Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 9

[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 Oppose (overwhelming opposition) (non-admin closure) User1937 (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Trump with Template:Donald_Trump_series.
Maybe split the "Family" section as well, for this template is overly long IMO. The "series" template should replace most of the instances of {{Trump}} if applicable. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:45, 9 November 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).
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 2016 November 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 18 November 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).
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 ~ Rob13Talk 02:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and provides no navigation Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 9 November 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).
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 2016 November 17 ~ Rob13Talk 02:02, 17 November 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).
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 merge with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

single-use templates, should be merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2014 FIBA World Championship for Women squads. Kante4 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 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).
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 2016 November 17 ~ Rob13Talk 02:00, 17 November 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).
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. ~ Rob13Talk 01:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 9 November 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).
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. ~ Rob13Talk 01:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama/ALCOTW has not been active since 2007 Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 9 November 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).
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 withdrawn (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The template has been restored at Australian Football League, for some reason it was removed and replaced with the text that was already in the template. Flickerd (talk) 10:55, 10 November 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).
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 ~ Rob13Talk 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 9 November 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).
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. ~ Rob13Talk 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 9 November 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).
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 ~ Rob13Talk 01:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was used for seasonal NYL ladders, but all ladders have been converted to module format, and thus this template is now unused. --SuperJew (talk) 17:20, 9 November 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).
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. ~ Rob13Talk 01:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 9 November 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).
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. ~ Rob13Talk 01:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 9 November 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).
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 RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be duplicate of the article Palana village. Wasn't sure which speedy criteria applied, so decided to TFD. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:51, 9 November 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).
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 2016 November 17 ~ Rob13Talk 01:54, 17 November 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).
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 ~ Rob13Talk 01:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This undocumented, unused template does not appear to work: it just applies a visibility-hidden style to any content passed to it, and a "ShowOnlyToLoggedInUsers" class which has no effect. An example of it not working, of the templated word "test" inside quote marks: "{{Show only to logged in users|test}}". McGeddon (talk) 10:08, 9 November 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).
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 ~ Rob13Talk 01:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag; potentially misleading - not all ESA photos are freely licensed enough (may entail restrictions or other terms) for Wikipedia FASTILY 08:36, 9 November 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).
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 WP:CSD#G5 ~Amatulić (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other members of Category:Trylie's Flag Templates, this is a jarring Template that visually supersedes the established method of hatnotes and veers into a non-encyclopedic WP:TONE, especially with its title choice. (I would think, of almost universal necessity, that all flags have colors in them and can think of no colorless ones.) The template repeats information that could easily be contained in the WP:MOS parameter of WP:ALSO. (The whole template seems simply redundant and unnecessary.) Shearonink (talk) 05:47, 9 November 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).
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 WP:CSD#G5 ~Amatulić (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A jarring Template that visually supersedes the established method of hatnotes and repeats information that could more easily be contained in the WP:MOS parameter of WP:ALSO. (The whole template is simply redundant and unnecessary.) Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 9 November 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).
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 ~ Rob13Talk 01:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational box no longer needed since all the annual articles were deleted. Richie Campbell (talk) 03:34, 9 November 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).