Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 13

November 13

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 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and outdated - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]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).
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 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and outdated - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]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).
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 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, and content should not be buried in a template. Whpq (talk) 18:17, 13 November 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).
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 November 23. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:26, 23 November 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).
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) 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded. Only one related article and otherwise only redirects or nonexistent articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 12:21, 13 November 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).
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) 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly misleading, as the majority of links are redirects to sections of List of successful votes of no confidence in British governments. --Nevéselbert 15:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 12:19, 13 November 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).
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 November 23. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:26, 23 November 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).
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 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one article epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 November 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).
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) 16:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is redundant to List of Y Combinator startups which contains the same list of companies. The template also strikes me a potentially promotional, as its only purpose is to cross-link all Y Combinator (company) articles to each other. The list article already exists and is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDUP, which states, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also, this template enables users to functionally navigate related articles from article-to-article without having to utilize the list article. Furthermore, the template does not have a promotional tone. North America1000 10:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:20, 13 November 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).
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 per this discussion and the AfD outcome Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for Gwalior Metropolitan Region, it doesn't exist (other than every town has a notional commuter belt). Batternut (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and trim down. Well, it's called an "urban agglomeration" and a "metropolitan region" in at least one source [1] so the title isn't completely off (though feel free to move to a better title, simply {{Gwalior}} would probably do). The template navigates between six existing articles, all of which appear to be either within the city, or closely associated with it. If there any concerns about the inclusion of specific individual entries, feel free to remove them. – Uanfala 11:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - renaming and rewriting into something else => fails the TNT tipping point test. Better to start again following an more suitable pattern eg Template:Mumbai topics, Template:Kolkata topics. (In fact, I've just created Template:Gwalior topics. Batternut (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)) The census2011.co.in page Uanfala mentioned above is purely about the urban agglomeration - its talk of metropolitan regions is just index spamming. Batternut (talk) 14:05, 15 November 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).