Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 26



Template:Infobox streamer

 * 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. ST47 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Doesn't work; even if it did, not necessary to have a separate template from Infobox person (for example see Ninja (gamer), where the normal infobox is sufficient). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Infobox streamer
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:Infobox Pornstar

 * 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. ST47 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Not a working template - and even if it was, it should not exist independently from Infobox person (note the previous merge of Infobox adult biography at TfD). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Infobox Pornstar
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:No pass

 * 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) 06:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC) This template has no substitutions (See: here), and only 26 transclusions (It has 446 but 420 of those are from Done/See also). The line height of the text is large resulting in strange formatting for no particularly good reason. It uses a character icon which are discouraged (MOS:ACCESS). And I can't see that many uses to declare a "No Pass", and if an editor ever did, using 1 of Xmark would be more appropriate. So should be deleted Terasail [✉️] 22:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No pass


 * Delete. Same reasons that were stated in Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_15 apply here. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a probably a redirect somewhere in here -- I created it back in the day for GA and other process conversations, Sadads (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:DYKfile

 * 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. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Propose merging Template:DYKfile with Template:DYK talk.
 * DYKfile
 * DYK talk

Both templates are used to mark pages that have been on DYK on the Main Page. The difference is the categories a tagged page is placed in, and the fact that for some reason dykfile is not placed on the talk page.

Since they both use the same text, and already have categorization check in place, merging them shouldn't be an issue. The placement of the template on the files should also be moved to the talk page. Gonnym (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Not seeing a good reason to, plus there are thousands of articles that use these and we don't want to cause an issue on thousands of pages if we get this wrong.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep One template has a summary format while the other provides more details. This functionality might be combined, with parameters to control the level of detail displayed but doing this in a transparent, non-disruptive way would be mainly busy work.  What's the problem and what's the benefit?  If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Responding to both:
 * The C of E, why would we get this wrong? The people handling the merging of templates are editors with the template editor user right and any merge happens after testing to make sure the code is correct. However, even if a bug does go through, what's the worst that can happen? These templates have text and categorization. If the bug is in the text, then the worst is that someone viewing the page read a typo. If the error is with the categorization, then the pages are placed in the wrong category for a short while. Since the pages aren't moved by a bot, then there is no watch list spam even if the worst happens and the category has a mistake.
 * Andrew, both templates offer the same text, saying one is a summary and the other isn't is just incorrect. One template does have an entry for the text that was used, but so? A lot of templates, including this, have optional parameters for different specific usages, we don't create a template for each usage. And regarding the busy work, if you aren't the one implementing it, why do you care what work other editors do? I'll never understand that argument. Regarding the benefit, having 1 less template duplicate functionally and then having to update it when something changes - also, tags like this are placed on talk pages, not on the page. --Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As Gonnym noted, the tags are placed in different spots - DYKfile is on the file itself, DYK talk is on article talk. DYKfile's placement matches other similar file templates, eg Featured picture, Featured picture set, picture of the day, and I'd be uncomfortable with changing DYKfile's placement while leaving the others where they are. I'm more neutral on the template merge itself, though since the placement is different between the two templates today, it may be confusing to merge the two while the placement continues to be context-dependent - therefore, keep. Shubinator (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm normally a mergist, but in this case, the functionality is different enough that I see more downsides from potential issues than upsides from reduced maintenance burden. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's handy to have namespace-specific templates in order to more easily detect improper usage. Daask (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Shubinato. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why is it I only come to this part of the project when a "this template is up for discussion" notice rudely parks itself in an article or discussion page I was reading? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep no benefits giving for merging templates, they have different functionality and it would just create an unnecessary cleanup job. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree, there should be one template. They do not have sufficiently different functionality as evidenced by Gonnym's last comment. 2) That said, I do not see this particular template as sufficiently worthy to park itself on the file's main page. It is not an achievement that a file is selected for DYK. At best, this should be placed on both talk pages. 3) As such, neither of these should continue to exist. The real best home is article history (and since DYK bot is being worked on, I bet I can sell Firefly on updating or using that page instead). --Izno (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a DYK bot in the works, could User:Firefly post their DYK bot plans to WT:DYK? (It looks like Firefly is working on a GANBot, perhaps that's the point of confusion?) Shubinator (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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).

NBA 2K League Rosters

 * 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 - F ASTILY   05:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Unused and ESports rosters are not notable. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2018 NBA 2K League Rosters
 * 2019 NBA 2K League Rosters
 * Delete the point of templates would be to navigate between competitors, but none of the competitors have articles. Thus, templates are not needed. Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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).

