Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 2

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

May 2 edit

Template:West Wales Raiders squad 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. Izno (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Club is defunct. Template no longer required. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2023 (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:Batley - 1898–99 Yorkshire League winners 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. Izno (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN and WP:REDNOT. Contains only two blue links. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and the fact that we don't seem to have any content relating to this. Nigej (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2023 (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:Batley - 1912–13 Yorkshire Cup Final winners 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. Izno (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN and WP:REDNOT. Contains only one blue link. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2023 (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:Kosovo-note 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. There are undoubtedly pages on which this note would be helpful, but I am not seeing a consensus to subst all current uses. As noted, removal will need to keep in mind the fact that this is often used in combination with {{notelist}} and may be the only note on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) There isn't any evidence that this note prevented edit-warring, as it is often stated as argument for this note. It rather even caused edit-warring between certain user how and when to use this note. (e.g. on Pristina)

2) This note was created more than 10 years ago. I think at that time it would be needed due to the Kosovan declaration of Indepence. Today, however, some users agenda is it to paste this note everywhere where Kosovo is mentioned, even in the furthest corners of Wikipedia (e.g. Islamic Community of Kosovo)

3) This template does not show any consistency with similar cases. In articles about Taiwan (Lin Chuan, New Taipei City, etc.) Palestine (Mahmoud Abbas, Ramallah) Northern Cyprus (Ersin Tatar, Güzelyurt District), etc. I do not see such a note.

4) All necessary information is explained (including disputed claims) in the article and the whole article is just too complex to describe it in two or three sentences. -AlexBachmann (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or seriously rewrite documentation to specify use cases, per nom. There's not really any important case I'm aware of where this note has been actually needed for clarity, and countless cases where it is used in abusive ways on anything tangentially related to Kosovo or articles where it's obvious what Kosovo's status is because it's explained in the article text itself. No other partially recognized state or territorial dispute is treated like this, to my knowledge.
If there really are specific use cases editors can provide, the template should be kept, but at the very least, it needs a big overhaul to the documentation to make it clear exactly where this note should be used. HappyWith (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument to delete the template rests on WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:JDLI. Kosovo cannot be compared to Taiwan, Northern Cyprus or Palestine as there are significant political and diplomatic circumstances that render it incomparable. Apart from the notion of "independence" differing widely between Kosovo, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus and Palestine, Kosovo is the only "state" or entity for that matter that has a * beside its name for international gatherings and forums.[1] This alone warrants a note beside the use of the word "Kosovo" as the existence of Kosovo and its status is unique. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nomination TaronTT (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the nomination calls for deletion of the template? AlexBachmann (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Turp-Balazs, Craig. "Kosovo's eternal asterisk". Emerging Europe. No. 12 October 2022. Retrieved 3 May 2023.
Delete when it comes to partially recognised states, every situation is different, and as such Kosovo's situation is no more "unique" than that of any other such state. Just because there is some diplomatic agreement to put an asterisk next to Kosovo's name every time it is mentioned in an official diplomatic context, is not a good argument for Wikipedia doing the same thing. Wikipedia isn't a form of international diplomacy, and so the mere fact there is some diplomatic agreement to do something is no argument for Wikipedia to do it. In terms of whose style to emulate, Wikipedia generally hews closer to the style of the news media than to the formal language of diplomats, and in that regard it is worth noting few media outlets use the "asterisk" like international diplomats do. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reliable sources don't see the need to spell this out every time the word Kosovo is mentioned and neither should we. Nigej (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information contained in the template is readily available on the Wikipedia article on Kosovo, and other widely but not universally recognized states aren't subject to such disclaimers at every mention.--104.153.228.206 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The closing editor should bear in mind that if this template is deleted than a lot of "Notes" sections would also have to be removed since the majority of uses of this template is a singular note. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The note is being plastered anywhere and everywhere Kosovo is mentioned, having nothing to do with the political status of Kosovo. If people need to read about the political status of Kosovo, there is an article about that. --Arianit (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The issue of the independence of Kosovo is explained already in the article, no need to replicate that over and over again through a footnote. —Anna Comnena (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned by others before, there is no need for an article that replicates that over and over again. —Dren (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination.--Liridon (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I never understood the point of this note, it just complicates articles and very often the whole Explanatory notes section is created just for this note. Why should an article like International Monetary Fund have an entire "Notes" section just to add this Kosovo-note? Kosovo is not that important. Uniacademic (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Berishasinan (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Explanation:
  1. First and foremost, yes, this note reduces edit wars. The example of the edit war in the article about Pristina that you gave was started by you. The note in that article has been there for years and it's clear to everyone when it was added (as well as links to other articles).
  2. This note is needed even today, given that the majority of humanity does not recognize the independence of Kosovo, but considers it a part of the sovereign territory of Serbia (same as the UN).
  3. "Similar cases" need to be dangerously delimited. Palestine and Taiwan are non-permanent members of the UN, while Kosovo and Northern Cyprus are not. In the articles about the cities in Northern Cyprus, the infoboxes state Northern Cyprus as the de facto state, and Cyprus as de jure, while in the articles about mountains, rivers, etc. in Northern Cyprus states only that they are located on the "Island of Cyprus". So, if this template is removed, every article about a city in Kosovo (and Metohija) must state Kosovo as a de facto state and Serbia as de jure, because as I said before - the majority of humanity does not recognize Kosovo at all, while the UN sees it as part of the sovereign territory of Serbia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244).
  4. All the important information is summarized in those two sentences. So, Kosovo is a disputed territory and the template provides a link to an article that explains what it is about.

