Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 5 July 7 >

July 6 edit

Template:Archiving 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 July 15. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 15 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:Archive 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 July 15. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 15 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:CompetitionRecordTenth 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) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need to create a separate competition record template for every ordinal Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT an almanac. I agree; beyond third, if considered particularly notable this should be included within the article's text.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless duplication of templates where one can handle the position. --Gonnym (talk) 12:25, 9 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:AbRep-multi 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) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template from a decade ago for a process which is marked historical. Izno (talk) 16:48, 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:AbRep 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) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template from a decade ago for a process which is marked historical. Izno (talk) 16:48, 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:Burgerkill 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 July 13. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 13 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:TAFISS 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:TAFI scheduled selection. Izno (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, seems not very useful. TheImaCow (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:TAFI scheduled selection. All the nominated template does is substitute Template:TAFI scheduled selection using the exact same parameters with the exact same parameter names. The nominated template does nothing to distinguish itself from the template it forces to be substituted, but that doesn't mean that the nominated template is not in use, so redirection would be the most beneficial failsafe in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 7 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:Subs:pr 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) 00:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, seems not very useful. TheImaCow (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the template is not hardcoded to be transcluded directly in any templates, so "unused" seems irrelevant. I'd like to see if this template is called to be transcluded (almost as an error) via any other templates ... which, again, will not have a "transclusion" on the respective "Template:" namespace pages themselves. So, I'm conditional keep pending some sort of evidence that exactly zero templates (or other pages intended to be substituted or transcluded) are not set up to transclude this template in certain situations (such as calling an error). Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the creators contributions it looks like they were a newcomer struggling immensely to list Engels' Pause for peer review before sadly leaving Wikipedia forever showing us how important it is to make our templates accessible. Right before creating this template they made this edit misspelling {{subst:pr}} as {{subs:pr}}. It seems like just an error from a newcomer and not some fancy part of template logic. --Trialpears (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like a stillborn template. --Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 9 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:St. Cloud State Huskies women's ice hockey 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 keep. Izno (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused work in progress since 884 days. TheImaCow (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:01, 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).

Module:ISO 639 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 July 13. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 13 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:Char 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone coming late to this discussion, the template in question has been changed while debate is in progress. In its original form, the template rendered the subject glyph in a one-pixel box with a very pale grey background. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created by Spitzak (talk · contribs) on 18 May this year. Why was this template needed at such a late date? Simple, it wasn't. Since then, it's been added all over the place; I noticed it from one of my favorite articles, numero sign. This template is counter to the MOS. It needlessly makes text serif when no serif is called for either by common sense or the MOS. John Maynard Friedman (talk · contribs) justifies the template on its talk page by writing This template exists to provide an alternative to {{code}} for articles about symbols where the clarity of the glyph is critical. Maybe they have a point, but wait just a minute though, {{code}} is not called for by the MOS either, so at least in the case of numero sign, and many other articles it's being used in, this template replaces a non-existent problem with a problem. Þjarkur (talk · contribs) wrote at the template talk that they have doubts about this