Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 20 January 22 >

January 21 edit

Template:Born 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, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see little reason for this template to exist. From a technical standpoint, it's more labour-intensive; consider even the simplest case using the redirect, {{b.|2017}}, which is two characters longer than (b. 2017) The abbr is rather unnecessary, since "John Smith (b. 1944)" is not an unusual abbreviation to encounter in normal speech (i.e. no one is going to wonder what "b." means). The more esoteric uses of this template further add another layer of silliness to it (e.g. {{b.|yob=2017|pfx=exp}} → (born 2017)). With only 20 transclusions after four years of existence, I think the answer to "will people use it" is "no". Primefac (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Template:Recent birth, which is what it did until a few weeks ago. pbp 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I asked to take the template over since {{born}} is preferable to {{b.}} as a base page name. This template is proving to be less useful than I initially expected, so I'm not opposed to returning it to its former purpose. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace with simple text, and delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect (along with its redirects) to Template:Recent birth. It's not hugely useful and has been made infinitely more complicated by an IP user who will not compromise. M.Clay1 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 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:Owhrode Facilities 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) 18:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template storing article text. Text has been substed into the article. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, apparently a misunderstanding of what templates are meant for. No use outside that article (and preciously little within it, given the lack of references). Huon (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not the purpose of template space. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 26 January 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:Owhrode Militias 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) 18:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template storing article text. Text has been substed into the article. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, apparently a misunderstanding of what templates are meant for. No use outside that article (and preciously little within it, given the lack of references for key claims). Huon (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not the purpose of template space. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 26 January 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:A Better Britain – Unionist Party/meta/shortname 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 withdrawn (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A Better Britain – Unionist Party doesn't exist. No use. — Iadmc♫talk  09:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still none the wise but if they do have function then I Withdraw — Iadmc♫talk  23:41, 21 January 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:A Better Britain – Unionist Party/meta/color 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 withdrawn (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A Better Britain – Unionist Party doesn't exist. No use. — Iadmc♫talk  09:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still none the wise but if they do have function then I Withdraw — Iadmc♫talk  23:42, 21 January 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:Diane Renay 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) 18:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much benefit for a navigation box with articles only for one album and one song from that album. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there isn't much there. However, I am planning on soon creating a page for "Kiss Me Sailor," which was a second Top 30 hit for her in the US. If that page were created and the link were added, would the navbox then be acceptable? If not, I see nothing wrong with its deletion. Thanks for pointing it out. -Anotheronewiki (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just added link to "Kiss Me Sailor" -- do 3 links make it worthwhile to keep? -Anotheronewiki (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete; I see and agree with what you're saying. I'm happy to delete it if you tell me how to do it.
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:European Go Championship 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 as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template not being aware of Template:EPGC champions and its sister templates. Therefore ruling my newly created template redundant and ready for removal. --Wesalius (talk) 08:41, 21 January 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_21&oldid=1138373710"