Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 29

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

August 29 edit

Template:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions 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 redirect to Template:American politics AE. (WP:Parallel histories) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of {{American politics AE}}. Replace usages and delete. Admin will need to tag - fully protected for some strange reason. Will inform creator, since they created both templates, so perhaps they will be able to say if there's a difference here I'm not seeing. I'm lost, even looking at the initial revisions. 1, 2. On the same date of the creation of the latter, the former was updated to (basically/exactly) the same template code, in Special:Permalink/774216982. Best explanation I can come up with is creator didn't consider a merge, but they seem like duplicates to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, got my answer to the question in nom in this discussion. Yup, that's a delete. Apparently a redundant fork created because of a dispute between the original creator and another editor, thus creator forked their own template and "took their transclusions" with them, making the former redundant.
Should be deleted. History should be merged into {{American politics AE}} (as the latter is a fork of former). Retain the talk page (move to an archive of {{American politics AE}}) as it contains early DS discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2020 (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:UC San Diego Tritons 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 userfy. Editor has an interest in continuing work, which is perfectly acceptable. No prejudice against a return to template space (and use in article space) if and when it meets the "rule of 5" (i.e. WP:NENAN). Primefac (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly one head coach in the history of this defunct college football program, not enough links to justify the existence of a navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request userfication to my user space or the WikiProject College football project space. It's helpful to have these navboxes to keep tabs on the development of content even if they are not suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2020 (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:RIT Tigers 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 userfy. Editor has an interest in continuing work, which is perfectly acceptable. No prejudice against a return to template space (and use in article space) if and when it meets the "rule of 5" (i.e. WP:NENAN). Primefac (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be only two head coaches in the history of this defunct college football program, and one is a redlink. Not enough links to justify the existence of a navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request userfication to my user space or the WikiProject College football project space. It's helpful to have these navboxes to keep tabs on the development of content even if they are not suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2020 (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:Scale row 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. (non-admin closure) → Timbaaatalk 01:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used in {{Horizontal timeline}} to generate the scale row, but since {{Horizontal timeline}} is being merged with {{Simple horizontal timeline}} which has the scale built in this template should be deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2020 (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:Long Island Blackbirds 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 userfy. Editor has an interest in continuing work, which is perfectly acceptable. No prejudice against a return to template space (and use in article space) if and when it meets the "rule of 5" (i.e. WP:NENAN). Primefac (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two links provided here, one is a redlink, for a defunct college football program. Not enough links to justify the existence of a navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request userfication to my user space or the WikiProject College football project space. It's helpful to have these navboxes to keep tabs on the development of content even if they are not suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2020 (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:Hiram Scott Scotties 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 userfy. Editor has an interest in continuing work, which is perfectly acceptable. No prejudice against a return to template space (and use in article space) if and when it meets the "rule of 5" (i.e. WP:NENAN). Primefac (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One link here, likely the only notable head coach in this college football program's history. Not enough links to justify the existence of a navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request userfication to my user space or the WikiProject College football project space. It's helpful to have these navboxes to keep tabs on the development of content even if they are not suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2020 (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:Florida Tech Panthers 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 userfy. Editor has an interest in continuing work, which is perfectly acceptable. No prejudice against a return to template space (and use in article space) if and when it meets the "rule of 5" (i.e. WP:NENAN). Primefac (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one coach in the history of this now-defunct college football program, not qualified for a navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request userfication to my user space or the WikiProject College football project space. It's helpful to have these navboxes to keep tabs on the development of content even if they are not suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2020 (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:Florida State College 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 redirect to Template:Florida State Seminoles football coach navbox. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two links here, not enough to justify the existence of a navbox. Program is now defunct. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:32, 29 August 2020 (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:Fairfield Stags 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 userfy. Editor has an interest in continuing work, which is perfectly acceptable. No prejudice against a return to template space (and use in article space) if and when it meets the "rule of 5" (i.e. WP:NENAN). Primefac (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly two head coaches in the history of this defunct college football program, not enough to justify the existence of a navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request userfication to my user space or the WikiProject College football project space. It's helpful to have these navboxes to keep tabs on the development of content even if they are not suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2020 (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:Dallas Hilltoppers 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 relisted on 2020 September 6. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2020 (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:Cincinnati Christian Eagles 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 userfy. Editor has an interest in continuing work, which is perfectly acceptable. No prejudice against a return to template space (and use in article space) if and when it meets the "rule of 5" (i.e. WP:NENAN). Primefac (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only two head coaches in the history of this college football program, one is a redlink, and the school has since closed. Does not justify the existence of a navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request userfication to my user space or the WikiProject College football project space. It's helpful to have these navboxes to keep tabs on the development of content even if they are not suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2020 (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:Brandeis Judges 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 userfy. Editor has an interest in continuing work, which is perfectly acceptable. No prejudice against a return to template space (and use in article space) if and when it meets the "rule of 5" (i.e. WP:NENAN). Primefac (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two head coaches in the history of this college football program, and two links is not enough to justify the existence of a navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request userfication to my user space or the WikiProject College football project space. It's helpful to have these navboxes to keep tabs on the development of content even if they are not suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2020 (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:Fundamental theorems 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) 01:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navbox clutter. Many of the existing entries aren't fundamental theorems (either in spirit, or explicitly named as such). But even removing those, the entries are only related by name and relative importance; they occur in vastly different branches of mathematics at different levels of study. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:33, 29 August 2020 (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:George Frideric Handel graphical timeline 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. Template was removed prior to this close, but if there is an interest in another attempt to merge it into Handel's page the content can be merged. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; uses {{Horizontal timeline}}, which is in the process of deletion. → Timbaaatalk 13:34, 29 August 2020 (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:Prime Ministers of Spain - Second Republic graphical timeline 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) 01:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; uses {{Horizontal timeline}}, which is in the process of deletion. → Timbaaatalk 13:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears that the tables currently at the relevant article are preferred. --Bsherr (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the horizontal timeline template is slated to be redirected to {{Simple horizontal timeline}}, but I wanted to leave it as-is for the moment to allow for informed decision-making. If this discussion does close as "delete", please follow-up by redirecting {{horizontal timeline}} after that has been completed. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2020 (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).

