Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 5

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

May 5 edit

Template:Lebanese Fourth Division 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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template of a non-notable football league. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, provides insufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient blue links so serves no purpose as navigation tool. GiantSnowman 16:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and notability. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 7 May 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:Lebanese Fifth Division 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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template of a non-notable football league. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, provides insufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient blue links so serves no purpose as navigation tool. GiantSnowman 16:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and notability. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 7 May 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:Not watching 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 May 17. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 17 May 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:JDA Software 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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See 62.165.200.11's comment at Talk:JDA Software#Requested move 4 May 2020, which says that the navbox includes only two blue links, one of which is a redirect to the only article transcluding the navbox, also the one requested to be moved in that RM (JDA Software). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Two links - here, an article will suffice. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 7 May 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).

Football 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. I assume from the comments that the mergers have already occurred and that all what is needed is deleting the leftovers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As in agreement, these templates have been merged with their parent articles. HawkAussie (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:11, 5 May 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:Article life 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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One user creation and usage, the user is blocked. The template clutters talk pages, consists of subjective and random text, unencylopedic. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estopedist1, you state that this template is One user creation and usage, the user is blocked but, as far as I can tell, the template was created by User:Altenmann who is not blocked. however, the text being encapsulated in the template are by User:Laudak, which is a blocked alternate account of User:Altenmann. you can find the block log for Altenmann here. that said, I do feel as though this template provides little value and should be deleted. Frietjes (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection, although I find the nomination statement extremely weird, given that the template is for talk pages. The purpose of this template was quite instructive. Today people doing all kind of research on wikipedia and on its editors as lab rats. And I decided it will be instructive to trace how people get the idea to create that article, i.e., to keep track of narrative wikipedia history, not just data mining. I also started the "project" category:wikipedia years and maintained it single-handedly until I was banned. As I see, wikipedians don't give a fuck about wikipedia history, so the hell with this all. - Altenmann >talk 00:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template doesn't seem necessary, but I'd want to see the talk pages where it's used archive the usage, not delete it, so getting rid of it isn't super simple. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duplicates the article history, and encourages WP:OWN. Needless template clutter.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 7 May 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_May_5&oldid=957113068"