Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 20

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20 edit

Template:Spirit (Leona Lewis album) track listing 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) 03:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 19#Pop singers templates and other similar TFD's, these types of templates are redundant when songs templates already exist (or artist template in cases where songs do not have their own templates) and should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, redundant navigation per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:21, 27 January 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).

Gold Award 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced award templates failing WP:NAVBOX. These awards don't even have their individual pages to see for sourcing and they are spamming many articles across Wikipedia. Also, have been created by various socks but have been edited by many IPs later on, which could be operated by sock master, but I assume do not qualify under speedy criteria of blocked user creations. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Specifically fails guideline #4 of WP:NAVBOX: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. However, there are none for the individual awards and without such articles, we cannot reliably source the information inside the templates. - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Per Dharmadhyaksha. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 05:58, 28 January 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:Ibrahim 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 relist to Feb 4. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

The family list is something for an infobox, the remaining three links can easily be put in a "See also" section, if not in the main text itself. Of those three, the link to Maqām Ibrāhīm redirects to tiny subsection in Petrosomatoglyph, leaving actually only two meaningful links. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:24, 20 January 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:Fb team Springwood FC 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 relist to Feb 4. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, seems to have been created in error JMHamo (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, I added some from the same category after fixing the issue here. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I don't understand why the above changes had to occur? - J man708 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, these weren't unused at the time of creation. Frietjes' edit had them taken out, as to "avoid using new fb team templates, which are deprecated". I know this isn't going to win me any friends, but I build a LOT of football pages and find this system a million times more user-friendly than the new system. I'll avoid using the new system as much as possible, especially as other football season pages prior to this new system utilise these "fb templates" aswell. - J man708 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:49, 20 January 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:Brigada Mass Media Corporation 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 for now. No prejudice against renomination if this template drops back below the threshold of usefulness. BethNaught (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful navigation. Most links are to a single article. Sixth of March 07:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- only links two articles. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Useless if it only links to two articles (4 out of 5 links lead to the same page). Might be recreated in the future if there are articles for each entry. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This template is transcluded on 3 pages it doesn't link: [1] —PC-XT+ 11:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 11:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swap to keep per PC-XT; the one thing I didn't check. The transclusions appear to be legitimate. The articles are kind of rough, which leads me to believe that this template might find itself with few-enough links in the future, so no prejudice against a renomination at that time. --Izno (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the reworking. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:49, 23 January 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:Englishmen with 100 or more ODI caps 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 relist to Feb 4. Primefac (talk) 00:02, 4 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:White nationalism 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 relist to Feb 4. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 4 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_20&oldid=1138532953"