Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 28
August 28
[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Single use template that has no real value Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not enough places to use it. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:PRC provinces small imagemap/45em (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PRC provinces small imagemap alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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 2017 September 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox monastery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox religious building (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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This navbox lists games considered part of the genre incremental game, but that's not a single, coherent subject. Video game genres are based upon gameplay, but sharing that element is not a reason to list the articles in a navbox. We don't have navboxes about first-person shooters either. Is also already covered by Category:Incremental games. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete But ensure listed articles are in the category. I did some work on this at one point when I stumbled on it but did not create it. -- ferret (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not important at all. AlfaRocket (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Already covered by a category, navbox would be pointless.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NOTDUP just because this template duplicates a category is not a reason for deletion. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 14:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:PD-USGov-NRC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 06:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Template:PD-USGov-DHS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 06:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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 by nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be a subjective and confusing "series" sidebar. How do we determine which figures belong there? Is "Social Christianity" referring to Christian socialism or referring to social outreach and community organization?
If it does refer to socialism, does that mean that Martin Luther King Jr is a socialist? Pope Leo XIII, who actually seemed to oppose socialism if anything? What's more, there are BLPs involved, like Desmond Tutu and Gustavo Gutiérrez, neither of whom have verified socialist views! I'm concerned about Libel right now. Please, delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep It does not refer to socialism. Leutha (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Libel concerns are unfounded; I'm not sure why you are equating Social Christianity with Christian socialism. I don't doubt that the template is poorly defined, but Template talk:Social Christianity is the place for that conversation, not here. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, this needs discussion at the template's talk page, not here, but I note (1) Social Christianity is a redirect to Christian Socialism (and has been since 2009) and (2) the template does indeed refer to "socialism": Christian Socialism and Christian Socialist Movement. If some unsuitable topics have been included they should be removed but this does not require template deletion. Thincat (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep this is useful. AlfaRocket (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @AlfaRocket: How? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's comment: @Leutha and Sondra.kinsey: Some of the entries are connected to socialism or other left-leaning institutions. See also Thincat's comment. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I am placing a bold vote because I don't want my earlier comment to be used to support delete. If the template contains unsuitable links they should, with consensus, be removed. TfD is the wrong place to be discussing this. It is disappointing that this nomination has not been withdrawn. Thincat (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – Are you suggesting that Martin Luther King Jr. was not, in fact, a socialist? Because that's a well-documented fact… 142.160.131.202 (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Withdrawing as consensus is clearly against this. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm the major contributor to the draft, I'm still interested in working on it so I propose to Userfy it to my Sandbox. BTW it's never been in the AFC system so G13 is not relevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- G13 has expanded to all abandoned drafts, which made this eligible for deletion. Since you want it, I'll happily Withdraw and it will get another 6 months to fall stale assuming no edits are made at all. Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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).