I would like to mention that, if it is voted to delete this note, we will come to a situation where the practice that is present in the articles on Northern Cyprus, Transnistria and other "states" that are not part of the UN, but are moreover recognized as the territories of the mother states, must be applied. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence to your first claim? Can you prove that this note prevented edit-warring? I don't think you can. The second claim is based on politics. Wikipedia does not have anything to do with politics nor do we have to follow a certain "amount of people/coutries that recognize Kosovo". The International Court ruled that the Kosovan Declaration of Indepence did not violate international law nor did it violate the UN SC. Resolution 1244. While countries can be compared in this case, your claim stating "every city in Kosovo (and Metohija) [which itself says a lot about your intention] must state Kosovo as a de facto state and Serbia as de jure" can not be upheld. I provided articles to prove that there are no such "notes" as in the case of Kosovo, I've never said the we should use the wording of those articles. - AlexBachmann (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your proof is that there is no proof. There was never an edit war about this note until a few days ago when you started removing it. Edit-wars will only follow when this note is removed and when we "jump into the belly" of the majority of humanity that do not recognize Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, the Donetsk People's Republic and other "states".
The International Court of Justice has ruled that the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo does not violate international law because it was brought by people who presented themselves as "the representatives of the people of Kosovo" instead of the local Assembly, and not that the unilateral declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. So, if you and I were to pass a hypothetical Los Angeles Declaration of Independence tomorrow, it would also be in accordance with international law. But let's not go too far into legal matters. You say that such a note is not used in articles of so-called states, well then the fact is that de jure and de facto states are both added to articles about cities of "states" that are not members of the UN (North Nicosia). — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine and Taiwan are non-permanent members of the UN The UN doesn't have "non-permanent members". Palestine is an observer state at the UN General Assembly; Taiwan has repeatedly requested observer status at the UN General Assembly, but those requests have been denied; it did succeed in gaining observer status at the World Health Organization (a UN specialized agency), but not as an "observer state", just as an "observer", under a name implying that it is an autonomous region of the PRC rather than an independent state ("Chinese Taipei"). In fact, Kosovo is ahead of Taiwan at the UN – Kosovo is a full member of two UN specialized agencies (IMF and World Bank Group), Taiwan is a full member of zero.
In the articles about the cities in Northern Cyprus, the infoboxes state Northern Cyprus as the de facto state, and Cyprus as de jure, while in the articles about mountains, rivers, etc. in Northern Cyprus states only that they are located on the "Island of Cyprus" Northern Cyprus and Kosovo are not comparable situations – Northern Cyprus is only recognised by 1 UN member state, Kosovo is recognised by (according to our own article) 101 out of 193 UN member states (a bit over 50%). Serbia claims several nations counted in that 101 have withdrawn recognition, but hasn't presented convincing evidence to support its claims – even if we accept all of Serbia's claims about recognition withdrawals, we'd still have 80+ UN member states recognising, which is 80 times as many UN members as recognise Northern Cyprus. Also, as mentioned above, Kosovo is a member of two UN specialized agencies, Northern Cyprus is also a member of zero.
Finally, while you've got your facts wrong about the international status of Kosovo, as compared to Taiwan or Northern Cyprus, you also haven't explained how any of those facts are relevant. Wikipedia's policies are not based on international law/relations/politics/diplomacy, so whatever the facts may be about those topics, what relevance does that have to the question of whether Wikipedia should keep this template or delete it? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved here from below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
1. Can you provide any proof?
2. False. More than 50% of UN countries do not recognize Kosovo, and in the end, it wouldn't matter if over 50% didn't recognize. What is Serbia going to do? Invade Kosovo? Kosovo's independence is singlehandedly assured by NATO, and it's not going away anytime soon. 27/31 NATO members recognize Kosovo.
3. The UN declared that the Kosovo Declaration of Independence was not illegal, and there's no such thing as a "non-permanent UN Member".
4. There are no Serb police in Kosovo. There is no Serb law. It is de facto independent, and international law does not prohibit this. If you believe it's a "disputed territory", feel free to travel to Pristina yourself and notice the lack of Serbian police or government officers. Its independence will not go away now, and there's nothing Serbia, you or I can do about that. Bayad27 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
procedural aside
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
