Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 7 August 9 >

August 8 edit

Template:Very busy 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used by only three editors. Redundant to {{Busy}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't need to know people's exact levels of busyness; it's not a contest. Alternatively, userfy as with all userspace templates people grow attached to. Alakzi (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adds nothing to the "busy" template. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 11 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Attica 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. Marking as historical would be a reasonable alternative for a once-active project that might be expected to revive, but this is all but unused, and trivial to restore or recreate should the need arise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - project is defunct. Alakzi (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:T2 The only functional use seems to be Category talk:Central Athens (regional unit) but doesn't add to any benefit to collaboration. In fact it misrepresents protocol.Algircal (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the WikiProject should be deleted first. And that seems eminently possible, since it seems to have been created by a single user, thus not a real collaboration. Merging it to WP:GREECE should also be easy as redirecting or moving to a taskforce location, thus the project banner can disappear when that happens. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WPBANNERMETA, the metatemplate for most WikiProject Banners, supports a setting for "inactive" wikiprojects, making the template show that the project is inactive. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as Historical You never know, the project could be revived in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 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).

Vacation 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep all. Consensus is that a variety of templates for different situations and English variants is useful. Certainly there is no consensus for deletion, merging or redirection. BethNaught (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Busy}}; and each other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having more than one "vacation" template is a bit redundant; at most, it's cosmetic. I agree with that. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They don't all say the same thing. I have always found the variety of vacation notices helpful as well as mildly aesthetic. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am using vacation right now ([1]) because I'm on vacation, not busy. They are different things, and replacing one with a parameter to the other will impose additional work load on servers, which would have to process those parameters every time page is displayed. The space occupied by additional templates is zero compared to the rest of Wikipedia, freeing it is not worth any effort. But saving additional work is something we should take into account. --CiaPan (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a ludicrous argument. Deleting all these redundant templates is saving work for editors so they don't waste time, work, and effort deciding which template to use.Algircal (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination statement is wrong as it assumes "busy" and "vacation" are synonyms. Try telling your boss "I'm busy next week" as opposed to "I'm on vacation next week" when they ask you to do something and see what reaction you get. Also curious if the "redundant" service awards are going to be the next deletion target? --NeilN talk to me 14:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how deleting these status templates furthers the mission of Wikipedia. ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 02:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just used one of the templates because I went on vacation. Going on vacation is often the opposite of being busy, anyway. starship.paint ~ KO 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They mean different things. "Busy" means you are still around and can respond to things. "Vacation" and its variants is more likely to mean that you are completely out of touch, possibly for a long period of time. All three templates further the mission of Wikipedia by facilitating the editing experience for users here. They say that "redirects are cheap"; aren't templates cheap? Why delete them, if they make an editor's life easier and their user experience more friendly? --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Using {{vacation3}} right now. They are not redundant to {{busy}} as they do not substantially say the same thing; 'busy' and 'vacation' have different definitions. As far as furthering the mission of Wikipedia: these templates provide a user-friendly way to tell other editors that one will be away for a period of time. We are losing editors because the experience of editing can be tedious and disheartening. By all means, let's take some more customization and fun out of being here by deleting templates like this that are widely used and easily modified. We can't continue to build a free encyclopedia if there are no editors to do it. KrakatoaKatie 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot the difference:

