Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 28 January 30 >

January 29 edit

Template:Scratch Perverts 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 agree with nominator. ultimately not a necessary navbox. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NENAN since it only links 4 articles not including its main topic. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional question is why "Harry Love" was redirected to this band. According to this version is was a meager but valid stub-article. The Banner talk 23:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is nothing at either Scratch Perverts or at Killa Kela to suggest that he was a member. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The membership of Harry Love is both in the article and properly sourced. The Banner talk 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the membership of Killa Kella, and therefore the validity of his inclusion in the navbox. Sorry if that wasn't clear. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Above and beyond the "five link" clause is the implication that these would not otherwise be linked were it not for the navbox and there is something valuable lost as a result of not using a navbox to remedy that situation. I find it very unlikely that these topics would not be linked to each other without the navbox; if they are not already, this is only because the articles need further work (not that this very basic operation requires much or that the articles exist in an advanced state of quality already). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 14:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:44, 29 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:Rudo municipality 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 2017 February 6 Primefac (talk) 13:24, 6 February 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:84 Express 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) 03:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route map for non-notable bus route, 84 Express. See also recent precedent at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 22#Template:555 Port-Mann Exp. "Pepper" @ 22:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's really needed, it can be directly included in a parent article. Frietjes (talk) 00:21, 31 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:Waco highways 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) 03:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. "Pepper" @ 23:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—per nomination and all of my past comments in the previous nominations. Imzadi 1979 → 12:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per past precedent. Dough4872 01:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 31 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:Dutch general election, 2017 potential coalitions 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) 17:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know if parties will follow their stated coalition intentions after the elections, which is the central premise of this WP:OR and WP:POV. Parties may or may not stick to their promises. Totally impossible to predict. In the meantime Wikipedia is stuck with original research, crystal balling, and point of view. Our articles are better without it. gidonb (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I fail to see how this is in any way in violation of any of the policies you named. By my count, there are 104 opinion polling articles, 28 of which are for future elections. This is simply a collection of the five main Dutch pollsters' results, collated into a format which is actually coherent. I'm presenting a list of potential coalitions separate to the existing polling article unlike, say, Opinion polling for the next Danish general election, because to include such a breakdown within the main opinion polling article would be extremely cumbersome. In 2012, the article for the Dutch general election then also included a (written) list of viable coalitions. I don't see how this should pose a problem and how this is really much different than other opinion polling articles – in any case, the only reason I created it as a template was so that it wouldn't spam the history of the main Dutch general election, 2017 article with updates. (In essence, my view is that it's simply another way of presenting polling+coalition results.) I haven't presented the table in a biased way (ordering of parties is subjective, admittedly – but you will find that is the case with every election article), and I haven't manipulated it in any way that leans towards one way or the other. It's just numbers. Furthermore, if your contention is that parties will not necessarily hold by their pre-election statements regarding coalition partners, that isn't exactly an issue of neutrality. You cite "crystal balling", but this doesn't provide a prediction of future events or speculation about "future history", and makes no pretentions to assume the composition of the next coalition government. Furthermore, under the original heading within the article (which is not contained within the template) which was removed, I explicitly noted that VVD, PvdA, CDA, and D66 have "ruled out coalitions" with the PVV, as an indication of the intentions of the parties. If your contention is with the wording of that statement, I could have changed it (e.g. to "said in pre-election statements that they will not consider joining coalition governments with the PVV"), and in any case, I did not say that the parties will not govern in such a coalition – only that such a possibility has been rejected by the party (leadership) before the election. Mélencron (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm no expert on Danish politics but the fact that there is such an article or template doesn't mean that this one is justified or if this template is deleted, it wouldn't automatically follow that the other should be as well. Per other stuff exists the discussion should be separate if the points made here have nothing or little to do with the situation at other such templates. The existence of a Danish article doesn't justify any OR and POV or even the very existence of the Dutch one. As far as I am concerned we can discuss here and later see if any of all this is relevant to the situation in Denmark.
Second, the discussion of a future coalition should include the fact that most other parties do not want to govern with PVV. This belongs to the main article on the 2017 elections. However, when then creating coalition scenarios of possible coalitions based on these pre-election statements in combination with the surveys you engage in original research. You're pulling data different sources, stated preferences and survey data, and putting them together.
If, as result of your WP:OR and WP:POV, we show only coalitions without the PVV we are crystalballing that these parties will stick to their stated positions, while we have no knowledge whatsoever if they will or won't. By your own OR most or all of these coalitions will contain the VVD. After the last elections this party broke several campaign promises to form a coalition with the other large party at that time, PvdA, after engaging together in a runoff.
