Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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

).

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

Unused wiki external link template; BattleTechWiki is a wiki dedicated to the wargaming franchise BattleTech. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Non needed as all relevant articles have been deleted/merged.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2020 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lansing Ignite FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Lansing Ignite FC has folded and no longer has a "current squad", so there is no use for this template anymore. IagoQnsi (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - no need for this any more. GiantSnowman 19:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2020 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2020 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. I take fro Trappist's rationale that they also support deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Citation/testcases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not an actual test of Module:Citation, given that Template:Sfn (which these tests call) does uses Module:Footnotes instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, for {{sfn}}, the return value from Module:Footnotes is wrapped in <ref>...</ref> tags which Lua sees as strip markers; a numerically different one for each transclusion of an {{sfn}} template. Module:UnitTests expects to compare sandbox template output against live template output but, since all it sees are the numerically different strip markers, the comparisons will always fail. In the past, Lua was able to extract meaningful content from strip markers. MediaWiki have elected to remove that functionality (except for <nowiki>...</nowiki>) so there is no way for Module:UnitTests to compare the results of {{sfn}} renderings.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2020 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Unicode chart/testcases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Neither Template:Unicode chart/testcases/0/expected nor Template:Unicode chart/testcases/0/actual, the two pages that this module compares, exist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2020 (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

).