template. Friedman asked them if they'd read the documentation. Well let me just say, I have, and I have doubts too, and am unconvinced. This should not have been added without consensus and without an RFC to the MOS. I'm sure it was done in good faith but it feels like this was snuck in through the back door, and I want the template deleted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 05:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Beland would be good person to bring in on this. EEng 08:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. In my experience, if you bring up these kinds of questions on the MOS talk page first, people will get angry and say it's too soon because it's a hypothetical practice that isn't actually used on any articles. If you start doing something on articles first, people will apparently get angry and say it's not required by the MOS. I think the solution is to judge these questions on their merits, not the procedure used to bring them about, and stop being so angry. The idea of using a box instead of punctuation to indicate a character does have the potential to increase clarity, especially when combined with different font attributes. If a year from now we decide perhaps in an MOS discussion that actually it would be better to use angle brackets or something (which would be more consistent with how linguists talk about characters and glyphs), putting characters in a template makes it easy to switch the styling over consistently. -- Beland (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I acknowledge with hindsight that an RFC to the MOS should have been done. Nevertheless, the facility is certainly essential. How are glyphs like ’ (the little 9 apostrophe) to be discussed? Using "’"? ’? How to distinguish glyphs are almost indistinguishable in the default sanserif or distorted in monospacing? (compare ’, ’ and ⟨’⟩). There were quite a few cases where {{code}} was being used because historic editor recognised the need to isolate the punctuation mark being discussed from the text that discussed it because otherwise the sentence becomes incomprehensible (as in comma, for instance). But {{code}} uses monospacing (as it was designed to do) and the background is too dark for some very small punctuation marks. So {{char}} was created as a close equivalent of {{code}}, except using serif and a lighter background. If this RfD is valid, then {{code}} must be deleted too, using the same logic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted the TfD tag on the template because it fails WP:think of the reader. Dozens of articles use this template and the TfD tag makes them a terrible mess. I'm not disputing this nomination, only that the standard nomination technique is inappropriate in this case — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I voiced at Talk:Hiragana#Proposal to update markup, I just want to say that I too dislike the lack of well-publicized consensus building beforehand, and the transclusions should be removed or replaced with {{angbr}}, {{lang}}, etc. where appropriate. Whether that means it should be deleted I'm not entirely sure. ("Embedded links deprecated" is completely superfluous btw. Underlines in links can be easily eliminated if one uses TemplateStyles or the nounderlines class.) Nardog (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I found Nardog's arguments at talk:Hiragana persuasive and abandoned the idea. I should have extrapolated back to my edit to the Polish Ł and undone it, because the same logic applies. Mea culpa. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finding ways to better distinguish between prose and the glyph being discussed is a worthy goal, but in most cases where I've seen this template I have found it to be more confusing than helpful. The border does not indicate "this is the glyph being discussed" to me, and the random serif is distracting. Have a look at the article on the Polish Ł before and after. The letter being discussed was perfectly clear before, but now there are some serifs and borders which look out-of-place. (Tangential: This template is also being used for longer sections of text in several places (Ƚ and ƚ, 1.5 > 1, ȝe), which is also confusing). In my view, we should keep this template only for the very tiny glyphs (’, ¸), but delete it for all other uses (Ł, Ў, お). – Thjarkur (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    we should keep this template only for the very tiny glyphs (’, ¸), but delete it for all other uses (Ł, Ў, お) Seems a good idea. Nardog (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally agree with the above statement, but I'd suggest that the criterion for {{Char}}'s deployment should extend to any glyph(s) that conventional formatting fails to unambiguously isolate. Parentheses are not particularly small, but their form and function makes them hard to call out. Having said that, I strongly oppose the use of {{Char}} in cases where the glyph(s) in question are part of the bolded text in a lead sentence. I can appreciate how the template's implementation at the start of Ł could lead an editor to view this experiment as problematically disruptive rather than admirably bold (as I personally do). —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 14:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that would seem to me to a reasonable compromise (punctuation, diacritics, some typographic symbols, to avoid ambiguity or confusing in context.
    Per my reply above, I accept that I was over-enthusiastic with Polish Ł (and the like): "hard cases make bad law", can we set this one aside as conceded.