This time VVD may keep or break their promise not to govern with PVV after the elections. It is (crystal!) clear that they currently have a strong interest to state that they are *not* governing with PVV as this allows them to attract votes and seats especially from GL, D66 and CDA, while engaging in a runoff with PVV, almost exactly as they did last time with PvdA. Votes from people who are concerned that PVV is getting stronger.
After the elections this electoral gain motivation disappears and then it is on one hand the desire to keep campaign promises and the small portion of PVV seats in the Dutch senate, this is a significant consideration and omitted by you, all counting against a government or coalition with the PVV, and the headache of a many party coalition and breaking with the "will of the people" counting in favor of such a coalition. It can go either way. It's not impossible that all parties will hold on to their campaign promises, we just do not know that.
Now if you put ALL the coalition alternatives in such a table, it's not stellar, but it can be put under the seats and proportional projections. However since you are frontloading and graphically showing your POV that only some coalitions could possibly work, you are basically bringing WP down in terms of all the important policies that I stated. Without any need for us to go there! gidonb (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I disagree; I'm only including potential most-efficient coalitions including up to six parties, and I think you should note that based on the criterion from party leaders' statements (It's not my POV that "only some coalitions could possibly work" – I'm just basing it on the statement of the parties' leaders!), there's only one viable most-efficient coalition including the PVV in the Ipsos poll (with 8 parties), one viable coalition in the TNS NIPO poll (including 7 parties), six viable coalitions in the De Stemming poll (of which 4 include 7 parties), and one viable coalition in the I&O Research poll (with 7 parties). The exception is the Peil poll with six viable coalitions including at most 6 parties. If that's the issue you have, then I can add all of the unique possibilities including up to six parties (there's only 6 of them, in any case), but the fact is that it's simply not inefficient to list all possible coalitions... otherwise, you might as well just do the math yourself on the polling article. Also, regarding your second point, on "data different sources, stated preferences and survey data, and putting them together"... well, isn't that like listing any coalition scenario on Wikipedia? As with the case of the red-greens in Norway and red parties in Denmark, it's not guaranteed that they will govern together in coalition if elected to government; it's merely an arbitrary grouping, but there's no issue with listing them, as they represent hypothetical scenarios based on similar statements. The arguments that you're making with regard to the major parties, imho, are also purely speculative, as you're accusing me of being in listing potential coalitions. I think I'm being more objective than you in this case simply because I'm not assuming that parties will deviate by their statements for [insert political analysis here] reason. If you want to litigate that, fine, but I don't think it's particularly relevant when that's also purely speculative. (Update: I've now added all the PVV possibilities.) Mélencron (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this comment: none of the reasons you provide are particularly compelling rationales for deletion. Articles aren't deleted purely because they're not written from a neutral point of view; if that were the case, then every Balkan-related article ever would be a warzone of deletions. I'm not so sure that WP:OR applies either given the existence of opinion polling articles (which also serve as a similar compendium of polls), and ditto WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mélencron (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did not engage in POV in any way. For example when I say that it is conceivable, not in any way certain or likely, unlikely, or any of that, that VVD would enter a coalition with PVV, this is an opinion shared by 71% of the people in the Netherlands and based on precedent. However, if you perceive any of the above to be POV (from your own POV), well that is fine with me. It was all on a discussion page for a solid reason: to safeguard WP against OR, POV, crystal balling, synthesis, etc.
You, on the other hand, introduce your POV and OR to our article space, front loading your OR analysis before the surveys that are the topic of an article. This 100% against our policies and, more importantly, against all that Wikipedia is about. Our task is not to discuss which scenarios are likely but not to provide any political scenarios at all. If some politicians say: we do not want a coalition with PVV then that is actually notable and, in fact, can move to the main space on the 2017 elections. But we do not then go shop in the options for coalition because we have no clue if these statements will hold after the elections or not.
You say: well if I'd allow all future coalition scenarios then my analysis becomes useless because people may as well stick in their own numbers. But that is exactly the point. If you shop in the scenario's that is WP:POV. If you show certain scenario's based on stated preferences in combination with polling numbers from another source that is a class example of WP:OR. If you show all than you did not fall into our biggest traps but still are developing useless tables as before.
Now I do not know how much this need to educate readers on possible future developments is an emotional need for you. If it is and you can't do any different from it then: yes you can stick in all numbers and show all possible coalitions but only after the surveys themselves because your actions are tertiary information development (and I think I'm reasonable here; if I would stick strictly to the letter, I'd say not even that!) and, of course, because the surveys themselves are the topic of the article.
But my leniency doesn't make it needed or warranted. I would rather have WP free of any OR or even openings for mathematical mistakes because people engage in mathematical research here. I said: if you absolutely must then this would be somehow permissible. You say that your analysis than loses its point of singling out a certain party. That is actually a good thing. Wikipedia doesn't pick winners and losers. When engaging in current affairs these must use valid secondary sources, be notable and all be written from a NPOV perspective. The surveys are from other sources. Your scenarios are POV and OR.
