Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3 edit

Template:ClockBlock 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 2017 February 11 Primefac (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2017 (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:Zoos of Washington, D.C. 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 a note to the creator, creating similar templates is all fine and dandy, but navboxes still need to adhere to the rules and guidelines set forth by consensus. As a general note, this template is being deleted for lack of valid links, and should not be seen as any sort of precedent (which the creator is concerned about) for deleting zoo-related navboxes. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A template covering a topic with only 2 linked entries should not exist. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and one of them isn't even open anymore. Randy Kryn 19:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Tom (LT) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The template currently exist as part of an attempt to standardized zoos to have better navigation templates. Previously the zoo's were categorized by a consistent mix of sorting states or by cities in those states. I thought it would be better to promote a uniform state based categorization, but it causes instances like this with low link counts. There are other states with similar link counts, like Zoos of Rhode Island. Likewise, other countries with very low links like Zoos of Serbia, or Zoos of Portugal, which has 7/11 of its content as dead links. If there is a discussion about deleting this template, I would appreciate an agreed upon standard for these navigation templates that would make cleaning up that category easier.--Blood sliver (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)--Blood sliver (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to be useful. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we can connect the articles through the list in List of zoos in Washington, D.C.. Frietjes (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2017 (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:RemObjects 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if more relevant bluelinks are created. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only three blue links, from a single-purpose author Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, pages can be connected using standard in-article linking. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2017 (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:Roman Catholic Dioceses in Indiana 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. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Blank since November 2014‎. Avicennasis @ 04:59, 7 Shevat 5777 / 04:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blank and unused. --Tom (LT) 00:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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:Rhythmic Contemporary Radio Stations in Georgia 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. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Blank since July 2016‎. Avicennasis @ 04:59, 7 Shevat 5777 / 04:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blank and unused. --Tom (LT) 00:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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:Presidents of University of Texas at Dallas 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. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Blank since July 2014‎. Avicennasis @ 04:57, 7 Shevat 5777 / 04:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blank and unused. --Tom (LT) 00:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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:Participating clubs of the AFC Champions League era 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. Primefac (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Blank since November 2014‎. Avicennasis @ 04:56, 7 Shevat 5777 / 04:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blank and unused. --Tom (LT) 00:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
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:Country data New Zealand National Party 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. Primefac (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blank template. Not sure what the original intent was either... Test page? Avicennasis @ 04:52, 7 Shevat 5777 / 04:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blank and unused. --Tom (LT) 00:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete In its original state, it did have a non-free image on it. Given that location is template space, and that our non-free content criteria forbids the use of non-free images in templates, I removed the image. It may have been in use prior to that. I'm not sure. Regardless, it is not in use now and serves no purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2017 (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:Ampang Line 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 2017 February 11 Primefac (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2017 (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:Sharedwelcome 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. Primefac (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{sharedIP}}, {{repeat vandal}}, and {{welcome-anon}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and as an accessability nightmare (do not used nested layout tables! Pppery 20:07, 3 February 2017 (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).

People's Choice Awards templates 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 2017 February 12 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 12 February 2017 (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:2016-17 Sports event AfDs 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to duplicate the efforts of WP:DELSORT and CAT:AFD. The "series of AFDs" are linked by the mere fact that they are multi-national and/or multi-event sporting events. This template clutters the AFDs onto which it is transcluded. See WP:NENAN and WP:CLNT.

TL;DR - This template is completely unnecessary. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, till all deletion discussions are done. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not required. GiantSnowman 20:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many users like myself do not frequent AFD and this template highlighted several nominations relevant to my knowledge area that I have since participated in. I appreciate the effort by Sportsfan to increase the transparency around these nominations. SFB 21:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too don't see why we need an additional template, to duplicate what WP:DELSORT and CAT:AFD do, except that there seems to be a particular sense of urgency on the part of a few editors in getting as many group sports noms as possible through Afd -- and I don't see the urgency, nor the need to invent a new template to accelerate things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. Senseless deletion nomination. Wp:DELSORT does not have any page exclusively for sports event AFDs, and I fail to understand this duplicates CAT:AFD which is just a hapless mess of 755 AfDs. In any case, all the deletion nominations are quite similarly rationaled and editors commenting in one of then would also want to comment in the others. They are much more likely to use the links provided in this template rather than visit the delsort page, which has too many unrelated nominations. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who spends a lot of time there, I think it's also been conducive to a lot of duplicative copypaste !votes. The template creator has also misunderstood: no one is saying that CAT:AFD alone is sufficient. But it already has Category:AfD debates (Games or sports), which currently has 71 articles -- not a "hapless mess." Moreover, the more specific Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports currently has just 57 entries, including sub-sections for specific sports. One has the impression reading the template creator's comment above of "a hapless mess of 755 AfDs" that it's as if he's unaware that these parallel sports deletion sorting tools exist. Anyway, his massive template breaks up the discussion flow. And if we allow this one, why not other such mass nom templates, which would make Afd discussions almost unnavigable. There is no "hapless mess" here, other than perhaps the one the editor has created. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The temolate wasn't originally massive - it had just 6 entries, it becane massive due to the large no. of subsequently opened AfDs. Anyway, i have edited it to show only the unclosed afds (with a link to see the closed ones). I hope it is less of a clutter now. 103.6.159.70 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, I don't see any compelling argument why this template should be deleted; it's helpful for people interested in the subject area. As for taking up space, there's no reason the template couldn't be hatted by default. It should be deleted once there are no more AfDs though. Laurdecl talk 08:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the template creator has done, it's not working. As of 10:30 am my time (ET) it's still displaying closed Afds, and it seems to be as massive as ever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem was with the page caches, not template coding. For the record, I have now further edited the template so that everything is collapsed, and as before closed AfDs aren't displayed. 103.6.159.78 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a dangerous precedent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dangerous precedent; duplicates categories; does not serve a useful navigational purpose; does not relate to our core purpose as an encyclopedia. --Tom (LT) 00:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, duplicates Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Frietjes (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2017 (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/2017_February_3&oldid=765160177"