    But I'm not sure I understand your point about BOLDLEAD? Do you mean constructions like '''{{char|(}}'''? If it is just the emboldening that you object to then I would happily concede (I consider it ugly) but if [[(]] redirects there, I understood that it had to be bold? (MOS:BOLDSYN --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that {{Char}} should never be used in the part of the first sentence that is bolded because it is the article title. Now that I think about it, this may be a moot point because the types of characters that get to be their own article title are usually (always?) letters of various alphabets and therefore relatively easy to isolate with italics or quotes and therefore not candidates for {{Char}} based on the criteria that Þjarkur, Nardog, and I have posited. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (edit conflict) If Þjarkur's idea carries the day, the template needs to be moved to a new name like Template:Emphasize small punctuation and a strongly worded warning about its purpose added to the documentation. Honestly, I'd prefer we delete Template:Char and create a brand new template without a redirect to handle Þjarkur's "tiny glyphs", and that maybe we even use Lua to reject anything not sufficiently tiny, at least using the Unicode class for punctuation as a first step. I'm not opposed to using it small punctuation (so, no to putting it on pilcrow (viz., U+00B6 PILCROW SIGN), which, by the way, currently has {{Char}} as well (🤦‍♂️❗) but OK to comma (U+002C , COMMA)). I do however question the need with small combining marks—Unicode already provides a mechanism for handling these, the almighty U+25CC ◌ DOTTED CIRCLE. ⟨◌̍⟩ or ⟨U+030D ◌̍ COMBINING VERTICAL LINE ABOVE⟩ is the WP:MOS-normative way to handle U+030D ̍ COMBINING VERTICAL LINE ABOVE. The reason to still delete the template is to start over, adding it only where consensus dictates, not one editor manually going through everything and making judgment calls on what is "tiny". The bot can clean up the mess, and then things can be done the right way, via Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, the WP:RfC process, and so on. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

⚠️ Urgent: A deletion-notice template is currently displaying in-line wherever {{Char}} is being used, and it is highly disruptive. I have no knowledge of the policies around its use, but the notice is so damaging to the fundamental comprehensibility of many articles that I strongly advise that we immediately remove the notice, standard practices be damned. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current implementation is a placeholder, then intention was so at least the *same* text was used everywhere. I see no problem with removing the "serif" and you certainly can change it to angbr or whatever is really wanted.Spitzak (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Oppose. If an MOS discussion decides that this is an unacceptable styling, as opposed to just not the same as the currently recommended styling, then this template might be eligible for deletion long after that consensus is established. But MOS is not a straightjacket for inhibiting clear presentation of content, it is a tool for enabling it. Obviously, someone feels that current MOS guidelines obfuscate meaning in a particular circumstance, and they went about implementing a solution in the most singularly helpful way possible - they created a template with the styling so that if the emerging consensus differs from their solution, it can be quickly and easily implemented universally. This template is the key to having that discussion in the appropriate forum (i.e. NOT in tfd), implementing any consensus that emerges from that discussion in the appropriate forum, and evaluating the efficacy of that consensus in meeting the needs that it was originally created to address. In short, this topic belongs at MOS, where the concerns that initiated this template's creation can be properly discussed, and under no circumstances should this template be deleted. If you have a particular instance where it is unhelpful or inappropriate, simply remove it from that context. VanIsaacWScont 19:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I invited User:SMcCandlish as a significant and respected contributor to MOS to solicit input from his perspective. VanIsaacWScont 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanisaac and NYKevin: So, what you're saying is, John Maynard Friedman and Spitzak can change the WP:STATUSQUO with impunity, bypass the MOS, bypass RfC's, bypass any legitimate consensus, and in order to undo their disruption, suddenly I have to be bound by things that they were more than happy to ignore. Mass removing this template is the right thing to do. Its imposition was improper ab initio. They should be the ones arguing for its inclusion, not I against. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A TfD concerns itself with a template, not its transclusions. In the spirit of BRD, we can remove/replace the transclusions without consulting those who instated them or anyone else, and then gauge the community consensus, and if it comes against it, then we can delete it entirely. Nardog (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying that the proper venue for this discussion is at MOS. The fact that this template exists means that any consensus reached there can be implemented simply and universally. JMF and Spitzak did not bypass anything, they did precisely what they are supposed to do: they were WP:BOLD in solving a problem that didn't have a solution they could find. But if you think that solution was wrong, then they have helped you immensely if consensus at MOS agrees with you after considering this matter. The MOS is built precisely on discussing these kinds of situations. It is not illegal to encounter something the MOS hasn't considered yet. VanIsaacWScont 01:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about "bypassing" any sort of discussion. I simply think that discussion should not happen here. As I previously explained, there absolutely should be a discussion about the use of this template, either at MOS or on individual article talk pages, as may be appropriate to the situation. I also find it rather strange that you're calling this template's creation "improper ab initio." I am not aware of any policy or guideline which might lead one to that conclusion. --NYKevin 02:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NYKevin: It's of course never improper to create a template. It's improper to make a change that is sure to be controversial, to articles like pilcrow and numero sign, without seeking consensus first or a change to the MOS.
