Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 3 November 5 >

November 4[edit]

Template:WIAA Northeast District Seven[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 keep. ✗plicit 14:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only four links. Fails NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A couple of links were added since the nomination making the navbox passable for the basic number of links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2022 (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).

Template:UK Radio Markets[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no main article, no transclusions, no documentation, and containing only links to templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2022 (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).

Template:Thông tin nhân vật[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to just be a Vietnamese-language version of Template:Infobox person; only used on three user pages. Contains many fewer parameters than Infobox person, and doesn't seem to have any unique use case that I can discern. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pages where its used have many more parameters. I'm just not sure if it would be worth it to implement them all. I just populated the ones that have information.
Also User:Nguyễn Hoàng Anh Tài isn't a user, but a misplaced user draft for an untranslated copy of Anh Tài [vi].

--Auric talk 16:39, 4 November 2022 (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).

Template:New York Guardians roster[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and a former team of the XFL. Maybe substitute on the Guardians article. Was removed from the article a week ago. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Oppose substing since TfD should not given unwanted content a second shot at life. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:46, 6 November 2022 (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).

Template:Saturn Award for Best Actress/doc[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doc page not linked on the main navbox page since this edit from August. Documentation isn't needed for this template anymore since the edits are going to be taking place and effect on the main page. Not on the documentation page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There was no reason given to bypass the existing documentation. This /doc page should be restored since it was bypassed arbitrarily by editor SibTower1987. Unless that editor can give good reason to bypass the existing /doc page, then it should be kept and used. If the template is for any reason protected in the future, it will have a /doc page that anyone can edit. Also note that template {{Saturn Award for Best Actress}} has had a /doc page since 2018, more than four years, so why remove and delete it now? No good reason I can see. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But is this a navbox that needs a doc page? You say it's there in case in the future it will need to be protected. But normally an award navbox like this isn't protected to the degree like Template:Academy Awards given its size. This navbox is still relatively small at the moment. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not a good reason to delete a working, viable /doc page that is already created and in place. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If all you have is {{collapsible option}} then there's no good reason to complicate things up by creating a doc page. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. That is not the case. There is no need to "create" a doc page that's already created and viable. If there is a doc page already in place, then there's no good reason to delete it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • So the only reason to keep this is that you acknowledged you made a mistake and are appealing to inertia? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Such a doc page is hardly more than a redirect. Very cheap and no reason to delete it. Added to that is its utility for the future if the template becomes protected, or if it grows to larger proportion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. --Izno (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2022 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_4&oldid=1121485331"