Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 2

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

October 2 edit

Template:Helstrom 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⚡ 06:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one created article related to this series, the main one, and at this time this is way too early to have been created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is completely unnecessary at this point in time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. -- /Alex/21 00:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Helstrom is coming out in less than 2 weeks. We can keep and add to it as needed. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A navbox should be created when you know you have the articles to populate it, not have it to maybe be ready for articles that, in my opinion knowing what is happening with the series and our guidelines for the TV project, splitting, and GNG, I can tell will not be created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and it is unlikely that many if any of the episodes and characters will get their own articles. As this is not common for most shows. Terasail[Talk] 15:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:05, 7 October 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:LIRR Long Beach platform layout 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. While the opposition to this nomination makes a reasonable point, a reasonably-well-attended discussion from what appears to be an active WikiProject determining the configuration of the pages in their purview is fairly convincing evidence that this template is unwanted and unnecessary, a fact echoed by those in favour of deletion. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2019#RfC_about_station_layouts_and_exits was to not include station/platform layouts, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There's no need for station diagrams for two-track stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It would be inconsistent to have the diagrams for a three-track station and not one for a two-track station.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep something, That being said when I come across a two-track template I'll TFD that too however I'm certainly not going to be POINTy and go hunting to nominate it now. –Davey2010Talk 21:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:13, 2 October 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:Interlanguage link template 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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old piece of documentation, which was common for 6 templates, but now 5 of them are merged into {{Interlanguage link}}. I did this, now we can delete this page. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:51, 2 October 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:Cite annual report 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The title implies this is a template for general use for citing annual reports. It doesn't appear to be used by any articles. Fettlemap (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This formats a citation to one specific annual report of one specific organisation, which appears to have ever been cited in just one article (without using the template). – Uanfala (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 3 October 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_October_2&oldid=982905188"