We're all congratulating their boldness, so let me be bold as well, and return at once the WP:STATUSQUO: {{char}} is now a no-op. This is, as Nardog says, in the spirit of BRD; it is in the spirit of the WP:CYCLE; it is also, as Vanisaac says in their edit summary, not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but rather working with the fact that it's at least one template that can be replaced with a no-op. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I simply don't follow. I see no reason why a minor change in formatting on a small number of pages is "sure to be seen as controversial." (Was there some longstanding dispute? Did the community impose general sanctions on those articles? I really don't know any of the background here...) But my lack of understanding doesn't matter, because this entire discussion is out of scope for TfD regardless. I would respectfully suggest that you restart this discussion at a more appropriate forum such as one of the MOS talk pages, as it seems unlikely that this TfD discussion is going to result in deletion of the template. --NYKevin 03:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is apparent to me that different people have different opinions about exactly when and how this formatting should be applied. TfD is a poor forum for hammering that out; this discussion should move to an appropriate MOS talk page (or, if MOS is unwilling to discuss it, to individual article talk pages as may be applicable). Default to keep until we have an actual {{MoS guideline}} about the proper use of this formatting (or more plausibly, a tiny subsection of an existing guideline...). --NYKevin 23:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. The fact that a template might be abused or over-used isn't actually a deletion rationale, though objections to undiscussed uses of it that aren't seen as helpful are grounds for reverting those uses. I think this would have more utility if put in <kbd>...</kbd> markup, to indicate that it is character strings. This would fix the problem that the present template is basically useless from a MOS:ACCESS point of view, and mostly useless from a WP:REUSE one (by providing a non-generic element to do something special with, instead of just a span doing nothing but visual effects). {{Code}} should not be used for this purpose, unless the material inside that tag is actual computer source code, so it would be a good idea to have a template of this sort. There's nothing wrong with doing things like "the DirectX scan code for the tilde (~) key" or "the character é, an e with an acute accent"; but it's nice to have options, especially if the context already has a lot of brackets or italics in it. That said, I agree this should not be imposing a serf font by default. That should be an option to turn on for cases where it is needed (e.g. to distinguish between glyphs that tend to look the same in sans). This is how we did it at some other templates, e.g. {{var}}. I think the docs should be updated to outline good and poor use cases. I would be in favor of limiting this to a) discussion of glyphs and keys as such, and b) cases of small marks like `. Thus "the DirectX scan code for {{char|~}}, the tilde key" would be appropriate, but "the character {{char|é}}, an {{char|e}} with an acute accent" would not, since italics is the proper markup for that kind of situation. Anyway, please remember that templates are not carved into a mountain face; if we find utility in something like this, it is a simple matter to change the template code to do a better job.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be settled elsewhere. Nardog (talk) 12:57, 8 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:S-line/JR East right/Chūō Rapid 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) 13:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Cards84664 with the reason "Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/JR East" FASTILY 04:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not sure why this was brought here. Cards84664 19:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:42, 8 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:S-line/JR East left/Chūō Rapid 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, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Cards84664 with the reason "Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/JR East" FASTILY 04:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: What was the issue with speedy in this case? Cards84664 12:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not sure why this was brought here. Cards84664 19:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G6 isn't applicable to orphaned templates. -FASTILY 22:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:43, 8 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_6&oldid=967817519"