Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11 edit

Template:Tang Dynasty Administrative Divisions 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) 21:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tang Dynasty Administrative Divisions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in English. Not used. Fuddle (talk) 23:27, 11 September 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:Interlinear 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 September 20 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bible (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 60 transclusions
Template:Bverse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 19 transclusions
Template:Esv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 6 transclusions
Template:Interlinear (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 7 transclusions. Does not appear to work as described.
Template:Kjv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 18 transclusions
Template:Nasb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 16 transclusions
Template:Niv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 128 transclusions
Template:Nkjv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 18 transclusions
Template:Rsv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 8 transclusions

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:Subst2 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 September 20 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subst2 (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:Summer Nicks 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) 21:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summer Nicks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After copyedit, this template only has two films in it, and we don't need a navbox for that. Everything else was unreleased, NN, or not actually a film he has credit on. MSJapan (talk) 16:57, 11 September 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:Wax 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) 21:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Basically a WP:WALLEDGARDEN. The same editor created articles for all of these NN albums/mixtapes/etc, which are now at AfD for failing NMUSIC. A different editor created the template, but the end result is that due to one charting song for one week in fifteen years as a recording artist, the artist will have an article, and the charting song will have an article. We don't need a template for two articles. MSJapan (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) - AFD before TFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an open-and-shut case, and there's absolutely nothing that says AfD before TfD. These are distinct discussions. Every one of those albums meets precisely none of the necessary criteria for an article, and even if they did, six items in two cats doesn't justify a navbox - the rule of thumb seems to be 10+ and three distinct groups. Also, it would be quite helpful if you would disclose that you created the template, especially if you're going to vote to keep it. MSJapan (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @MSJapan:, if this is the case, then there will be no trouble with deleting the articles. We can allow AFD to handle that issue. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, or rename, not about wax. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, links very little (per WP:NENAN). --Izno (talk) 17:15, 16 September 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:Leila de Lima 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) 21:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leila de Lima (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant with the presidency templates that this government official worked for under various offices, such as the presidential administrations of Template:Benigno Aquino III, Template:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Template:Rodrigo Duterte. It is also overly promotional as we have no navboxes for individual officials lower than the Vice President.RioHondo (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jejomar Binay and Leni Robredo are not presidents but they have their own templates. There is no consesus that other non-president Philippine politicians should not have their own templates. People just haven't made them. It is a complete disservice and quite elitist to limit templates to only those who are presidents. The 'series' templates though are a bit too much. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did say we have no politician templates lower than the Vice President. We also divide contemporary political history articles according to presidential administration as per norm, not vice president, not members of congress for which there are 300 more. VP Binay's and Robredo's at least have their own unique articles that may justify their own navigation boxes. This senator does not.--RioHondo (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, doesn't provide sufficient bidirectional navigation. hence, would be more appropriate for a see also section in the main article. Frietjes (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant Delete - most of the events and articles mentioned in the template have very little if any connection to the main subject article. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as what Inter&anthro mentioned. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 09:07, 12 September 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:Adminstats/!dea4u 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) 21:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adminstats/!dea4u (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{Adminstats}} subpage for an editor who isn't an admin or account creator. Also unused. You can find a list of similar subpages at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/1, and I intend to apply any consensus found here to all such pages which are both unused and for non-admins/ACs. These subpages are entirely useless as adminstats aren't created for non-admins/ACs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete all non-admin adminstats subpages. Frietjes (talk) 12:29, 11 September 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:Grays Athletic F.C. 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grays Athletic F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not aid navigation... not enough wikilinks contained within JMHamo (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, too many non-links, does not fulfil its purpose as a navigation aid. Giant Snowman 08:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how many links fulfils it's purpose? As you well know, football squads are ever changing. --Jimbo^[online] 11:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see and join Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Relevance criteria for current squad navbox templates for discussing this question Kq-hit (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two links is not sufficient for a navbox. The level of the league (7th level) is such that it is unlikely the majority of the squad will ever be notable while on the team. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NENAN, not a useful aid to navigation, if the squad changes sufficiently significantly that there are more blue links, it can be recreated. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one linked player, and even he is a semi-pro footballer who only has an article because he twice represented a minor country internationally. The club is in 7th tier and thus unlikely many players will be notable. --SuperJew (talk) 18:09, 17 September 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).