Topic (Continent)
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 2021 July 4. Izno (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Topic_(Africa)
 * Topic_(Asia)
 * Topic_(Europe)
 * Topic_(Oceania)
 * Topic_(North_America)
 * Topic_(Americas)
 * 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:Navbox Canada
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, following two weeks of discussion and appropriate advertisement to the relevant projects. (noting the proposal described in the nom is more of the "delete, while converting existing usages" variety). (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Navbox Canada with Template:Navbox.
 * Navbox Canada
 * Navbox Canada
 * Navbox

This is a wrapper of Module:Navbox which changes the appearnces of the navbox. These changes have several issues such as it adding an icon next to the title which shouldn't be there per MOS:ICONDECORATION and removes the alternating background colors for groups making it more difficult to differentiate sections. The navbox header is also about 10% taller than normal navboxes which both looks weird and gives these navboxes more prominence than others. Finally from a purely esthetic point of view I find it very ugly to have two completely different navbox styles on one page, often with normal navboxes both above and below these weird ones, as can be seen at Alberta. My proposal would be to stop using Navbox Canada and instead use the normal Navbox without this problematic styling. --Trialpears (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per other talks over the years. Highly developed template by the project. MOS concerns should be talked about at template and project level.....not a vaild deletion reason.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 19:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board are you serious? That WP:OWN and WP:Canvassing combo in a single comment. --Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Its another example of project killing...not even notified. Waste of editor time.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 19:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop with the hyperbole. No one is killing the Canada project and having a TfD discussion is not a waste of editor time. If you feel your time is wasted, no one is forcing you to comment here. Regarding the project not being notified, that isn't required but regardless, if you look at WikiProject_Canada/Article_alerts, you'll see that this discussion is listed. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would have been good for me to notify the project and I'm sorry I didn't do it. I'll make sure to remember in the future. --Trialpears (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm missing something but before making this nomination I checked the talk page (including for unlinked archives and such), previous TfDs (only relevant things I found were similar templates such as Navbox United States and Navbox Singapore being deleted) and links to the template. None of these discussed the subject at hand. If I've missed some relevant discussion I would love to get a link to it. --Trialpears (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My guess would be 5th time the Canadian template been up for deletion.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 19:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * perhaps you're thinking about some other template? I can't find these discussions and find it very difficult to evaluate a per other discussion comment without knowing where to find said discussion. --Trialpears (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure where all the talks are located ...As seen at Template talk:Navbox Canada they may be at the project page. I have been fighting for years for things like MOS:ICON....to no avail because of larger project talk outcomes. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 20:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about other functionality but as far as colour is concerned I would rather have the default colours, perhaps keeping the custom header colours like at Template:Railway stations served by Abellio Scotrail for example. The current colours make the template harder to read IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge – Canadian here. There is no reason why this would be an exception to MOS:ICONDECORATION, nor is there any reason why the height and colour of the navbox should be slightly different than the standard. 142.161.113.242 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge. This is one of the worst templates ever created IMHO. The heavy use of white colour makes it difficult on the eye and honestly the template just looks awful. No reason for Canada to have a wholly different style of template compared to other countries. Elshad (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge. I really don't understand the rational behind this template. Even if the template was created before the general navbox, why would there be a reason for it to still exist? If it offers better features or a more elegant codebase, then that should be merged into the general template, not kept for only a small group of templates. On a personal note, I agree with Elshad that the color theme chosen by it is awful and uncomfortable to read. --Gonnym (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge, per mine and others' comments above. NemesisAT (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, this looks like a proposal to delete Navbox Canada and not a proposal to merge. What changes are being proposed to Module:Navbox?  If there are none, then we aren't proposing to "merge" anything. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the proposal is to merge Template:Navbox Canada into Template:Navbox and Module:Navbox Canada into Module:Navbox. --Catchpoke (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Catchpoke, What changes are being proposed to Module:Navbox? And what changes are being proposed to Template:Navbox? Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Trialpears, same question for you. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe no changes are being proposed to either Module:Navbox nor Template:Navbox. Catchpoke (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't believe there are any changes that should be made to Module:Navbox as a result of this merger. I was planning on taking a thorough look at the code of the module to check if there is anything that would be beneficial to incorporate there, hence the delay, but I'm too tired right now to do that properly. In retrospect, perhaps I shouldn't have tagged it as a merger. --Trialpears (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is nothing in this module worth incorporating generally to the larger module. I would not have tagged this as a merge. :) --Izno (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not merge widely used template. Navbox Canada has a specific feature of facilitating the creation of a template of articles of a same subject for each of the 10 Canadian provinces. Also, the colour scheme is actually beautiful. Maple leaf inclusion doesn't violate MOS:ICONDECORATION, as it informs the reader that every article in the template is about Canada, even though that might not be in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mottezen (talk • contribs)
 * Merge Template:Navbox Canada into Template:Navbox and Module:Navbox Canada into Module:Navbox Regardless of whether this template is widely used, somewhat used, or not used at all, this template does violate MOS:ICONDECORATION among other policies. --Catchpoke (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So again a talk to remove the one icon over deletion sounds like the proper way forward. Is there an proposal to move over the specific features used all over? Merger junk that will cause us to have to edit a thousand articles. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly the Maple leaf icon is a separate discussion completely unrelated to the merge proposal. Mottezen (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the only protocol mentioned as the reason to merger. So it's style issue that is on thousands of articles for almost 2 decades. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That means there is zero reason for this merge. Mottezen (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of your arguments here amount to WP:ILIKEIT. Catchpoke (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The white and red colour scheme makes this navbox harder to read. I feel that navbox content should have consistent colours. I'm personally not bothered about the maple leaf either way. NemesisAT (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that's just a personal opinion and we have a policy as stated several times above when people disagree. Catchpoke (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And since we are on the topic of colour, it violates WP:NAVCOLOR. Catchpoke (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear, my comment was against the customised colours. NemesisAT (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if you feel that the leaf should be kept, what about all the other subnational symbols and supranational symbols. Should we make templates for those too?  The policy is clear here as it would be a WP:CONTENTFORK.  Looking at the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 16, this was created because of local consensus at Canadian Wikipedians' notice board.  I understand User:Frietjes's good faith intentions to create templates but local consensus does not override global consenus. Catchpoke (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts: 1) I am more or less neutral on having a navbox for a group of pages which varies in color from the main series. (See Template:Military navigation as another example.) 2) I agree about the icon being decorative as commented above. 3) I agree about the colors making this template a general pain, as commented above. There may be other colors, but none of the template-keepers have proposed a serious other color that would be better for the eyesight. (And the alternating colors should regardless return.) 4) Given 2 and 3, even in account of 1, I do not see a reason for this template to exist as it does at all, and it should accordingly be deleted. --Izno (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With regard to WP:NAVCOLOR: it states "There should be justification for a template to deviate from the colors and styles contained in MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Vector.css (and the other skin.css pages)". Why doesn't the color scheme deviate from MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Vector.css (and the other skin.css pages)? Catchpoke (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why it? Editors like it so.  [any navboxes]? A different question and one better answered elsewhere. :^) For that matter, there's an old RFC on the books that was never implemented to change navbox colors from their purple-ish title and group bars (which is bad contrast for links) to some shade of gray, though no-one discussed the specific gray of interest. Izno (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about templates like Template:Brazil topics? Well I guess then this is a WP:CONTENTFORK as noted in the discussions linked by user:trialpears. Do you have a link to that RfC? Catchpoke (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an aside. You can probably find it in the archives of template talk:navbox. Izno (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've requested the information and you should provide it so I can verify the accuracy of your statement. Catchpoke (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is an aside. You are free to peruse the archives yourself. Izno (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:Undelete
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 06:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Has barely ever been used, is formatted very strangely, and is not what I expected when I searched for this. Subst and redirect to Template:DRV links. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 17:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Undelete
 * Delete Subst to DRV links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:2019–20 Kategoria Superiore table
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Mainspaces uses a different table with accurate information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2019–20 Kategoria Superiore table
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 17:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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).