One of those is {{Vacation3}}, one is {{busy}}. Tell me again why {{Vacation3}} is not redundant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That does take a lot longer to type, though. Datbubblegumdoetalkcontribs 19:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has to use the more verbose method of entry; they can just type {{Busy}} or {{Wikibreak}} (or, as has been suggested, a merged {{vacation}}). My other example simply shows that for people who insist on little-used variant wording, or alternative icon images (really?!?) other methods are available, that do not require us to maintain a plethora of redundant templates, which serve to bewilder editors with a variety of unnecessary options.
  • It is not redundant because I am lazy, and have no wish to type all of those nonsense if I am rewarding myself with a vacation soon and if a template can automatically type it for me. Also, the KISS principle. starship.paint ~ KO 01:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're lazy, you can use {{Wikibreak}}. The KISS principle applies to maintaining templates too: we're making more work for ourselves, when we don't need to, and making life more confusing for our fellow editors, by having lots of unnecessary templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The KISS principle might apply to making templates, if more redundant ones are proposed. But I'm unconvinced that it applies to maintaining templates, because really, what maintenance is there to be done? The templates just stay there and we are not hard pressed for disk space. Anyway, I will maintain that it is more confusing for me to manually write out a holiday template than to select one of several already customized templates. Also, I use Wikibreak when I am forcing myself away from editing Wikipedia, it's not the same as a holiday, I'm afraid. starship.paint ~ KO 11:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if we're not lazy, then we can do away with all templates and just type everything by hand every time. Come on, Andy. Templates exist for the convenience of users, so that they can say what they want to say easily, without having to type it or retype it or modify some other not-quite-right template. Templates which serve that purpose for a lot of users, as these three obviously do, should stay. Templates that don't seem very useful, like verybusy above, can be let go. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all then delete all into {{Holiday}}. GiantSnowman 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, right. Delete all the American English versions, leaving only the British English version. I assume you were kidding; it's always so hard to tell online. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say that 'Holiday' is used more widely than 'Vacation' - there is much more to the world than the US of A y'know. GiantSnowman 17:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you weren't kidding? Too bad, I was hoping. Yes, there are more English speakers than just Americans. There are also more English speakers than just Brits. Wikipedia explicitly recognizes that national versions of English are acceptable and appropriate here. There is no reason why everybody should be forced to say "on holiday" when they prefer "on vacation" - and there is no reason why everybody should be assumed to mean "on vacation" when their preference is "on holiday". It's not a competition. There is room on Wikipedia for both. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean Wikipedia's policies recognizes that particular versions of English are acceptable on articles. But what is the point? You are arguing for the sake of arguing when having competing spellings is a waste of time.Algircal (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • So simply have a vacation=yes paramater in {{Holiday}} which changes the wording for all you Yanks. Kind regards, the Limeys of Wikipedia ;) GiantSnowman 19:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are currently 61 users who have the Vacation template on their page. Over the course of a year the template must be used by hundreds, probably thousands. By your logic, all of those people should be forced to use the Holiday template, and then either manually change it to Vacation (now THAT is a waste of time), or else put up with a wording on their page that is not the way they talk. Come on. The purpose of templates is to make editing easier and more pleasant for users. The purpose is not to get into a pissing contest over national variants of English. We don't have to choose one or the other. We can have both, and be friends. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Having two identical templates makes zero sense. GiantSnowman 19:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK, well, I tried to be friends. Let me know when you're ready to sit down and laugh about it over a beer. Like we could have done earlier this month when I was on vacation in Britain. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ← Pfft. "On holiday" means it's Easter or Memorial Day. If these are the templates that finally push Wikipedia over its byte limit, then immediately delete. Short of that... – Juliancolton | Talk 20:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason as the holiday templates. What's the deal with a few bytes? The {{Busy}} template isn't as specialized, so I cannot support the deletion proposal. Dustin (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Per the above, of all the things to do on Wikipedia deleting some talk-page templates when they are being used shouldn't be up there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any gain whatsoever by deleting these, it is clear they are being used. What is the point? Chillum 22:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all variety is the spice of life and having these help fulfill the "have fun" aspect of WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 22:37, 20 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Request infobox person 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to |needs-infobox=yes in {{WikiProject Biography}}. The mere four transclusions (now thus replaced) betrayed a lack of community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 8 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Camping 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (and unreadable). Redundant to {{Busy}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 8 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Formula links 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Marked as an experiment since July 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 8 August 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).

Template:EmoCOTMvoter 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 8 August 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).

Template:Femininity Archive of common concerns 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was subst: and delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only applies to the one article, so subst and delete. Alakzi (talk) 23:15, 8 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dmoz request 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well, that's the point. I took it out of talk pages once I had found an appropriate category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Koavf: When & where was this last used?
      • Uses I'm not sure but I know that I've replaced some transclusions within the past year. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Kovaf uses it to track requests, and removes it because requests have been fulfilled, then obvioiusly, it wouldn't show up with transclusions. Indeed any request template should not be expected to have transclusions, since they could have been fulfilled quickly after being requested -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:06, 11 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Commons page 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 relisted on 2015 September 15. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just four transcusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep It shouldn't be transcluded: someone should fix the problem and remove the template. I'm not sure if this is really that necessary for en.wp but the fact that it's unused is actually a good thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 11 August 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).

Template:Cluestick 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 keep. Memorial questions aside, this pretty much is a barnstar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Redundant to barnstars, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Let's zigzag our way through this discussion. I created this template after getting a clue from a Wikipedian on a template that was driving me bonkers. I found the award on the personal user awards page, and it was a perfect match. I don't do this very often. When I looked at the user page of the person who first created the award, it appears that at one time she was very active here and well liked. It seems she may be deceased. This inspired me to create the template. I had four objectives in mind in doing so. First, it would encourage presentation of this award more often, since I think it is quite clever; hopefully, making it easy to present will spur usage. Second, I wanted to present this award in a dignified fashion to the person who helped me. Third, the top of the template page lists the prior recipient to whom the award was presented by its creator; this is effectively an honor roll. Fourth, and most important, it serves as a memorial of sorts for the award's creator who appears to have been a significant contributor here and may no longer be with us. For this reason, the template, when used, includes a link to her user page. Admittedly, these are emotional appeals. However, unlike many of the templates nominated for deletion on this page, this one has a reasonable possibility that may even approach a likelihood of being used again. I think this differentiates it from the rest of the lot. Further, if this is redundant to barnstars, it can easily be argued that most or all of the barnstars are redundant to each other and could all be deleted. Occasionally, when we glance up through the rain, we realize that people feel inspired when they are appreciated and recognized. This template encourages that, and, in a small way, could serve to improve the encyclopedia. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason this template should be deleted, as mentioned before because of it's memorial status as well as somewhat of an award that is meant to spread WikiLove.  
    ♥ Melody Concerto ♥
    02:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    • See above. In any case, for memorials, we use WP:RIP, not unnecessary templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although the purpose I stated of memorializing the creator of the award was something important enough for me to inspire me to create the template, it still accomplishes other purposes that could improve the encyclopedia. Further, nothing on the template page or its documentation indicates or even implies that the award creator may be or is deceased. This isn't the type of thing that WP:MEMORIAL (with which I completely agree) is trying to prevent. There is nothing more there than a completely appropriate link to her user page. Also, it is arguable that all templates are unnecessary. Every time an infobox is created, it could be done from scratch. But they make editing the encyclopedia more efficient. This template has the potential to inspire editors to play a role in that. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 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).