Module:Language/text 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the module's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused module meant to replace the need for the lang-x templates, which Module:Lang can do. Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2020 (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).

Nizhny Novgorod Metro templates 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) 16:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above listed templates are now deprecated after transition to Module:Adjacent stations/Nizhny Novgorod Metro - AJP426 (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2020 (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).

Newcastle Ferry templates 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) 01:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newcastle Ferries succession templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated {{s-line}} templates replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Ferries in NSW. Fleet Lists (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2020 (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:Technology topics 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 main concern is the potential for this template to get out of control, but those in favour of keeping the template do not think that will be an issue with proper maintenance and forethought. NPASR should the concerns of those in favour of deletion actually happen. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is identical in scope to the previously deleted Template:Technology (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 12#Template:Technology). Like that template, it doesn't conform with the navigation template guidelines, which specify that "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject" and "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." "Technology" is far too broad a topic to benefit from having a navigation template, and like its predecessor, this template will inevitably grow into a giant index of barely-related articles. Instead, we should have navigation templates focused on specific areas like "Medical technology", "Military technology", "Computer technology", etc. Kaldari (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This template was created based on {{Geography topics}} without knowing the previous exclusion of {{Technology}}. Per WP:ATA#CRYSTAL we cannot delete a template due to a problem that has not yet happened. Just as the proponent himself listed, only broad topics like "Medical technology", "Military technology", "Computer technology", etc. remain listed. Other example: {{Philosophy topics}}.Guilherme Burn (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous XFD. While not a G4 target, this template is also likely to spiral out of control. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a useful and relevant navigation aid amongst the classes of technologies. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the topic is too broad to be meaningful for a navigation box without a grounding in some reference as to its contents. --Bsherr (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. I'm willing to give a chance for improvements to be made. --Bsherr (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reorganize. Technology / applied-science seems like a pretty basic topic not to have some kind of navbox, but it is largely a heap of links right now. Couldn't the "aspects" section be sorted by analytical approach (e.g. history, sociology, economics) and classes of technologies similarly to a patent classification like the EU/US CPC? As long as its rooted in a clear system, I imagine occasional maintenance would be enough to keep entries from growing out of control or getting too specific. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting. Organizing around a scheme like that is just the kind of grounding in a reference I meant. --Bsherr (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that was what you had in mind even though you leaned towards deletion. I actually only stumbled across this TfD while doing work around the Industry article and Template:Industries. We have a similar issue at that template, and I plan to take a standards route to sorting it. I've posted a discussion with more detailed thoughts at Template Talk:Technology, but I do believe this template per se is valuable; it might just need a little discipline. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, wasn't sure if you meant tagging the Tech template, but I went ahead and put a cleanup template there. That also added it to a (hidden) maintenance category automatically. I wrote out my thoughts in more detail on the talk-page too, and I can probably find time to make actual edits in the coming weeks. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless in its current form, but I'm not convinced that it can't be fixed and organised better, yet I doubt someone will fix it up in the near future. Support deletion, without prejudice to recreation in a substantially different, more organised, format. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2020 (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:OnlyOffline 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. With the exception of one "nothing has changed" !vote, there is no significant opposition to deletion this template. Because of it's contentious history, in particular with regards to the previous TFD, I don't know if it can formally be considered a G7 (as the creator has now requested deletion), but they have been the most vocal opponent towards its deletion and have proposed a reasonable alternative; the main concern with this template family is that it is unused (even following the last discussion), so if a reasonable use case can be given there is no prejudice against recreation/restoration. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template relates to a defunct project, doesn't seem to be used, and seems contrary to our mission of providing an online encyclopedia where all viewers have exposure to the same content in the same language edition. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Administrator note if this is deleted, MediaWiki:Offline.css should be able to go too. — xaosflux Talk 10:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 2 #Template:OnlyOffline. The potential for including content for offline applications such as Kiwix remains exactly the same as it was then. Whether a template is in use or not at a particular time is not a reason for deletion, as long as the the potential remains. There is no such mission as the nom suggests. Our mission is to make the sum of human knowledge available to every person on the planet. That is facilitated by being able to provide extra content in different media, because not all the world has internet access and Wikipedia is far more than just a website. --RexxS (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the previous TfD, I wrote

    Given that [it's not being used for videos], the template becomes an unused template with little possibility of use as no other project has needed to create such a template in the history of Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    My speculation then has been proven right, as this is still only used in its creator's sandbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My reasons for deletion as in the previous nomination remain the same. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not obvious what potential uses this template might have, so it is not clear that there may be any benefit to keeping it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Having now read the previous TfD, I do not see that anything has substantively changed. Previously closed as Keep, unless some more convincing arguments are presented, there is no obvious reason why the close should be different. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbsouthwood: Something has changed; many of the Keep arguments there were based on the claim that this could have future uses that have nothing to do with [VideoWiki], which was a reasonable claim to make at the time but has now been proven false. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How has it been proven false? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: You can't prove a negative. Nevertheless, to save this thread any further time in limbo, how about if I ask for it to be deleted WP:CSD G7 (along with Template:OnlyOffline/styles.css and Template:OnlyOffline/doc; then Template talk:OnlyOffline could go G6) without prejudice to restoration if or when somebody wants to make use of it?
    @Primefac: Would a close such as I suggest be possible? --RexxS (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2020 (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:Igloo topicon 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. Given the defunct state of the project, I will also change the description to have past tense. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:igloo, igloo is no longer functional. Bsherr (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see this as a reason for deletion. It's still used in user space. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it says as its description "This user freezes vandals in their tracks with igloo!". So, I guess the alternative would be to have it say "This user used to freeze vandals in their tracks with igloo!"? --Bsherr (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And then the question is, if we're keeping the userbox, which I haven't nominated, do we really need the top icon too to commemorate software that is no longer in use? --Bsherr (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as routine housekeepng. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a weird one. I'm not the biggest fan of redundant topicons, but I don't like to force my preferences onto others, so I'm cautious in giving an opinion. I don't think deletion is necessarily "routine housekeeping", this template could equally be valid as "former Igloo user", which would be an entirely valid topicon per our current practices. So it doesn't make sense to delete and orphan here. It's allowed to have even nonsensical topicons. Thus, I think I must lean towards keep. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2020 (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/2020_August_29&oldid=978217787"