Quantities of computing information
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. With all editors except the nominator voting keep, this is a WP:SNOW close. Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Both templates contain WP:NPOV violations, and depending on the revision (as there are currently edit warriors pushing a non-consensus revision over the objection of other editors), WP:OR and WP:V violations. The encyclopedia would be better off without these tables if they continually contain inaccuracies, original research and use Wikipedia's voice to suggest that what the real world is doing is not what it is doing.
 * Quantities of bits
 * Quantities of bytes
 * Bit and byte prefixes
 * Delete all as nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all in a version prior to edit warring. Possibly replace JEDEC with Memory for binary K, M, G. JEDEC are WP:RS but no defining body for units and prefixes. --Zac67 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all in a prior stable version, possibly with added "deprecated" remark in recently deleted column. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is a remarkably childish approach to dispute resolution. Why has no one opened an RfC yet?  (For others, the discussion is all at Template talk:Quantities of bytes.) JBL (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a no-brainer. The templates are both used and useful so there is no rational argument for deleting them. Anyone wishing to suggest an improvement can do so on the 'bytes' talk page, as pointed out by . Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with JBL; nomination for deletion is completely inappropriate. An RfC and constructive engagement in discussion would be appropriate.  I note that Template:Quantities of bits at time of nomination (and now) contains no content that is not reliably sourced or that is not fully endorsed and standardized by the relevant defining bodies; it is also linked to the relevant WP articles that give the relevant citations, invalidating the cited reasons for deletion.  The remaining two templates can be similarly adjusted (by removing the Memory/JEDEC column), removing such concerns altogether.  —Quondum 15:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The request is simply absurd, per the already cited reasons. It is an attempt to force a POV by the nominator, who has a personal bias against any of the binary prefixes and wishes to eradicate them where ever (s)he can, as demonstrated by countless reversions of valid material by many editors and constant edit warring about the issue. The content of these tables is unambiguously supported by reliable references, such as standards definitions, from US and world standards bodies. kbrose (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In case it wasn't blindingly obvious, Dondervogel 2, Quondum and kbrose are the three edit warriors pushing their edits without consensus on two of the three templates. Currently two of the three disagree with objective reality, our sources, and all three are giving undue weight to units that are neither widely adopted or endorsed by a significant amount of the technology industry. Reality doesn't work for these edit warriors though, because goddamnit some standards group that apparently is very serious said something and by golly even if nobody listens to them, Wikipedia will. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping confirm my earlier view. --JBL (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation, you've definitely helped the situation a lot by referring to this nomination as "childish" and I'm sure that alone means we can ignore content policies and guidelines and just put whatever the fuck we want in articles without regard for accuracy or verifiability. But do prattle on, you've brought so much to this conversation so far, don't stop now. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed it should be clear to all that real edit warrior is the proposer of these deletions.&minus;Woodstone (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, die hard edit warrior here, insisting we use consensus instead of what three editors randomly decide after the other three stop participating in the discussion. But sure, edit warring was the issue here on my side, not the lack of consensus on theirs (but the repeated reversions even after having this brought to their attention). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – contrary to Locke's unexplained and unjustified assertions above, I do not see any evidence that these tables "continually contain inaccuracies [or] original research". They state uncontroversial and trivially verifiable definitions. I have not personally seen any evidence at all that they have caused problems in article-space, of the sort a reader might actually be inconvenienced by, which would be my criterion of interest here – not whether editors with a strong POV dislike these tables for ideological reasons. This TfD discussion would appear to be an unnecessary continuation of a pointless dispute at MOSNUM, which was a non-starter and has produced, as could have been predicted, no consensus. That poor overly flogged and mangled equine corpse has long since been reduced to dust, and all the physical information contained in it, whether measured in decimal or binary units, has been dissipated by the wind. My tuppence is that the status quo broadly works, and that editors with a strong ideological opposition to binary units in any circumstances seem to be the predominant source of disruption and extended talk-page essays here – not any actual problems caused by templates that do not display any incorrect information. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all – the templates just use units that are well documented in standards. Whether a particualr usage of a parameter in the template in a particular article is appropriate is a case for MOS.  Stepho  talk 00:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep All - when I saw one of these being nominated for deletion, my first action was to click on "what links here". Dozens of articles, with no attempt to address whatever issues in each of those articles. This should be a speedy close under WP:SNOW. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 02:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:2020–21 Ghana Premier League table
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Unused and mainspace uses a different table with accurate information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2020–21 Ghana Premier League table
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 16:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:2020–21 Azerbaijan Premier League table
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Unused and hasn't been updated as the mainspace uses a different table with the information filled out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2020–21 Azerbaijan Premier League table
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 16:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:2020–21 Persian Gulf Pro League
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) 2020–21 Persian Gulf Pro League uses a different table with accurate information whereas this one isn't used and hasn't been updated since December 2020. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2020–21 Persian Gulf Pro League
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 16:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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).