Template:CurrentHOSCOTM 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't been updated since January 2009. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 8 August 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).

Template:CurrentCityCOTM 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never used. Los Angeles has been CotM since 2008. BethNaught (talk) 08:48, 31 August 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).

Template:Current-SCOTM 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last nomination was in 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 8 August 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).

Template:Current Theatre COTM 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used only to announce that theatre "was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 25, 2005." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 8 August 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).

Template:Current Musical Theatre COTM 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last nomination (failed) was in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 8 August 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).

Template:Failed India COTW 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used to announce on ten article talk pages that some editors decided half a decade or more ago not to jointly edit the respective articles. So what? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary, meaningless as a log entry Kraxler (talk) 00:14, 28 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Current India COTW 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. The related Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics/INCOTW was marked as closed in 2009. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete defunct project, useless leftover Kraxler (talk) 00:12, 28 August 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).

Template:Current India COTM 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used to mark two articles as "a collaboration of the month" since 2009 and 2001 respectively. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary, leftover from some defunct project, probably Kraxler (talk) 00:09, 28 August 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).

Template:Current F1 COTW 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused means it's useless Kraxler (talk) 00:08, 28 August 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).

Template:Current Earthquake COTM 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Bam earthquake has been marked with this template as "the current earthquake collaboration of the month" since October 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 8 August 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).

Template:Current Cinema COTW 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last nomination was in August 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 8 August 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).

Template:CricketCOTF 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Collaboration's talk page was deemed inactive in December 2005. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 8 August 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).

Template:Infobox arab tribe 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The extra parameter has been merged into {{Infobox tribe}}. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of {{Infobox tribe}}, to which its single unique parameter, nisba, should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 8 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:F.B.C. Unione Venezia squad 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A zombie template that haven't been update since 2009, i turned to a redirect temporary in order to update it for some time. But seems it is not necessary NOW for an amateur side. After another bankruptcy this year (last in 2009), the template MAY useful when the club back to Lega Pro (MAY be in 2016 but wikipedia is not crystal ball) and especially much more when in Serie B. However, for an amateur side, a template linking a list of red-link amateur footballers wasn't a good idea. Matthew_hk tc 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a defunct club does not need a 'current squad' navbox, and an amateur team (full of redlinks) does not merit one. GiantSnowman 21:04, 8 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:A.S. Varese 1910 squad 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since A.S. Varese 1910 was folded and replaced by a amateur side, which technically they may back to professional league after at least 2 seasons, such template was only useful in professional team not amateur. Matthew_hk tc 19:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a defunct club does not need a 'current squad' navbox, and an amateur team (full of redlinks) does not merit one. GiantSnowman 21:03, 8 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Privadoygenteism 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template full of redlinks (which includes the "main" article), centered around some kind of fringe political ideology. Only used on one userspace page, MFD pending. (Please also delete Template:Privadoygenteism/sandbox under WP:G8 if this is deleted.) —Keφr 17:59, 8 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pactagonal 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused award type thing. None in use, none awarded (afaict), the linked project was deleted as the company's software lacks notability (so clearly there's no demand for the award), and the awards is wholly inappropriate in design, as the company does not, nor ever has it, had anything to do with Pac-Man, making it utterly misrepresentative. We shouldn't be allowing a non-entity of a company to hijack some one else's game.oknazevad (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, checking the links to the image it seems this was never used. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 27 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:House of Glücksburg (Denmark) 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge - uncontested. Alakzi (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:House of Glücksburg (Denmark) with Template:House of Glücksburg (Denmark, 1903-1947 Coat of arms) and Template:House of Glücksburg (Denmark, 1947-1972 Coat of arms).
rarely used and nearly identical, see this diff and this diff. only substantial difference is that the first template has some additional grandchildren and the choice of image in the third template. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigy144 and Buho09: Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 8 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sydney Metro 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template exists solely to provide navigation among pages for four related metro rail proposals, all of which were announced and then cancelled between 2008 and 2010. Non-notable. Mqst north (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so – a discussion on that point is ongoing at Talk:Sydney Metro (2008 proposal) Mqst north (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The merge has been performed – the template is no longer required. Mqst north (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need for navigation for a defunct project. Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 27 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Endoscopy 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 12#Template:Endoscopy. Alakzi (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not useful for navigation. It is in fact a list. I propose that this navbox is moved to either a list article or deleted entirely in favour of categories. If it is retained I propose almost all the items are stripped except those directly relating to the technologies relating to endoscopy. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:20, 8 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_8&oldid=1142562600"