Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18

Template:Patriot Budapest roster

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 relist to Feb 27. Primefac (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patriot Budapest roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Ref New Haven Power

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 G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref New Haven Power (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This reference template isn't used is any articles MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As you can see from the talk page, it's never been used in articles, per se — this template's always been substituted, to prevent a vandal from being able to damage several pages with one edit. A search for <swanberg "new haven power"> finds it in use in three articles, but all of them were using it six years ago (see permalinks at [1], [2], and [3]), so I doubt that anyone's adding it to articles anymore. I'll happily switch should the creator give recent examples of this template being used. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I only looked at the what links here on the reference. I didn't think about searching it. I guess more information is needed now. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the creator of this, I can see that it's no longer useful. WuhWuzDat 03:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't G7 delete it at the moment; of course Wuhwuzdat, not Debresser, is the creator, but Debresser has edited it extensively, so we'd need agreement from both of them. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just notified User:Debresser. WuhWuzDat 04:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the speedy. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as G7. Thanks, Debresser, for your input. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2016 (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:Reference iTunes

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 G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reference iTunes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Itunes is not a reliable site to use as a reference. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question for MrLinkinPark333 — was this in use when you found it (i.e. you orphaned it), or was it already orphaned by that time? I'm curious to see how it's been used. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created the template long, long ago; I'll answer instead. Basically, this was a failed attempt to make a cite web template that would allow editors to easily cite an album or single page on iTunes, primarily for use in "release history" sections of articles on albums, EPs, singles and whatnot. I abandoned the idea, however. Also, evidently, I forgot to delete it when I did. Whoops! :U Philip Terry Graham 03:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Nyttend: I'm not sure whether any other talk pages used it, but there were no usage in any articles. And i see the creator of the template beat me to the question. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About to delete it under G7. And thanks for clarification; I was curious whether it had been used as a poor type of external link, or a citation to stuff like "iTunes says that it's been downloaded 9,999,999,999 times", or elsewhere in which it would have been appropriate. But if it's not been used, it's not been used. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2016 (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:Rock Racing-Murcia riders

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rock Racing-Murcia riders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this team was disbanded in 2009, so a roster isnt needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; none of these guys is on this roster anymore, so it would be entirely reasonable to remove all of them, and what's the point of a navbox that navigates literally nobody? Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2016 (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:SD Ponferradina B squad

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SD Ponferradina B squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This reserve team dissolved in 2013, making a roster template unneeded anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment in the section above this one; it's the same situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2016 (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:Reference ranges during menstrual cycle study 2013, citation

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 G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reference ranges during menstrual cycle study 2013, citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused reference template MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as creator. Unused template I forgot still existed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as G7. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2016 (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:Admin hopeful 2

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).

Moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Admin hopeful 2

The result of the discussion was Speedy closed. Userboxes go to MFD, regardless of whether what space they are in. MFD was the proper place. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Admin hopeful 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Reposting from MfD where this nomination was placed originally [4].

This is quite similar to {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}}, and I question whether we need a separate template just for the purpose of including a date. At the same time, I can't just replace one with the other: this one demands a date (see here for what it looks like if you don't supply one), and the other one doesn't accept it. If it's agreed that supporting a date parameter is important, we should just merge this function to the other one and ensure that the date bit is left out if no date is supplied; if it's not agreed to be important, we should just delete this. Posted by User:Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Cross posted by Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. This does seem to be a userbox. It could be merged or something, but maybe it should stay at MfD... —PC-XT+ 09:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this TFD discussion to avoid having people vote both there and here, because userboxes go to MFD; see the second bullet under the "Information on the process" header at the very top of WP:MFD. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2016 (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:Roads of the Rio Grande Valley

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roads of the Rio Grande Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past precedent as exemplified here and several other discussions, this template is unneeded because categories can better handle the need and the template pollutes the What Links Here function in the articles included. Dough4872 04:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This can probably be deleted unless something has changed or this is a special case —PC-XT+ 04:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per precedent. Imzadi 1979 → 09:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent, and even more because of the length of the Rio Grande — unlike places like metro Valdosta, the Rio Grande Valley goes for hundreds of miles. We might as well dump U.S. Route 160 onto this template, because it crosses the Rio Grande at Alamosa, Colorado, where the Rio Grande is still a Rio Tiny with a width less than that of an adjacent plumbing supply store. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. --Rs chen 7754 20:15, 20 February 2016 (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:George Washington Colonials bowl game navbox

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:George Washington Colonials bowl game navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to a wikilink, unless it can be expanded —PC-XT+ 04:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; absolutely pointless. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2016 (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).