Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 2

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

October 2 edit

Template:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-politician-stub 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) Primefac (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, incorrectly formatted, without category. Not proposed, approved, or discussed with anyone from the Stub sorting Project. (Several other related categories and templates are nominated at Cfd for similar reasons.) Her Pegship (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2016 (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:Sikh-culture 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 as duplicate. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Built using {{asbox}}, so that it resembles a stub template; but it is not named as a stub template, nor does it put articles into any stub categories. Currently unused, was used on one article until I replaced it with something more suitable - a true stub template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2016 (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:Liverpool F.C. season 2009-10 game log 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) Primefac (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unnecessary and unused. NapHit (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2016 (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:Lycées in Loire-Atlantique 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, as the concerns listed have been rectified. NPASR provided a different rationale is supplied. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a navigation template is supposed to have three links to existing articles (blue links) to be a valid and useful template. This template offers navigation between just one school. The Banner talk 14:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @The Banner: I'll create two links per template shortly. If you don't mind me making a suggestion, it may be more fruitful to send a talk page message to the template author first so that he can remedy the issue, and only send it to TFD if the issue cannot be, or is not within several days, remedied. That way it's less work for the guys at WP:TFD. Anyway I'll llet you know when they've been created. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Banner: Keep - there are now three linked articles WhisperToMe (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2016 (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:Lycées in Haut-Rhin 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, as the concerns listed have been rectified. NPASR provided a different rationale is supplied. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a navigation template is supposed to have three links to existing articles (blue links) to be a valid and useful template. This template offers navigation between just one school. The Banner talk 14:01, 2 October 2016 (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:Lycées in Haute-Garonne 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, as the concerns listed have been rectified. NPASR provided a different rationale is supplied. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a navigation template is supposed to have three links to existing articles (blue links) to be a valid and useful template. This template offers navigation between just two schools. The Banner talk 14:00, 2 October 2016 (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:Lycées in Indre-et-Loire 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, as the concerns listed have been rectified. NPASR provided a different rationale is supplied. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a navigation template is supposed to have three links to existing articles (blue links) to be a valid and useful template. This template offers navigation between just one school. The Banner talk 13:57, 2 October 2016 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the Volkssturm 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) Primefac (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains one entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2016 (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:Phillips Haymakers football 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 delete. WP:REFUND applies should more valid pages be created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (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:Spring Hill Badgers football 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. There is NPASR if the number of bluelinks drops below acceptable levels. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A third if we count the link to Spring Hill Badgers football. I created both the Spring Hill and Phillips navboxes, so I'm addressing both with this post. They are both historically significant football programs of yesteryear. Spring Hill can be a bit confusing for notability as I believe it was a prep school, but then the same might be said of Carlisle. They are far from the only programs with red links. Still, I tried to at least add one more season for each. Cake (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's 4 links. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:18, 2 October 2016 (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:Evansville-stub 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) Primefac (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been created out of process without a matching category and is currently not being used. With a population of 120k it's fairly marginal for having its own stub type. Le Deluge (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (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:Clash of the Choirs 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) Primefac (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No cast and crew in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV. What's left isn't worthy of navbox inclusion either. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this really only serves to provide navigation among the judges; not sufficient to justify a show template, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2016 (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/2016_October_2&oldid=744084414"