March 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:Map of airports in Karnataka[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 23:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have now included it in the article List of airports in Karnataka. A map is useful esp for air travel. Crashed greek (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: TranscludeSubstitute and delete as no scope of further usage or development — DaxServer (t · c) 07:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (corrected 11:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    New airports are coming up in the state, so the template can be updated. Crashed greek (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Amending my comment: "no or very little scope of further usage of the template in other articles" — DaxServer (t · c) 08:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete only useful in List of airports in Karnataka article (where it is now listed). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 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:MPL 2.0[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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:13, 1 March 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:Major Europe Cinema Chains[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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox for a niche topic. The articles in the template are better served using other navboxes that exist or better served by another navbox if it exists. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence that these cinema chains need to be linked together, and "Major" seems completely arbitrary and undefined to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_1&oldid=1076415602"