Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9

edit

Template:123

edit
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. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a variant of Template:adr, also nominated for deletion. However, this template and ADR are substantively different. Still, I support deletion for 123 in light of the confusion that it causes. Using pipes is a standard method for adjusting the output of a link. It's something that almost all users understand. The issue with using templates like this is that they are not easily understood, and furthermore they are not intuitive. There's no better evidence for that than the fact that most of the "Example" uses of this template do not work - see the 5 example codes, which are paired with 4 outputs ... 3 of which return red links. This template is only used on less than twenty pages.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This template was created as something totally different and replaced in March by the creator of {{adr}} with the existing contents. Though I think neither version is worth keeping, participants in this discussion should take this into account. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 9 April 2017 (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:Ambox/small

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not appear to be in use anymore; Module:Message box does not appear to contain any code associated with it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 9 April 2017 (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:Db-spamuser-sandbox

edit
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 redirect to Template:Db-spamuser. The wording is close enough between the two templates that there seems little point to update {{db-spamuser}}, though obviously if someone feels strongly they are welcome to make the edit request. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant with {{db-spamuser}}. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A user sandbox IS-A userpage, thus it's completely superseded with nothing to merge. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nom wants to delete, only !vote wants to merge. Relisting to gain more thoughts on that difference.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (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:WNBA labeled map

edit
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 relisted on 2017 April 19. Primefac (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2017 (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:KCwithOLandSW

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is redundant to the existing article List of recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and is thus unneeded. It is also redundant to the Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords.

In addition, the subjects are not related apart from having received the same award from Nazi Germany during World War II, and the template is not useful for navigation. A similar template on the U-boat recipients has been deleted in the past:

Finally, the template is excessive, listing more than 120 names. A similarly excessive template has been recently deleted:

This is a similar case. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 4th MD

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 227th ID

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only three blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 293rd ID

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 3rd ID

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 26

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed.

Many similar templates have been deleted; please see, for example:

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:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource instead

edit
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. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template does not reflect a policy or guideline. Furthermore, the apparent function of this template - to suggest that a particular source is unreliable - duplicates {{unreliable source}} so it's totally redundant. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pingining @JzG: who wrote User:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:24, 9 April 2017 (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:Liberal Democratic Spotlight Team/meta/shortname

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost completely unused, purpose unclear Mélencron (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2017 (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:Liberal Democratic Spotlight Team/meta/color

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost completely unused, purpose unclear Mélencron (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2017 (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:The Left (Germany)/meta/abbr

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

were only used on Wikipedia:Index of Germany political party meta attributes and now orphaned. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2017 (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:Isotope list

edit
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 all but {{isotope list}}.. ACCESS concerns have been raised regarding {{isotope index}}, so while there is no opposition to deleting the subpages, the main template will be relisted to 19 April. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination following the closing of this AFD. The articles these templates were used on are now deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of templates
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:Did you know nominations/gotrig.com

edit
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; deleted as G2 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless DYK created for Draft:Gotrig.com Marvellous Spider-Man 13:56, 9 April 2017 (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:Selfsubst/ language/js

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not appear to be in use anymore, judging by the lack of transclusions and the insource: search Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 9 April 2017 (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).
edit
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 substitute and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory and posting this in several articles basically ensures that many of these external links will not really be relevant to that particular article. I suggest culling the links, substituting the template, and deleting. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 9 April 2017 (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:Big Black Button

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused except for a couple non-admin sandboxes, and seems unnecessary. Only admins can delete pages anyway. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:08, 9 April 2017 (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:Big White Button

edit
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused except for a couple non-admin sandboxes, and seems unnecessary. Only admins can delete pages anyway. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:08, 9 April 2017 (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:American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers

edit
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 per this and prior discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a list of television presenters, it fails WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently no individual or respective list for the Stanley Cup Finals television broadcasters (as it has since been deleted), so this might as well be the "second best" option for the time being. And plus, it would be much easier to navigate if the info is "right in front of you". BornonJune8 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a category would fail WP:PERFCAT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, sports announcers like this are broadcast news journalists (albeit for live sporting events), not "performers" like say entertainers in the traditional sense. BornonJune8 (talk), 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are television presenters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're only speaking in the broad sense to make your point. Just because they're "TV presenters" in your words, doesn't automatically mean that a sports announcer specialize in the exactly same thing as say a game show host or late night talk show host. BornonJune8 (talk), 23:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2017 (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).

Box and Column templates

edit
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 move to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for producing HTML DIV boxes and columns, created by one editor for use in one article (List of useful Unicode symbols) that has now been deleted. These templates are now unused, and are unlikely to be used by anyone other than their creator. Note that 韭 is a redirect to ColBox, and 䧕 is a redirect to BoxD, and were created as space-saving shortcuts (apparently the Chinese character 䧕 looks like the English word "Box", and the Chinese character 韭 looks like columns in a table). BabelStone (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These are very useful templates. Can be used by many others, if its kept & not-deleted. These are created for about one week only. I will use these on pages, under my userspace. -- AtErik1 (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to userspace or delete, clearly we don't need these. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What do 䧕 and "box" have to do with each other? It's "country", if I remember rightly from its appearance on postage stamp inscriptions, and the character itself looks nothing like a box, unless you're using a browser that can't support any CJK characters: in which case all Chinese characters look like little boxes, □. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2017 (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:Prod hint

edit
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 relisted on 2017 April 18. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_9&oldid=1138532531"