Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

December 24 edit

Template:Trump confirmations 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trump confirmations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Surprisingly, as big as this template is, this template has no transclusions. Unless that is resolved, I'd say the best resolution is to either delete this template or merge and/or redirect it to Template:Trump confirmations2. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge with Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet in the same way the corresponding table is included directly in Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet. Frietjes (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2017 (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:Bot blocked 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:Rich Farmbrough/bot blocked. This was done by Plastikspork. Killiondude (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bot blocked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, largely redundant to {{Bots}}. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep completely different. The purpose is to allow a bot to efficiently log failed edits on-wiki - these can fail due to the {{bots}} template, page protection or other reasons. this is potentially important to allow human consideration of the issues involved. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
delete or move to userspace; unused outside of the author's own userspace. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 14:53, 24 December 2017 (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:No space joiner bold middot no space non joiner 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) Winged Blades^Godric 05:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No space joiner bold middot no space non joiner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in one article and one talk page archive. Jc86035 (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – as creator, as part of a series, for continuity, that will be used, once it is promoted and noticed. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The documentation calls it out as deprecated and keeping it solely for being in a series is a case of WP:OSE. There should be no promotion or use of this template. --Izno (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2017 (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:Gippsland Football League Season 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) 00:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gippsland Football League Season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Provides zero navigation and all articles in navbox were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 West Gippsland Latrobe Football League season. Flickerd (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2017 (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:Nashville MLS team 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nashville MLS team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Three articles can hardly warrant a navbox. While there appear to be more links here, they're mostly to sections of the main article. The only remotely useful links are to the main article, an article about the planned stadium, and an article about an affiliated club. While WP:TOOSOON is about notability, the same principle stands with respect to navbox utility. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and restore the deleted content about the investors to the box. The box can then be added to three more articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, the edits by the nominator prior to the nomination for deletion were clearly WP:VNDL (there were 6 articles that linked prior to the nomination - I went ahead and reverted their edits). I'll assume good faith and not go to the extent to block the account for now. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quidster4040: Leonard Wilf has been created. Could you please wikify him in the navigation box and add it to his article? Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quidster4040: It was strangely just removed.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is "strange" when the reason is indicated in the edit summary. That is not a link to an article nor is it otherwise a navigational aid. Accordingly, it does not belong in a navbox. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed Leonard Wilf after I asked Quidster4040 to wikify it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were it wikifiable, I would have assumed you would edit it to add the link rather than editing a deletion discussion page to ask someone else to… 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Quidster4040:

Regarding your allegations: According to WP:VNDL, which you cited,

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge [emphasis in original].

On what basis are you asserting my edits to be vandalism, given that you acknowledge them as having been made in good faith? For the purpose of clarification, I should note that I do not ask that question rhetorically as that is a very serious allegation you're making considering the definition of vandalism you cited. And on this: I'll assume good faith and not go to the extent to block the account for now: Firstly, you don't have the authority to block, so I'm not sure why you would pretend otherwise in violation of WP:TPG. Please do not impersonate an administrator. Secondly, on what basis would one block someone for what you called a good-faith edit?

Regarding the deletion discussion: Given your partial reversion, it seems that you in fact agree with most of my link removals, apart from the removal of Mark Wilf and Zygi Wilf. With respect to those two, do you believe it to be the case that all investors in a sports team qualify ipso facto as "key personnel"? If not, why in this case? Additionally, on what basis do investors qualify as personnel at all?

But, more importantly, my point remains even with links to three investors. There's no navigational benefit to a navbox with solely the main article, 1–3 articles about investors with varying degrees of relation to the topic, an article about the non-existent stadium, and an article about an "affiliated" club. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, regarding your suggestion that the article be speedily kept, on what basis do you believe WP:CSK to have been met? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, and listen for a moment since you're on a bludgeoning high. Clearly are putting words in my mouth, but by going to the "extent", I'm imploring that reporting you for your disruptive edits to an admin for them to go forward with an investigation. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2017 (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).