Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 10

[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. Essentially a G7 result. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template for company that doesn't have an article. In fact one of the linked articles doesn't mention the owner. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was created when the company had stations in multiple markets. Now they have just the four in the Hagerstown, Maryland market. As the creator of this template, I have no objections to it being deleted. - NeutralhomerTalk22:55, 10 November 2015 (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 relist at Nov 23Primefac (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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, redundant to another navigation box. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way too broad for a template: Atari platforms. Is rarely used, and there are categories for the respective lists of games released on platforms. Soetermans. T / C 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed are two video game articles developed by template's subject, platforms is too broad and fails WP:NAVBOX, people are redlinked and probably won't be created anytime soon. Soetermans. T / C 16:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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. No objections. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article has this template transcluded. The other two links are redirects and the rest are red links. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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. Category:Supermarket templates already exists, and a subcat can be created if necessary. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox to link together navboxes? Is this really necessary? At what point do we get down the navbox rabbit hole? Would suggest a navbox subcategory would be better, if Category:Supermarket templates (which already contains all of those templates linked here) itself doesn't suffice. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use a category instead. Doesn't seem likely that someone would be reading the template for one country's supermarkets and say "hey, I wonder what other ones we have?" (navbox to get from one to another) as compared to "I'm looking to see if we have a certain one" (directly going to cat of all actually created ones). The templates' docs can all have a pointer to the cat if one wishes to emphasize the range of availability. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2015 (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, with the main concerns being harassment and grave dancing. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This just constitutes WP:HARASSMENT for banned editors, because when they're banned, they're notified, and when this template is used when they engage in sock puppetry, they be like "I already know I'm banned, so what!?". This would fit better as an user warning, but there is still no need to use this everytime a banned user engages in sock puppetry. TL22 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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 no consensusPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not such a director who needs a template The Avengers (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful navigational aid, clearly passes three of the five criteria on WP:NAVBOX, and arguably meets the other two (3 and 5) too. Perfectly standard use of a navbox. There is no added notability requirement for navbox eligibility beyond it linking more than two articles, so I would argue he is such a director who warrants a template. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:11, 12 November 2015 (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 relist at Dec 3. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2015 (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 relist at Nov 23. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (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 relist at Nov 23. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2015 (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 and move {{Fifty Shades (trilogy)}} into its place (leaving a redirect). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. It started out just calling two other templates which were navboxes at Fifty Shades of Grey which wasn't useful. Since then, it has grown even less useful as it now simply invokes Template:Fifty Shades (trilogy). I've changed it's only use to invoke that template directly in the Fifty Shades article so this template is not used any more. Whpq (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2015 (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 G6 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 03:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated all the short stubs into one article at Salvation Army camps in Canada and put in redirects so this template serves no purpose anymore. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template isn't used. In the description for the stub category Veterinary medicine stubs, it says "relating to conditions and diseases of animals, and anatomy specific to animal species" Therefore, I think the animal disease template isnt needed MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2015 (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).

Air Rifle 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 delete. Cats don't exist, and so these stub templates don't need to either. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not used in any articles. I'm not 100% sure if they'd useful as feeder templates or not. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. It is specific to one single season of Big Brother Australia, and simply uses {{Big Brother endgame}} with season specific parameters filled in. I've reverted its use in the article as pointless. Whpq (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2015 (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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless t emplate. The creator copied the wiki markup for the map and accompanying legend from the Lutheranism article to create this template. She/he then replaced the original markup with a template which transcludes exactly the same thing. The only use was in the original Lutheranism article; I've reverted as it is totally pointless. Whpq (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes I am reasonably sure. This editor has created other one shot useless templates. See my 2 nominations above this one. As for whether use in a second article would justify not in this case --Whpq (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Avenue is the only article in this template that survived a deletion discussion. Even if that were not the case, those 5 albums would probably only belong in Lisa Moscatiello#Discography and not in this template. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2015 (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).