Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 31

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 30 June 1 >

May 31 edit

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 267th ID 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) 22:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation & unnecessary cross-categorisation. Only three articles; the rest have been redirected to alphabetical lists for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 31 May 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:DP-genealogy 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 no consensus. The original rationale for deletion was "unused" and now the template is used. Feel free to renominate it if you would still like to have it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that this template was left unused. It was meant to be part of the Dravidian Parties article, but was left unused after I quit editing Wikipedia. I've added where it should have been by original plan. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 31 May 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:YouTube most subbed 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) 22:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Countdowns don't seem to be an appropriate use of a navigation box template to place in articles. --190.147.132.116 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a countdown. I think you misundersand the meaning of this template. Clbsfn (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you think of this, is the same as that mentioned in this section? --190.147.132.116 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is also not a countdown. And, I'm sorry if english isn't your first language, but I cannot understand what your response here says. The sentence doesn't make sense grammatically. But, to answer your original point, I argue that having a navbox template list of the most subscribed channels is important, because it gives a quick overview for people who want to know who the most subscribed channels belong to. Most people in the English-speaking community on the internet have only heard of HolaSoyGerman through wikipedia articles and templates such as this. HolaSoyGerman, as the second-most-subscribed channel on YouTube, has extremely significant impact on modern-day pop culture, as YouTube increasingly becomes more watched than traditional television. A template like this helps to spread awareness that English-speaking channels do not dominate YouTube, it only seems that way because the main website is targeted towards English-speaking viewers and videos in other languages almost never appear in trending tabs or in the suggested videos sidebar for most people. Clbsfn (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this, and what do you think?. --190.147.132.116 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not connect a series of articles; articles are related but not coherently soGonejackal (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't see the problem with countdowns in a template. Amisom (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cite something policy related pleaseGonejackal (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonejackal: No, let's do this differently. Why don't you cite something "policy related" which states that templates should not be used in this way. Amisom (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1Gonejackal (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, well from my reading of WP:NAVBOX, it's a guideline (not a policy) and it lits five criteria, "some" of which are "generally" met by "good templates". So if we're assuming this is a "good template" (which I don't think we have to, because it doesn't say that 'bad templates' should automatically be deleted), it probably needs to meet some of those five criteria. Let's have a look: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) No. (4) Yes. (5) No. So 3/5. That sounds like the NAVBOX guideline has been complied with to me, hence my decision to !vote 'keep'. Thanks for your comments though. Amisom (talk)
  • Delete No connection between the topics, such as El Rubius and Eminem, by including this template on those pages. Plus the links imply that their are articles for those channels but most go to a person's article. Also, the top 10 now could change a year from now. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The order of the top 10 changes every few months or so, when one channel passes another, and it's a quick way for people to know which youtube channels have the highest number of subscribers without having to go to the "most-subscribed channels" wikipedia page. Of course the places on the top 10 list link to people's pages rather than channels, because someone such as Justin Bieber or Rihanna would never have a wikipedia page for their youtube channel separate from the page for them as a person. In fact, even youtubers such as Pewdiepie or Markiplier have wikipedia pages for themselves as people, not about their channels. Only in cases such as Epic Rap Battles, Machinima, or Rooster Teeth, where the channel is run by several people, is it necessary to create a wikipedia page for the channel itself and not for the people running it. Clbsfn (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the pages for all of the different channels are all connected to a single, significant subject: they all have a vast amount of subscribers on youtube, with each channel having a higher sub count than the populations of most countries. And as user Amisom mentioned, the navbox meets more than half of the criteria to be considered a "good template" according to WP:NAVBOX. Clbsfn (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Complete ignorance of the policies and guidelines e.g. WP:N. And this shows me this template isn’t for navigation. Gonejackal (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what that edit has to do with this. The template was clearly out of date, so I updated the list to accurately reflect the top 10 channels. Check the article List of the most subscribed users on YouTube and you'll see that neither Jenna Marbles nor nigahiga are in the current top 10 most-subscribed channels. While it is unfortunate that Jenna Marbles and nigahiga have gone below the top 10, I had to remove them to keep the top 10 list accurate and not because I felt that they should be taken off. And the template brings attention to the significance of personalities such as Judson Laipply, Brooke Brodack, Peter Oakley, Lonelygirl15, nigahiga, Fred Figglehorn, Ray William Johnson, Germán Garmendia, El Rubius, and Smosh, who might not be found referenced in very many wikipedia articles. It seems to be a matter of opinion to think that YouTube is too insignificant for wikipedia to have this template. And are you saying that User:Amisom is ignorant of guideline policies? Their reasoning seemed pretty solid to me, having checked WP:NAVBOX. Clbsfn (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could easily change over time, creates the misleading impression that their channels and/or views are included in article, and this isn't exactly a defining trait for the subjects included in the template except maybe PewDiePie and Germán Garmendia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better to navigate through List of most subscribed users on YouTube instead of this navbox, since the article provides more context. Frietjes (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I seem them as related like nav boxes for biggist cities in a country. And a very useful navigation box. Christian75 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; list is better for navigation. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Climate Hermosillo 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) 22:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Dubai weatherbox 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) 22:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Minneapolis weatherbox 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 keeping the history in an article-space redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps delete: the content of this template was moved to Minneapolis § Climate and is now transcluded using labeled section transclusion. The history will be lost, though. — Eru·tuon 21:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • we can preserve the history by (1) moving it to article space (say "Minneapolis weather") and (2) redirecting to the section with {{R from merge}}. that is what has been done in the past. Frietjes (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Upper Class English 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) 22:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that "Upper Class English" cannot be defined enough to produce a consistent way of writing among articles which use this template. Also, it may produce conflict between articles using American and British (or other) varieties of English, which may have differences in their "upper class" way of speaking. And anyway, articles should use language that conforms to the Manual of Style, not a particular standard of poshness. Rcsprinter123 (announce) 17:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I would claim that we actually can define U-English. There is an article on it U and non-U English. As you can see in the article, there is consensus on vocabulary and enunciation. It is actually very well defined. I don't get why Rcsprinter123 does want to tell me with "American English"? There is no American upper class. U-English is the English spoken by the British aristocracy. That's what's called upper class English. Since it's well defined, it's Wikipedia policy to not prefer one type of English over another and it has already been used on 100 pages, I think we should let it be. If one doesn't know how Upper Class English is defined, please read here:
There is even a dictionary over Upper Class English!--Rævhuld (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But why are any articles being written in upper class English? Rcsprinter123 (inform) 21:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it has already been used on 100 pages then it must have been deleted from 93 pages, since it currently only appears on 7 pages, to all of which it has been added by the creator of the template, Rævhuld. PamD 21:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have these kinds of templates for national varieties of standard written English, because those are varieties we actually want articles to stick to. A sociolect such as "Upper Class" isn't one of those. Even if it could be defined properly, the difference between it and other sociolects has little or no bearing on what is educated written standard English ("Upper Class" people talk differently from people of other classes; that doesn't mean they write differently), and even if it had, we wouldn't want articles to be in any one such class variety. This is a really, really stupid idea for a template; get rid of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia articles in British English should be in clear good (British) English, full stop (or "period"). This template is unnecessary, except perhaps to flag up poorly written articles. See, for example, Kundby case "she stabbed a pedagogue in the stomach with a looking glass splitter while under detention": even after the typo of "splitter" for "splinter", it's just written in poor English. PamD 07:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see your argument here. If a user does a grammar mistake, you could just correct it. Knowing that a lot of editors aren't native speaker, you might consider your manners.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We shouldn't have articles that are written in that style. There's no advantage to doing so - fewer readers understand this way of writing. Jim Michael (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Wikipedias guidelines are very clear: we do not discriminate one kind of English over another! Considering that Oxford English (or U-English) is much older than American English and very well known and very well defined, it should clearly be allowed here!--Rævhuld (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. There is no such variety of English used today. From the blurb it seems to be describing English containing some archaic terms, which is distinctive. But the proper thing to do if an article contains such archaic language is to update it to use modern English, for the benefit of readers who might not be familiar with such outdated language.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; insulting to the proletariat not a modern variety of English. Even in the article linked, it could be difficult for many people today to identify the U and non-U columns without knowing. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 23rd PD 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) 22:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation & unnecessary cross-categorisation. Only two articles; the rest have been redirected to alphabetical lists for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 31 May 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the torpedo boat force 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) 22:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation & unnecessary cross-categorisation. Only three articles; the rest have been redirected to alphabetical lists for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 31 May 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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 4 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) 22:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation & unnecessary cross-categorisation. Only three articles; the rest have been redirected to alphabetical lists for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 31 May 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the Brandenburgers 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) 22:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. Only three articles; the rest have been redirected to alphabetical lists for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 31 May 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).

TV news presenters 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) 22:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a list of cast/crew of a TV program, these fail WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Primetime Emmy hosts 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) 22:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a list of people presenting a ceremony, it fails WP:PERFNAV. See recent discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 23#Template:International Emmy hosts. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Street Art2 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) 22:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Stygodiaptomus 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) 22:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Sudan Articles 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) 22:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates Template:Sudan topics Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Sukma Games 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; deleted as G7 by Maile66 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 31 May 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:Sudarsan 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) 22:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, unclear purpose Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Sunred 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) 22:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Орден За заслуги I ступеня (Україна) 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) 22:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:UserName 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) 22:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, text-only template. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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:Editorials 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 T3 by Hyacinth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, text-only template. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:16, 31 May 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:Incarnate Word Cardinals football coach navbox 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) 22:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:EXISTING... only two links with 3 coaches. refund when there are four or more links to help navigate the template. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unnecessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:41, 6 June 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_May_31&oldid=1138373393"