Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 1 January 3 >

January 2 edit

Template:VoKee 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 speedy delete. Also Template:VoKEE, see:wp:CSD#G8 Nabla (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox for band with deleted article VoKee. Also delete redirect Template:VoKEE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 2 January 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:Userbox/athletesfootpride 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, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Failed experiment attempting to use image from outside of WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 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:Userbox/antivilain 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, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed experiment. Unused. Attempting to use an image from outside the WP environment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:35, 2 January 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:Past Cast 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, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, empty, poor choice of template name. Previous revisions appear to be article content, so probably created in the wrong namespace. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 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:Happy death day 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, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not working. Contains only two film links, not enough for a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The template is clearly not working as it should be, and there is no revision to revert back to. If there was a revision that I could revert back to, I would have kept the page and reverted the edits made by an unknown user. All navboxes need to be useful, which is clearly not the case here. Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as well. Way too short to be of significance use. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:08, 6 January 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:showMath 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, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has never been used and is now superseeded by the new wd module,  . Physikerwelt (talk) 15:10, 2 January 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:WP ʃ reviewed 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) 20:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration is now defunct and has been turned into a redirect to an essay in October 2009. This template has 47 transclusions and it is unlikely to be used ever again. Therefore, I propose that all the 47 transclusions get deleted and this template gets deleted as it is now useless. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete just unnecessary clutter at this point. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:01, 11 January 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:Bhathinda Rajpura line 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, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete creation, superseded by {{Bhathinda–Rajpura line}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 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).

Deletion of more old test 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 Redirect. Since most individual templates haven't been discussed reverting for individual pages is fine if opposition arise. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all of these templates should be redirected (except for Spam-warn/sandbox, Off-sandbox/sandbox and NPOV0a) because none of such templates are used by any user or bot on Wikipedia (who instead uses the Uw series templates to warn users of bad behaviour). Further, such templates contain deprecated language (the block templates don't even give instructions on how to get unblocked, and the final warning templates use the term 'will' instead of 'may' in regards to being blocked from editing). For these two main reasons, I think that these templates must either be deleted or redirected to uw templates. As for Spam-warn/sandbox, Off-sandbox/sandbox and NPOV0a - these templates should be deleted anyway due to their lack of use. Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 08:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Train of Knowledge: there are still 9 templates in the above list which are proposed for deletion rather than redirect: could you propose a redirect for these too, if possible? If no redirect can be proposed I'd suggest to withdraw them from a list that is grouped under the rationale "... all of these templates should be redirected because ...". Another idea would be to update them so that they are conforming to up-to-date uw-methodology. E.g. {{NC0}} should be rewritten into something useful rather than deleted, imho, if there's no current uw alternative for that type of message. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Francis Schonken: I have created new templates (uw-nyi for name your images, uw-nc, uw-bes2, uw-bes1, uw-bes3, uw-bes4 and uw-sl) which will effectively create redirects rather than deleting useful pages. Other than that, NPOV0a and sandboxes related to test templates should be deleted anyways because NPOV0a is just a duplicate of NPOV0 and the sandboxes related to test templates do not have any use whatsoever. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 20:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, looks pretty much OK (although I didn't check them all), so, assuming no irreversible issues would result from the ones I didn't check, I'm prepared to support your proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal. These notices should be using one standard style. --Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 3 January 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_January_2&oldid=935299818"