Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 12

< December 11	December 13 >

December 12 edit

Template:Exegesis 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) Primefac (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Exegesis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in mainspace, unusable for navigation due to sea of red links, duplicates the scope of Template:Tafsir and an ambiguous title that could refer to any kind of exegsis. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, all red links. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2016 (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:Calc 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) Primefac (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Calc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template - Possibly redundant JMHamo (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. It does seem redundant. It could and should be replaced with the actual result. If an editor wants to indicate how a figure was derived they should put it in the article, or in a footnote. A template can do the calculations itself, possibly in Lua code which is far more efficient and maintainable, rather than calling this. Unused, so presumably the above has been the case: there has always been a better way to do it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete or turn it into a {{soft redirect}} to the #expr parser function help page. Basically it's functioning as a soft redirect right now. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2016 (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:Christopher Newport Captains football coach navbox 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 userfy to User:Jweiss11/Christopher Newport Captains football coach navbox, to be moved only when sufficient links/pages have been added. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christopher Newport Captains football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two blue links. Insufficient navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request userfication of this navbox so that it can be moved back to the main space at a later date when there are a sufficient number of relevant articles to include. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jweiss11: I have no objection to userfication of any/all of these types of nominations so long as you agree not to move them back into the template namespace until they have at least four blue links, which is the typical cutoff usually applied at TfD. In fact, if you're happy with that outcome, please let me know if you'd be willing for me to move other similar templates (which I had planned to eventually nominate) without the formality of a TfD discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, I plan to add articles so that all of the other similar nominated navboxes have four blue links. The Christopher Newport navbox is unique among the set in that it could only have two blues link at this point in time, but that will change in the future. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Plastikspork: Tad confused by this relist. Everyone who's commented agrees with userfying the template. Any particular reason we didn't just do that? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the original author is Patriarca12, I thought I would provide more time for comment. Does it go to Patriarca12's namespace or Jweiss11's namespace? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only request for userfication was by Jweiss11, so it presumably goes there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:04, 12 December 2016 (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:Acc 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 2016 December 21 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Acc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Once Upon a Time ratings 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 2016 December 22 (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Once Upon a Time ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:ME-fact 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, feel free to create a redirect if you think it's useful. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ME-fact (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless topic-specific version of "citation needed" template. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect Template:ME-fact to Template:Citation needed?, as Template:ME-fact has many incoming links Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Citation needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have undone User:GXXF's WP:BOLD redirection and docpage blanking during this TfD as disruptive out-of-process...that editor already had speedy and hismerge requests rejected for this template. DMacks (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was kept at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_5#Middle-earth_maintenance_templates as a useful way to help editors find articles they might be able to improve. That is, its usefulness is precisely because it is a 'topic-specific version of "citation needed" template.' Is Wikipedia:PetScan up to the task of intersecting Category:Articles with unsourced statements with the whole Category:Middle-earth cat-tree? DMacks (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- DMacks, the answer to your question is "yes". There are 101 pages in that subset. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly specific and redundant. Ppp ery 00:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we can use the provided petscan link to get the intersection, which has the advantage that it doesn't rely on editors knowing about this specialized template. Frietjes (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2016 (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:2014UCIWomenTeams 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2014UCIWomenTeams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2014 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. The Banner talk 23:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Template used at four places 2014 in women's road cycling , List of 2014 UCI Women's Teams and riders , List of 2014 professional women's cycling teams and UCI Women's Teams
Argument of nominator information isn't going to change: Well 2a) the team names /team seasons links are not written all corect. The names should be changed with the Template:Ct. See for instance edit. 2b) the team links will become at a sudden time a dead link and needs to be adjusted or deleted. 2c, I'm willing to add the number of the season of the teams (1st season/2nd season/8th sesaon).

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note See also the note at a related template for dicussion here. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge with List of 2014 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then use LST to transclude in the other articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete (without using LST) per nom; the info is static and does not need to be transcluded at all. Ppp ery 12:23, 19 December 2016 (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).