Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 6

< October 5	October 7 >

October 6

Template:African-Wikipedias

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:African-Wikipedias (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful for navigation since most African Wikipedias don't have their own article. For those who have one, there is Template:Wikipedias to link them. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Ukrainian city of regional significance

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ukrainian city of regional significance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Infobox settlement wrapper. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep, will be corporated Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Airlines of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airlines of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few links. — Lfdder (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, there aren't enough for a navbox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough links....William 17:09, 6 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Airlines of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airlines of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

1-link navbox. — Lfdder (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not useful for navigation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Airlines of Kosovo

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airlines of Kosovo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few links. — Lfdder (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. One entry. What's there to link to?...William 17:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous to have a template including two link,s one of them being a red one.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not useful for navigation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nonnotable content

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nonnotable content (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems like a duplicate of {{NOT}}, formerly {{Unencyclopedic}}, which said "This article may contain content not appropriate for an encyclopedia". It was deleted for being overly vague and prone to drive-by tagging.

For a template that's been around for well over a year, it had only five transclusions:

Sandstorm (song) — This is a list of dubiously relevant examples, so I've swapped it out for {{Examplefarm}}.
Chronicles of Ancient Darkness — The section had reasonably sourced information on the series' future.
Isaac Bear Early College High School — Already had {{advertisement}} on it, which was more fitting for the promotional stuff regarding the school's classes. I just removed the info.
‪Marko Nešić (born 1976)‬ — A list of awards which seemed overly promotional, so I just removed it.
James Rolfe (filmmaker) — Drive-by tag, no eplanation given as to what content was "non-notable".

The template's main problem is an utter lack of specificity. Every problem I found has another template already set out for it, and "nonnotable content" is about as vague as "content not appropriate for an encyclopedia". Five transclusions is a very low number, especially when all five were better suited to other templates or easily fixable without a template in the first place. If one section of an article is of dubious relevance to the rest of the article, then templates like {{coatrack}} {{example farm}}, or {{relevance}} should be all it needs, not a vague underused template such as this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or atleast rename, this name makes it look like it should be another {{notability}} -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—the template has been up for a year or so but it actually went "public" very recently—before that I did not publish information about it anywhere except on WP:TC's talk page to get feedback. Surprisingly no feedback came, and there was no opposition whatsoever. It is therefore very strange to me that so many people now want to the template deleted. I realize that not everyone watches WP:TC, but I would expect people who really care about cleanup templates to do so.

Now for the actual reasons why this template should be kept: I have already given them here and there are some other good rationales there. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how it doesn't have the same problems as {{Unencyclopedic}} when it's almost exactly the same damn thing. As I pointed out, the only five uses were either better suited for another template, or drive-by tagged without explanation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, too generic, similar to {{unencyclopedic}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per myself. Notability is a property of a subject, not content. Keφr 09:03, 13 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.