If people need analysis they should open a news or analysis site. We are an encyclopedia! gidonb (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re WP:SYNTH: it doesn't reach a conclusion that isn't within a cited source, none of the policies you cite justify deletion of articles (much less templates), and you're not actually actually forming a coherent, consistent argument on why this ought to be deleted. There's years-long precedent for this type of content existing on Wikipedia. Also, I guarantee there aren't any mathematical mistakes (I literally created the table using a spreadsheet). I'm not picking "winners or losers": these are literally all possible winners (and by extension, none of the losers, I suppose). It's not analysis at all. It's a list of numbers from a bunch of sources which I cited at the bottom of the table. A list isn't analysis. This table violates neutral point of view? You're still not clear on how; I don't believe I've made any partisan preferences evident in it, as I've listed, well, all potential coalitions. This is original research? It's a compilation of existing research. If doing basic math constitutes original research, then you might as well get rid of every such section ever on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure this encyclopedia allows for people to list informative numbers from other sources in tables, correct me if I'm wrong. "When engaging in current affairs these must use valid secondary sources": wrong, see every opinion polling article ever. Notable? How is it not? "Written from a NPOV perspective"?It's a list of numbers. How the, excuse me, how is it possibly not NPOV? Riddle me that.
More to the point: see this category. This is nothing but another manifestation of the same concept. There's nothing that warrants deletion; none of the policies you've cited thus far are remotely relevant to deletion. Try again. (Why is your earlier reply POV? Because it's a manifestation of your own views and analysis. There's no place for analysis on Wikipedia, gidonb, it's NPOV! You should open a news or analysis site. ;) It's political analysis from your view. I'm listing numbers. You've brought in a thousand different arguments and all of them are irrelevant to this discussion. Your original point? Several irrelevant policies. Your later point? Political analysis about how these parties might not actually abide by their coalition arrangements in your view and that VVD is just pandering for votes from the centre and [blabla analysis]. No stronger or weaker than my point on the same issue. Mélencron (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all there is a basic misunderstanding here about the Dutch politics. GL is not a party from the Dutch political center. Second this isn't my own analysis or something I necessarily support and according to the pundits even something that works at this time. They now say maybe when debate season starts. It is out there and certainly is possibly true. It seems to have worked last time when the runoff was against a party from the moderate left. With or without connection, we really do not know what will happen after the elections. Maybe parties will stick to their campaign promises this time around. It is an option but just another valid option. You on the other hand, have decided. Opinions by Dutch analysts you disagree with are just blabla. Now that is fine for User:Mélencron. I'd be the last one to say that nothing can be said for your political believes vis-à-vis the future and, regardless, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But is it OK to let your personal opinions prevail over others in the article space of Wikipedia? Not according to our explicit policies. The same ones I have been hammering on very consistently here and I do not want to sound repetitive in any way. I do not want to sound overly dramatic either, but these are the policies at the very core of our encyclopedia. Now your only justification for your blatant OR and POV seems to be that other stuff exits. I haven't seen this other stuff because according to our policies it really doesn't matter plus your predictions are not connected to a crystal balling category that we just do now have (for a good reason!). I was willing to look at it later but if it is that important to you, feel free to provide the links and I'll provide an opinion also on that content further to our policies. If needed, I will also list for deletion. With all respect, we build an encyclopedia here and not some kind of news analysis web site around your political believes. gidonb (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the link in your previous message, I found Denmark that you perceive to be a justification for your OR and POV. I had expected something along these lines, knowing a similar situation and discussion for Israel. The situation here is very different from your Netherlands OR. You can summarize the votes for the right and left if a clear distinction exists, that distinction is carried by the literature and has some meaning for example when appointing the person who will then form government (who can then conceivably also create a different government crossing these lines). None of the 10 parties are omitted. While there are legitimate discussions also in such cases (for Israel in the end this was also removed), it is very different from the selective political scenarios you draw for the Netherlands. So no, I'm not going to submit that article for deletion. If you have examples that are closer to the selective political scenarios and analysis you conduct on WP, please bring these forward so we can also delete these! gidonb (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother to reply at this point; I'll just wait for others to vote first, since this discussion is going nowhere and you've come no closer to convincing me of your argument. Let's wait for some actual votes on this instead. I'm still baffled how you think the table somehow reflects my political beliefs. (By the way, the position of parties in the table means nothing... it's roughly ordered by number of seats in polling, while prioritizing incumbency, with a couple exceptions for SP/PVV for visual effect.) Mélencron (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unusual that the creator of an article cannot be persuaded. After all he or she saw justification from start to place this article. And meant well. Wasn't aware that this is OR and POV. Wasn't aware of policies. There are a lot of positive energies here that we can use at WP. Skills with tables. Thought. Care.