uh, oops? this was meant to be a reply to the post above... Bayad27 (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how do i move this help Bayad27 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which posting did you intend to reply to? I can move it there for you. But, that said, this kind of political discussion is not really very helpful for this kind of deletion debate. And, nothing personal, but the same goes, quite in general, for the participation of so many inexperienced users who have little to no experience with Wikipedia deletion policy and processes, and whose sudden presence here is creating the impression somebody has been canvassing for this discussion behind the scenes, which is highly frowned upon on Wikipedia. You might actually prefer to remove your comment instead. Just friendly advice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation is up near the top of the thread, it starts with Keep: Explanation.
I understand I'm not an expert on this, but from my perspective, their response felt like it was deliberately misframing this situation, and I wanted to correct them. I don't want to get into a whole intense debate about this, it just feels weird when people treat Kosovo as a whole complicated situation that needs an asterisk every time, when its independence is one of the most clear-cut out of any of the 10 breakaway states. It's not going away soon, and framing it as a state in quotes (ie, "State", which they said/implied) is just dishonest. Serbia doesn't recognize it, sure, but I'd argue its government is way more functional than many UN member states, such as the Central African Republic. It just feels dishonest to argue that Kosovo isn't a real state or anything like that and we need to treat it as a special note with an asterisk, when it's really functional.
And I get I don't have much experience, sure, but isn't the only way to get more experience to start somewhere? Bayad27 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete template space is not for text, and no actual evidence that this template is helpful in its purpose anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . The Kosovo note has no actual, meaningful function which helps readers learn more about the subject. Articles which do require an explanation of the international status of Kosovo have more than one section in the main body of the article about this subject, hence there's no need for a secondary note for the same subject. This is a small subset of the total number of articles which use the note as it is almost always used in articles which don't require any note about the status of Kosovo because the international status of Kosovo doesn't have anything to do with their WP:TOPIC. As a consequence, use of the note is usually a source of constant disputes which in no way possible help readers understand more about the subject and more tellingly involve edit wars about how many times the note is going to be used even in the least related subject to Kosovo's status. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durraz0 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HappyWith. — Klein Muçi (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should have not been created at the first place. --Margott (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kosovos situation is just as unique and special as all other partially recognized states. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an official document or agreement.
Alltan (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment (Delete): It is timely to delete this template, seeing as it has outlived its usefulness, though the resulting cleanup to remove the template (e.g WikiCleanerMan's example above) will take time. JaventheAldericky (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was always ridiculously over-used, and was explicitly designed and intended to be over-used in this way from the very beginning. Was always in direct contradiction to the "making necessary assumptions" (WP:MNA) clause of the WP:NPOV policy, which says that it is not proper to repeat treatment of a POV dispute on multiple articles on unrelated topics just because a topic that has a POV issue attached to it is mentioned in them in passing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the good reasons given above. If it is deleted, then each instance should be subst, since it is not the place of this forum to decide the content of individual articles. That requires a discussion on each articles' talk page or a centrally-advertised RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good reasons? Which ones? And no, we do not need to discuss this at every single page (I don't know if you're being serious here) nor do we need a RFC. It suffices to delete this template once consensus it achieved. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was important back in 2010, but I agree, it doesn't need to be here anymore. I mean, it's even in places like Future Nostalgia Tour that have nothing to do with Kosovo. I think, in 2023, a Wikilink to Kosovo suffices. Notsammyray (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated. jhpratt (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I support Kosovo, it is best to keep the footnote just so facts and not opinions are said. It could cause a lot of bias if this note was deleted. MicroSupporter (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The footnote isn't necessary to ensure "facts and not opinions are said". We have multiple articles discussing the facts of Kosovo's disputed status in inordinate detail. Deleting this template won't remove any of that. The problem with the template is it encourages people to put this footnote mentioning the status dispute into every article which mentions ever Kosovo–that's a cause of "a lot of bias", so deleting this template would be a cure for it. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (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:Crw-big 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) 05:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

