Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 4 July 6 >

July 5 edit

Template:Mississippi State Statistical Leaders 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 after adding links to Template:Mississippi State University (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The navbox fails WP:NENAN compared to many others. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:04, 5 July 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:Mechi-geo-stub 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. Izno (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used on articles; superseded by district-level stubs. The category has been deleted. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 19:50, 5 July 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:Kosi-geo-stub 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. Izno (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used on articles; superseded by district-level stubs. The category has been deleted. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 19:46, 5 July 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:Section link base 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⚡ 09:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with very simple logic ({{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{{1}}}||{{{1}}}}}). --Trialpears (talk) 19:19, 5 July 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:Wpc/digraph 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⚡ 09:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8+ years unused and deprecated template. It's now also a sub-page of Template:WikiProject Comics navbar which has nothing to do with it. Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 5 July 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:UAAPteam standings 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. Izno (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template is marked as deprecated and that it should be replaced with Module:Sports table/WL. Nothing to merge, just replacement as the /doc says. WP:TFD/H is the correct place for this. Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. it is already a front-end for that module, so a careful substitution with some minor cleanup would easily orphan it. Frietjes (talk) 20:13, 6 July 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:Senate box candidates AU 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. Izno (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused, seems not very useful (anymore). TheImaCow (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:35, 5 July 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:Section link base-scw,c 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. Izno (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused, seems not very useful (anymore). TheImaCow (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:35, 5 July 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:Scotland geography 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. Izno (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused, is in Geography of Scotland already included. TheImaCow (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:35, 5 July 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:Scotland statistics 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. Izno (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused, seems not very useful (anymore). TheImaCow (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:35, 5 July 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:Sandbox 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. Izno (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. TheImaCow (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:34, 5 July 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:XLeratorDB Function List 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) 14:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solidly in the realm of WP:NOT. There is nothing salvageable here. Izno (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, nothing but external links to the manual. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 5 July 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:XLeratorDB v Excel Functions 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) 14:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single (meaningful) use template. Probably falls in the realm of WP:NOT, so substing may not make sense. Izno (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute with attribution and delete. after that, if it is not needed in the article, the code can be removed, but the content will be saved in the page history. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 5 July 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:Dontshout 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) 14:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not used often indicating that it probably isn't suitable to be a template. Izno (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion As template creator. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 14:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete. the net output can be easily generated when needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 5 July 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:Ubxmore 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 move to userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Izno (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:31, 5 July 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:Ekw-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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Izno (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute with attribution in the edit summary and delete Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 5 July 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:MTRinterchange/TSW/Bus 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) 23:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Izno (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute with attribution in the edit summary and delete Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 5 July 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:MTRinterchange/TSW/Minibus 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) 23:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

single-use template Izno (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute with attribution in the edit summary and delete Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 5 July 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:2019 France Quadrangular Series 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. TheImaCow (talk) 05:59, 5 July 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:SDIO 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Izno (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete per nom. This is basically an image. Better to be substituted.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reupload as image or wikify. Don't subst it: take a look at the source for the template. --02:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see anything particularly scary there. It's a normal EasyTimeline. Additionally, it's in its own section in the single article it's used. --Izno (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute with attribution and delete. I would rather see it as a table, but the code is not that extensive it could be put in the main article without any problems. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 5 July 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:Indianrailwayzones-numbered 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) 14:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't necessary as a navbox-like construct, duplicating other navboxes. There is an image at File:Indianrailwayzones-numbered.svg which can serve if necessary on a specific article. Izno (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as there is an equivalent image and, more importantly, template is unused.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Disagree This is a clickable map. File:Indianrailwayzones-numbered.svg is not clickable. By clicking the number one can reach to relevant article of particular zone. How can both serve the same purpose? Izno you hav deleted this from Konkan Railway article on 27 June 2020 after 4 mins you hv nominate it for deletion.. Pls see here to prove it that it has not been used. --Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Our infobox templates are not the correct place for this template as they are not set up to handle it, in any way, shape, or form. Please do not reinstate your previous edits as they are disruptive to the pages they were on.
    Yes, I think this template should be deleted. We already use Template:Indian Railways, which is much more filled out and much more generally usable, and much more standard. It is fairly clearly not the main way to navigate. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks useful to me, especially as it is clickable. I believe it is being used? --Kritzolina (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is being misused as our infoboxes cannot use templates. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, if this had been more widely used to navigate between zone articles, I would say keep, but the way it was being used as a navbox was not particularly helpful and redundant to the main navbox. I have refactored it into a non-navbox version in the event this is kept. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the revision where it used to be used you see it is completley broken. Since it is unused and redundant to the navbox and image making deletion reasonable. --Trialpears (talk) 10:13, 12 July 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:Washington Huskies men's soccer squad 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. Izno (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do squad navboxes of college teams. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, says who? Quidster4040 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't see why we can't have squads for college teams, we have plently of squad templates for teams that are not in Fully professional leagues. Joeykai (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's completely different, since at least those players usually pass WP:FOOTY and most of the players on here are just plaintext which would be red links. A college squad isn't important unless it's won a championship, and even then that depends on the notability of some of the players and coaches which why we voted to deleted the college soccer championship navboxes. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 05:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not needed. College players are not notable, so navboxes serve no purpose, and even if that were not the case college soccer does not merit navboxes. GiantSnowman 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better to navigate through the team-season articles to avoid creating navboxes for every college team. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @TheTVExpert: why has this been re-listed again? Clear consensus to delete. GiantSnowman 09:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there are two users who said "delete", however, there is one user who said "keep" and the one user who commented also seems to be in favor of keeping the template, therefore the discussion was relisted a final time to gain a more clear consensus. TheTVExpert (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TheTVExpert, I believe the nominator is implicitly !voting to have the template deleted, so that would be three editors in favor of deletion and one in opposition and one who is questioning why this isn't the same as fully professional leagues. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 5 July 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:SPIpuppetsof 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. Izno (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems redudant to Template:Sockpuppet category. TheImaCow (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 03:53, 5 July 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:SPIusernotice 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. Izno (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems redudant to Template:Socksuspectnotice. TheImaCow (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, only used 20 times and nothing in the past 2 years (ask far as I can tell). Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 5 July 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:SOWL-sfn 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. Izno (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused, seems not very useful (anymore). TheImaCow (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really care either way, but 5 other templates have been nominated today with this canned rationale, so I doubt the nominator actually put thought into why or how this template may be useful. The Sounds of the World's Languages is a major reference book in the field of phonetics and it is frequently cited. Having a shorthand template to cite it is useful, and templates like this are not uncommon; the template {{OED}} creates a citation to the Oxford English Dictionary for example. Not being used isn't a reason to delete a template unless it has no likelihood of being used. Facially it seems like {{SOWL-sfn}} could be useful should someone want to use it, so I would want an actual explanation before supporting deletion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really see why {{sfn|Ladefoged|Maddieson|1996}} needs a shorthand (I also prefer sfnp over sfn FWIW). Nardog (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, you will need to write out the long version of the citation somewhere in the article, so this isn't really saving much, and is less transparent when compared to writing out the sfn explicitly. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 5 July 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:International rankings of Singapore 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, last updated 7 years ago. All the citations are wiki articles. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 02:06, 5 July 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_July_5&oldid=967480301"