On the other hand, we do not vote on Wikipedia. There are policies and we apply them. Together. What counts is if your opinion is tied to policies (such as POV, OR, CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOT) and whether these policies apply to this case.
If your justification for placing analysis on WP is that other stuff exists, this contradicts what we stand for. The reason why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an important principle is that, while it is certainly possible that an unwarranted situation was so far allowed on another page (you failed to prove even this much), it is not the case that we do then want this practice to spread over Wikipedia.
Your contributions to WP are very welcome, just not any contributions. I hope you will help grow the election articles on WP! gidonb (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus in deletion discussions regarding opinion polling articles has consistently held that they have encyclopedic value on their own; the only times this hasn't been the case has been because they didn't contain enough to warrant separate articles (in a couple cases, because they unnecessarily broke down opinion polling by regions of a jurisdiction). Mélencron (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I totally object to deleting opinion polls and ONLY propose to delete the original research political scenarios that were inserted before the polls and push the polls - the topic of the article - down. I propose that the polls will be given their due visibility again and that the declared coalition preferences be put back at their appropriate place. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also clarify what you're talking about with regard to visibility? Before the table and coalition scenarios were removed, the opinion polling link was literally above the coalition scenarios and there was literally nothing in that section but a "main page" link. If you want, I'd be able to throw together an opinion polling chart or a truncated table for the main election article. Mélencron (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was here, where highly selective and tainted political scenarios were inserted before the polls in the article on polls. gidonb (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that wasn't me. Yes, I agree that coalition scenarios should not have been placed above the polls. I'm still baffled at how you think they're "highly selective and tainted political scenarios", since I've listed literally every potential combination within those constraints (including up to six parties). Care to enlighten me? Mélencron (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have seriously shopped in the possibilities by combining the present coalition preferences with survey data, the combination of which is OR because it pulls information from two distinct data sets together in a WP exclusive analysis. In addition you have also pushed to the background both larger parties with the least access to what the Dutch call 'achterkamertjespolitiek' (politics of the backrooms) and have topped off with an average of distinct surveys that are conducted at different intervals. Also original research. gidonb (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine. Tell me how you'd order the parties. I really, really don't believe that this table is obviously POV (the point isn't at all the ordering of the parties, which literally doesn't matter for anything; there's no difference in listing GL before D66 or D66 before GL other than that it might imply seniority... it's about the numbers.). The fairest way, imho, is simply to list in order of parties with most coalition possibilities; i.e., VVD 68, GL 60, D66/PvdA 54, CDA 52, 50+ 46, CU 36, PvdD/SGP 34, SP 13, PVV 8, DENK 6, FvD 4, VNL/PPNL 2, in this case. Mélencron (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If VVD and PVV have the same number of seats in the polls then it follows that they have the same number of coalition possibilities. That's simple math. The stated preferences of parties cannot be taken into account. Exact numbers of possible combinations depend on the polls and the max number of parties to be included in coalitions. Now before you start arguing: this is not my preferred course of action. My preferred course of action is deleting this OR template because it will confuse people either way. If you include all the options there will be those, like you, who think that some options should also be seen as non-options and if we do not include all options then that isn't good at all, because we would be discriminating against the PVV and potentially mislead the readers. This is why WP has no such articles. We do not build scenarios that may occur in the future. At most summarize regular blocks (left-right) if widely accepted. This is a step process: preferences that converted into action at election time lead to representation. Preferences, pressures and representation after the elections lead to coalitions. There is no way we can forecast what will happen after the elections. Surveys of voters and surveys of politicians only measure current preferences. gidonb (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for how you would order. Again preferably you wouldn't because this OR and POV article will be deleted. If you must: left to right by number of seats, top down by alphabet. Alphabet would be second sorting key left to right. There is no second key top down. 08:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ultimate crystal ball. The Banner talk 22:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this template, I have no objection to deletion at this point. I'll just make a polling graph instead. Mélencron (talk) 23:00, 4 February 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:Touchdown Club of Columbus Female Athlete of the Year 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) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template cruft, not sufficiently notable to be a navbox. The award itself is not even mentioned on the parent page. Lizard (talk) 17:25, 29 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:US Presidential Administrations 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 2017 February 7 Primefac (talk) 01:12, 7 February 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:DynamicIP sidekick 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) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subset of {{dynamicIP}} for obscure mobile phone. Compare with {{SingNet}}, used to tag IPs assigned to a large ISP in a small country. That country, however, has lots of English-speakers, including a few Wikipedia vandals. The ISP and the phone both use a system of proxies similiar to that used by AOL before 2007. However, almost nobody uses this mobile phone anymore, so {{DynamicIP sidekick}} is useless. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, we can use the standard dynamic IP template. Frietjes (talk) 00:24, 31 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_29&oldid=1138373671"