The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 May 2. Izno ( talk) 03:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused. Gonnym ( talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Used on two pages. One links to something completely different than expected, and another I got a warning from my browser and didn't check it. If this was useful and needed, it would probably be used more. Gonnym ( talk) 22:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused 2.5 year old template. Gonnym ( talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused and the site seems to be dead. Gonnym ( talk) 22:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 22:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
External link which leads to another wiki and is only used on three pages. The TV IV was even deleted for being non-notable. Gonnym ( talk) 22:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 22:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Useless template that seems to have been created as part of yet another attempt to use subpages in article space by this editor. In namespaces where subpages are used the software will automatically add back buttons, making this template useless; in article space sub-pages have not been used since 2001 since the real world does not fall into a nice hieratical ordering. As an example where would you go "Back" from United States in World War I, United States or WW1? 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 17:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Entirely unused citation template. Izno ( talk) 16:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The reason for its creation is given in the edit history of the template. It is also mentioned obliquely the document page. It was created to help editors porting pages from the German Wikipedia that contain the same template. Just because a potentially useful template is not currently in used is not a good reason in itself to delete it. -- PBS ( talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 03:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
All templates in Unncessary taxonomy template. Please see a discussion here as rationale. This category is a temporary holding area for taxonomy templates whose deletion will be uncontroversial, because the template is both unused and unnecessary, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used. Periodically, all templates in this category will be nominated for deletion. For more details, see this talk page thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 11:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete after migration. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 02:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Used directly in about 10 templates and subsequently in some 100 pages indirectly. The dominant variant is clearly {{ sidebar}}. If collapsibility is needed at the 'top level' it can be provided for the specific templates (as sidebar supports that today), but I haven't really seen instances of necessity in the wild for the top-level sidebar to collapse. Uses should be migrated to {{ sidebar}} and this template subsequently deleted. Izno ( talk) 06:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 02:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
This template groups an arbitrary collection of subjects (some of which don't even have articles) on the basis that they provide an identifier that is referenced by {{
authority control}}. This violates
WP:NAVBOX guidelines 2 (The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article
; only one of the ten-ish articles I checked mentions the term "authority control", which is supposedly the subject of the navbox), 3 (The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
; these articles do not seem, generally, to mention each other), and 5 (If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles
; I see no reason why an editor would want to do that for this set)
* Pppery *
it has begun... 00:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines". Sure, it's no {{ Solar System}}, but it's a good start. Perhaps a new rework to {{ AC}} can group them together by subject/relevance, etc. It is a wiki, after all. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 02:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Issues with size, scope, inclusion parameters, but no one seems wholly convinced either way of its usefulness (i.e. "it can be fixed" vs "it cannot be fixed"). Primefac ( talk) 10:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with this. The so-called " Sengoku period" is usually (I'm going by the apparent consensus of Japanese encyclopedias listed on Kotobank) dated to between the Ōnin War to Oda Nobunaga's entry into Kyoto or his slightly later abolishment of the Ashikaga shogunate, although some historians definitely use the term to describe a period ending with either the Battle of Sekigahara or even the Siege of Osaka, some 30–45 years later. I haven't seen any comparable templates for the Asuka, Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Nanbokuchō, Muromachi, Azuchi–Momoyama, or Edo periods, all of which have relatively clear beginning and end points—it goes without saying that the same applies for "muddier" periods like " Fujiwara" and " cloistered rule", so it seems really weird that an unclear/informal period classification like Sengoku has such a template. There are hundreds if not thousands of Japanese people in the 150 or so years covered by the broader definition of "Sengoku" apparently used in this template (I haven't done an extensive check, but a disproportionately large number of the "Three major daimyōs" and "Foreign people in Japan" more properly belong to the Azuchi–Momoyama or even Edo periods) who arguably meet GNG, so if all of such people were listed in this template it would become completely unwieldy. Anyway, ultimately I'm not sure if the solution would be to (i) delete this template, (ii) rename it to "Template:People of the Azuchi–Momoyama period" and split portions of it into new "People of the Muromachi period" and "People of the Edo period" templates, or (iii) keep it as is, although I should note that both (ii) and (iii) theoretically necessitate the creation of similar templates for other periods of Japanese history; so I figured it best to put it to the community. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 May 2. Izno ( talk) 03:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused. Gonnym ( talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Used on two pages. One links to something completely different than expected, and another I got a warning from my browser and didn't check it. If this was useful and needed, it would probably be used more. Gonnym ( talk) 22:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused 2.5 year old template. Gonnym ( talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused and the site seems to be dead. Gonnym ( talk) 22:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 22:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
