Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 9 June 11 >

June 10 edit

Template:AAOU edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not linked anywhere. The mainspace article was deleted under G11 for Unambiguous advertising or promotion in June 2020. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2021 (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:ABADI edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All it does is list disambiguations, but never links to them or is used on them. The pages listed do in fact have their own disambiguation pages, thus a template like this is not needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WikiCleanerMan, this was substed in a number of places but it's no longer needed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:00, 11 June 2021 (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:6502 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both unused. The first is only used on a sandbox that hasn't been edited since 2014. The sandbox was a testing ground for an eventually accepted AfC which doesn't use 6502. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2021 (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:AC destmap edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly this is for Air Canada. The map is not used anywhere nor any information can be gained from the highlighted countries as there is no explanation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The commons deletion was a result of the map being unused and out of scope. This template also falls in that category since it is unsued. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2021 (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).

B-Line Templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 June 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (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:2020 USR-PLUS Alliance/meta/shortname edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both are unused. The first I assume was a test page. The meta color nominated is superseded by Template:USR PLUS/meta/color. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2021 (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:Decade readership edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one page. A decade is significantly too long to be of any real use for most pages and the scale gets messed up if there was any large spike in the past decade. The graph itself is trivial to generate through {{Graph:PageViews|3650}}. --Trialpears (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2021 (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:Taxonomy/Prunella (bird) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer transcluded anywhere, it looks like there was some redundancy with Template:Taxonomy/Prunella that I fixed up, so this is no longer needed. Template35 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2021 (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:Zhou Shen edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With only two directly-related articles to the main article, this template is overkill as it doesn't not further aid in navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. User:GKFXtalk 17:33, 10 June 2021 (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:Latest stable software release/Sharelin edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not used anywhere right now. It was probably used at some point on Sharelin, which was deleted. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2021 (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:Latest preview software release/Sharelin edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not used anywhere right now. It was probably used at some point on Sharelin, which was deleted. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2021 (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:Category count edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template is used only in the creator's userpage, but if the feature is wanted, it can be merged into Template:Category count only with an optional parameter. Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2021 (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:STIB color edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that just removes the # from the output of one other template. Slightly broken because it gives u`"'[0x7F]# for two of its possible options. There is no particular reason to have such a template as the # is needed to actually use the color on a page. User:GKFXtalk 06:53, 10 June 2021 (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:Witchcraft: a veneration of nature, higher powers & personal empowerment, with a true belief in the power of Earth, Her energy and how to work with it. edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems out of scope and is probably wrongly created in template space. Unused as well. Minorax (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have given some feedback to the user. User:GKFXtalk 17:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a proper template. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 June 2021 (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).

Temple Cup Champions edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1894 New York Giants template is unused unlike the Cleveland Spiders template, but both templates revolve around one of the first World Series precursors, which remains obscure in the world of Baseball. The Temple Cup was from 1894 to 1897. I don't think there is enough notability for it to have it's own templates for its respective winners. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for the Cleveland Spiders is that it's a template about an obscure pre-World Series Championship team. I doubt it's helpful for navagation since very few people are aware of the old Spiders team and the Temple Cup. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know if we need sooooo many sports title templates (I think we don't), But these two seem to be just (almost) as legitimate as, say {{1953 New York Yankees}}. The said cup would be on WP, should WP exist in the 1890s :-), that is, it is notable, also it was the top professional baseball competition in the US by then. That is more notable, in 1890s terms, than maany current articles. The player in the NY template all have articles, so being currently unused is not a strong reason to delete (was it removed from articles? why?). - Nabla (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 1894 Template was never removed and a template that was created and hasn't been used for the purpose it was created for is a reason to warrant deletion. However, the Temple Cup still remains obscure. Aside from the old Giants team and the Spiders, there isn't a template for the 1896 Baltimore Orioles team that won the cup that year. Your argument regarding the 1953 Yankees is different because they won the World Series and the World Series is far more notable than the Temple Cup. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it was the top-level championship for MLB at the time. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no MLB at the time. The MLB was formally founded in the next century. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2021 (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/2021_June_10&oldid=1029281236"