Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 5
July 5
[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 merge. ~ Rob13Talk 02:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Non-admin comment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Non-administrator observation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Non-admin comment with Template:Non-administrator observation.
Completely redundant, every single thing is the exact same except for "comment" vs "observation" Kharkiv07 (T) 23:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom. I didn't even know the other one existed, but hey, I'm one of today's lucky 10,000. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. I saw these at one point and pondered a TfD. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:01, 9 July 2016 (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 here. ~ Rob13Talk 03:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:ARSS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:ARSS/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template that seems rather unnecessary for a few reasons. For one, it's only purpose seems to be to link to pages within Wikipedia with built-in paragraph formatting; this is redundant to manually linking pages within Wikipedia with paragraph formatting. And secondly, per the way Template:ARSS/1 is currently built, those internal pages within Wikipedia are set up as external links instead of internal links. (Even if this were to be fixed, this template still seems unnecessary. Also, the template's instructions since 2009 were to substitute the template ... which creates over a hundred lines of unnecessary code.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2016 (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 here. ~ Rob13Talk 03:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Clone Wars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unnecessary template that lists the media that is set in or around one in-universe event of Star Wars, the Clone Wars. It fails WP:NAVBOX No. 1, as they are, collectively, not a "single, coherent subject". It is redundant because the content of this navbox is covered by several navboxes already. The main {{Star Wars}} navbox provides links to general articles, Category:Star Wars film navigational boxes has navboxes based upon Star Wars films, {{Star Wars games}} mentions video games, {{Star Wars comics}} comics, {{Star Wars Legends novels}} links to the "expanded universe" literature, while {{Star Wars canon novels}} mentions the "official canon" ones. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:05, 5 July 2016 (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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 03:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Rogue One (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unnecessary navbox, possibly WP:TOOSOON at this point. The first group consists of characters, nine of which are piped links to Rogue One. The second group is about locations, while the only article linked, Death Star, only says "The upcoming anthology film Rogue One, set to be released in December 2016, will focus on a band of Rebels stealing the plans for the first Death Star prior to the events of A New Hope." soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:46, 5 July 2016 (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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 03:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This is unnecessary because it is embedded in {{WWEPPV}}. JC · Talk · Contributions 07:29, 5 July 2016 (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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 03:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This is unnecessary because it is embedded in {{WWEPPV}}. JC · Talk · Contributions 07:24, 5 July 2016 (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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 03:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This is unnecessary because it is embedded in {{WWEPPV}}. JC · Talk · Contributions 06:39, 5 July 2016 (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. ~ Rob13Talk 03:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:1969 NFL season by team and Template:1969 AFL season by team already serve this purpose. They were separate league's in 1969 so there is no need for this template. The creator agrees to. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:55, 10 July 2016 (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).