Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 5

October 5

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 October 15. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 19:02, 15 October 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 October 14. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:07, 14 October 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. (non-admin closure) feminist 16:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need for such WP:NAVBOX for this event. Greenbörg (talk) 17:30, 5 October 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now WP:EXISTING and WP:PERFNAV issues dealt with, there is nothing left for the navbox. --woodensuperman 14:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, unlinked entries fail WP:EXISTING, other entries fail WP:PERFNAV. ----woodensuperman 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, WP:FILMNAV, not WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 11:08, 9 October 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a large chunk of boilerplate text intended to be inserted into lots of articles, contrary to the first point of WP:TG. Since the text is contentious, it will be subject to frequent changes. It would be better to use text tailored to each context with links to articles with detail. Kanguole 11:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral/Keep/Redo: This template should serve a disclaimer to Taiwan's political status. Wrestlingring (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. This paragraph of POV text has no place in any article, so definitely does not belong in a template. Even if rewritten to be neutral it serves no point, there is no class of articles that would benefit from such content.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for such a massive block of text to show up all over the place. Relevant information needed in each separate article should be added where it is appropriate, in the text or in a note. But spare us from all of this in every Taiwan-related article. --T*U (talk) 11:37, 9 October 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the existence of {{Islam in India}}, {{Islam in Pakistan}}, {{Islam in Bangladesh}}, etc. this sidebar is largely redundant. There is also a template named {{Muslims in South Asia}} which was originally {{Islam in South Asia}}. (Due to aberrations during the move, both templates shared the same talk page. I moved the talk page to Template_talk:Islam_in_South_Asia before becoming aware of the existence of the second template. Please fix as required.)—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:09, 5 October 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to footer, not really needed. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 09:30, 5 October 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).