per cr-big discussion Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2023 (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:WorldCat subject 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. Izno (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on WorldCat Identities. This project ceased to exist. Please delete use and template, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 17. @WikiCleanerMan, CRwikiCA, and 0mtwb9gd5wx: FYI. Kolja21 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2023 (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:Airmiess not Ermias 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. Izno (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused after being removed from the talk page here. Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete. I was waiting a month to see whether its removal was merited, judging by edit requests on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2023 (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:2022 midterm rallies map 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. Izno (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article map with no template parameters; content is not long or complex. Content is not expected to change or need special protection. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2023 (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:2022 Philippine presidential election unofficial results 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. Izno (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article table with no template parameters. Content is not expected to change or need special protection. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the template creator for the unofficial results, I support removing the template as the election has already finished a year ago. I have left a note in the source edit page that once the election canvassing was over, I advised someone to remove this aforementioned page. I'm actually surprised that this page is still up, though. But I have your 100% clearance to remove it. Arandompersonlol (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2023 (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:2022 Philippine vice presidential election unofficial results 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. Izno (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article table with no template parameters. Content is not expected to change or need special protection. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the template creator for the unofficial results, I support removing the template as the election has already finished a year ago. I have left a note in the source edit page that once the election canvassing was over, I advised someone to remove this aforementioned page. I'm actually surprised that this page is still up, though. But I have your 100% clearance to remove it. Arandompersonlol (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2023 (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:Male actors from Jaipur 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. Izno (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No main article. This navbox works perfectly well as a category, Category:Male actors from Jaipur. There is no inherent relationship among these people aside from where they come from. Delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2023 (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:Naxos-work 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. Izno (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2010 as a test. Used only in one talk page. Undocumented, with no other transclusions. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2023 (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:David Kašiković 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. Izno (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See David Kašiković, created by the same editor. DB1729talk 15:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G2. This is clearly a test page or an error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, of course. The last two times I tried to speedy delete a template that looked like this, admins came along, reverted my speedy req and moved the page to article draft instead. I'm kind of kicking myself for not speedying agian here, because they wouldn't have been so likely to do that move in this case. Live and learn...--DB1729talk 19:40, 2 May 2023 (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:Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal 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 2023 May 9. Izno (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2023 (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/2023_May_2&oldid=1154289960"