Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 27
November 27
[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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
We do not include 'current squad' templates for national teams, nor for qualifying campaigns, given the fluidity of national team set-ups. GiantSnowman 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- delete, and WP:TOOSOON. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Current consensus is these types of templates are not used. — Jkudlick tcs 01:44, 5 December 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Transclusions replaced with {{A-Z multipage list}} and is now orphaned. I believe this falls directly under one of the specific TFD criteria. A separate discussion about the usefulness of the lists themselves (which may be of broader interest, as many of the same problems I detail have likely been repeated across the lists of the various states) is taking place here, though it's not complete as of this writing. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (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. The syntax of the new website does not lend itself towards being templated, and so the existing uses will be substituted and marked as dead links. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This template has received precious little editing attention since it was created nearly a decade ago. I commented out the photo link several years ago after it quit working correctly. Since that time, DCCED revamped their website, changing all the links, in turn deprecating the link syntax used by this template to generate an EL to their site (at least as far as I can tell from playing around with it). Moreover, the template has only been transcluded at random on various articles, while other articles provide a direct EL to the website without using the template and still other articles don't link to the site at all. This begs the question of whether this site should be treated as an EL entry, or whether it can be considered a reliable source to expand these articles, using inline citations to the individual URLs for each community to support accompanying prose. While somewhat out of scope of TFD, it may help to get some feedback on that point, as a great many of these articles feature little or no prose beyond a few paragraphs of 15-year-old census data, with a subset of those articles being actively kept that way by a coterie of editors (see WP:LAME#Chicken, Alaska and related editing activity for a good example of that). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions
- Delete I think this is based on what is now an outmoded idea, that everything should be a template. It makes more sense to just add it as an EL which the majority of Wikipedians can understand and easily do, than to complicate matters with a template that, as the nomination states, has been used unevenly/haphazardly. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2015 (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).