NHL Western Conference Standings Templates
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 2021 July 6. Izno (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2013–14_NHL_Western_Conference_standings
 * 2014–15_NHL_Western_Conference_standings
 * 2015–16_NHL_Western_Conference_standings
 * 2016–17_NHL_Western_Conference_standings
 * 2017–18_NHL_Western_Conference_standings
 * 2018–19_NHL_Western_Conference_standings
 * 2019–20_NHL_Western_Conference_Wild_Card_standings
 * 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).

NHL Eastern Conference Standings Templates
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 2021 July 6. Izno (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2013–14_NHL_Eastern_Conference_standings
 * 2014–15_NHL_Eastern_Conference_standings
 * 2015–16_NHL_Eastern_Conference_standings
 * 2016–17_NHL_Eastern_Conference_standings
 * 2017–18_NHL_Eastern_Conference_standings
 * 2018–19_NHL_Eastern_Conference_standings
 * 2019–20_NHL_Eastern_Conference_Wild_Card_standings
 * 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).

2014 USA Team Handball Club Templates
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD - creator of the pages has requested deletion. JBW (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC) No mainspace article exists for these templates to be used and I could find nothing that a league or championship of this kind exists. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2014 USA Team Handball Club National Championships group table mbox
 * 2014 USA Team Handball Club National Championships Group Men's Elite A table
 * 2014 USA Team Handball Club National Championships Group Men's Elite B table
 * Delete I stared to create this templates. But I forgot them. Sorry. But you could delete them. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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:1999 FIFA Confederations Cup group tables
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Unused and there already exists a table for both Group A and B on their respective pages and the mainspace also uses a different table. This template is unnecessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1999 FIFA Confederations Cup group tables
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 16:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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).