Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27 edit

Template:Guerreros de Hermosillo 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This team dissolved in 2010, so a roster template isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 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:Infobox Jain deity 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 into {{Infobox deity}}, keeping colour and parameters. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Jain deity into Template:Infobox deity.
Deity templates of most religions are now merged into {{Infobox deity}}. For consisitency. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong comment {{Infobox deity}} doesn't have any of the fields of {{Infobox Jain deity}}. No merge should be initiated if all the fields can't be added to infobox deity, especially it being a locked template. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and prune We don't need forked templates for every religion. Some consensus discussion might need to be had at Template talk:Infobox deity whether every parameter should be retained from the merge though. If this template has so many parameters that the generic one can't handle that suggests it's infoboxing things that it shouldn't. Lots of these parameters are non-English or WP:JARGON at best, and don't strike me as infobox material, which should be a summary of basic information for all readers, not scriptural nit-picking for devotees.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and prune per SMC. --Izno (talk) 15:02, 9 March 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:Patriot Budapest roster 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. According to this page (which may or may not be RS) they went bankrupt in 2014. Being defunct (with a lot of redlinks) leads to the "delete" options listed below. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The team withdrew from the minor hockey league in 2013, so a roster isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure. In what way did it withdraw? The article's unclear. Did it withdraw because the club was failing (i.e. it ceased to exist)? If so, delete per my comments about the "Rock Racing-Murcia riders" elsewhere on this page. Or did it withdraw by going independent (i.e. it existed after withdrawing)? If so, keep unless it failed later. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - according to the article, the team was a part of the Junior Hockey League (Russia) for a season, then withdrew from the league. I do agree that there's seems to be conflicting info. The infobox says 2012-present but the article says "was an ice hockey team". I've looked at one of the cited references here and their offical website in the infobox doesn't work. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what Nyttend said. The answer of what to do is clear either way, but dependent on the facts, which are not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:02, 1 March 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:Kamen Rider Hibiki 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. Primefac (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This navigation box is basically empty. Should not have to be an entire template. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just fandom-based excess. All of these few things can much more concisely be worked into the text of the articles, and/or a see-also section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:03, 1 March 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:WikiProject MedinaPedia 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) 06:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this template make sense? Is this an actual WikiProject? Wikipedia:GLAM/MedinaPedia consists of a redirect to meta so should we have a template and structure for articles for a project when it isn't actually a WikiProject here? Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment at any rate, it should not categorize into Category:MedinaPedia as it is doing now, since that implies a content category instead of project category -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:02, 27 February 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:Pro gamer achievements 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 after substituting usage. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Practically unused template. Nothing that can't be explained with a standard wikitable (like seen here). Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. One usage doesn't need a template and we should (re)create it only when enough articles want to have a standardized presentation to justify increased editing complexity. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally closed this today but just reopened it at @Prisencolin's request. I'm recommending his participation here. czar 21:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been planning on using it on more articles, just haven't gotten to it yet. Also "Nothing that can't be explained with a standard wikitable", is that some kind of policy, I'm not sure tbh.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a table. We have no need of a template to generate nothing but a table with some hard-coded headers. Any of various table-generation templates, or just using plain template code, can do this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:59, 1 March 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_27&oldid=1089810348"