External link which leads to another wiki and is only used on three pages. The TV IV was even deleted for being non-notable. Gonnym ( talk) 22:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 22:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Useless template that seems to have been created as part of yet another attempt to use subpages in article space by this editor. In namespaces where subpages are used the software will automatically add back buttons, making this template useless; in article space sub-pages have not been used since 2001 since the real world does not fall into a nice hieratical ordering. As an example where would you go "Back" from United States in World War I, United States or WW1? 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 17:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Entirely unused citation template. Izno ( talk) 16:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The reason for its creation is given in the edit history of the template. It is also mentioned obliquely the document page. It was created to help editors porting pages from the German Wikipedia that contain the same template. Just because a potentially useful template is not currently in used is not a good reason in itself to delete it. -- PBS ( talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 03:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
All templates in Unncessary taxonomy template. Please see a discussion here as rationale. This category is a temporary holding area for taxonomy templates whose deletion will be uncontroversial, because the template is both unused and unnecessary, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used. Periodically, all templates in this category will be nominated for deletion. For more details, see this talk page thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 11:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete after migration. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 02:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Used directly in about 10 templates and subsequently in some 100 pages indirectly. The dominant variant is clearly {{ sidebar}}. If collapsibility is needed at the 'top level' it can be provided for the specific templates (as sidebar supports that today), but I haven't really seen instances of necessity in the wild for the top-level sidebar to collapse. Uses should be migrated to {{ sidebar}} and this template subsequently deleted. Izno ( talk) 06:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 02:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
This template groups an arbitrary collection of subjects (some of which don't even have articles) on the basis that they provide an identifier that is referenced by {{
authority control}}. This violates
WP:NAVBOX guidelines 2 (The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article
; only one of the ten-ish articles I checked mentions the term "authority control", which is supposedly the subject of the navbox), 3 (The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
; these articles do not seem, generally, to mention each other), and 5 (If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles
; I see no reason why an editor would want to do that for this set)
* Pppery *
it has begun... 00:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines". Sure, it's no {{ Solar System}}, but it's a good start. Perhaps a new rework to {{ AC}} can group them together by subject/relevance, etc. It is a wiki, after all. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 02:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Issues with size, scope, inclusion parameters, but no one seems wholly convinced either way of its usefulness (i.e. "it can be fixed" vs "it cannot be fixed"). Primefac ( talk) 10:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with this. The so-called " Sengoku period" is usually (I'm going by the apparent consensus of Japanese encyclopedias listed on Kotobank) dated to between the Ōnin War to Oda Nobunaga's entry into Kyoto or his slightly later abolishment of the Ashikaga shogunate, although some historians definitely use the term to describe a period ending with either the Battle of Sekigahara or even the Siege of Osaka, some 30–45 years later. I haven't seen any comparable templates for the Asuka, Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Nanbokuchō, Muromachi, Azuchi–Momoyama, or Edo periods, all of which have relatively clear beginning and end points—it goes without saying that the same applies for "muddier" periods like " Fujiwara" and " cloistered rule", so it seems really weird that an unclear/informal period classification like Sengoku has such a template. There are hundreds if not thousands of Japanese people in the 150 or so years covered by the broader definition of "Sengoku" apparently used in this template (I haven't done an extensive check, but a disproportionately large number of the "Three major daimyōs" and "Foreign people in Japan" more properly belong to the Azuchi–Momoyama or even Edo periods) who arguably meet GNG, so if all of such people were listed in this template it would become completely unwieldy. Anyway, ultimately I'm not sure if the solution would be to (i) delete this template, (ii) rename it to "Template:People of the Azuchi–Momoyama period" and split portions of it into new "People of the Muromachi period" and "People of the Edo period" templates, or (iii) keep it as is, although I should note that both (ii) and (iii) theoretically necessitate the creation of similar templates for other periods of Japanese history; so I figured it best to put it to the community. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)