Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13 edit

Template:Traverse City Beach Bums roster 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team is defunct as of 2019, so this roster template is no longer needed. Pozzi.c (talk) 21:35, 13 January 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:River City Rascals roster 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team is defunct, so this roster template is no longer needed. Pozzi.c (talk) 21:14, 13 January 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:Team Katusha–Alpecin riders 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. Craig(talk) 20:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to delete. Israel Start-up Nation template exists so this is now useless. LegofanCy (talk) 15:28, 14 January 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:Normal CornBelters roster 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since last year, the CornBelters moved out of the Frontier League to a collegiate wood-bat league, roster template is no longer necessary as no other team in the Prospect League have them. Pozzi.c (talk) 20:17, 13 January 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:New Britain Bees roster 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bees have moved out of the Atlantic League to a collegiate wood-bat league, roster template is no longer necessary as no other team in the Futures Collegiate Baseball League have them. Pozzi.c (talk) 18:23, 13 January 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:Nihongo core 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 use which can be converted to {{Nihongo}}, {{Nihongo2}} or {{Nihongo3}} - none of which use this "core". Gonnym (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a fan of delete here. --Izno (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another one that I put on my TfD candidates list and never acted on. Feel free to take a look at it since you're finding them anyway. Don't take them being there as me endorsing them though since I haven't done like any checks on them. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:25, 16 January 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:4x4 type square/table 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 speedy delete. Izno (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically looks never to have been used (there is two currently extant transclusions). Izno (talk) 15:40, 13 January 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:4x4 type square/method 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 speedy delete. Izno (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically looks never to have been used (there is one currently extant transclusion). Izno (talk) 15:40, 13 January 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:4x4 type square/fractional rotate clockwise NE - SW 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 speedy delete. Izno (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically looks never to have been used (there is one currently extant transclusion). Izno (talk) 15:39, 13 January 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:4x4 type square/colors 00 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 speedy delete. Izno (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically looks never to have been used (there is one currently extant transclusion). Izno (talk) 15:39, 13 January 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:4x4 type square/ 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 speedy delete. Izno (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically looks never to have been used (there is one currently extant transclusion). If it is of value, it should probably move to the slash-less version. Izno (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This template is a result of a failed "subst and delete" result of this TfD done by User:RyanGerbil10 where the main template page was deleted but left all subpages. I think these could be speedy as it's the same TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I buy that. I'll CSD them shortly. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 13 January 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:Miss Costa Rica 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NAVBOX with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm sure people readers and manage to navigate to the current page they are on by themselves. --Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 19 January 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:BillboardChartNum 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⚡ 00:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard has changed their URL structure several times making this template obsolete. It's currently unused except for one sandbox ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As its author, I concur that history has made it obsolete.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 13 January 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:BillboardID 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard doesn't use artist id anymore making this template unneeded. The remaining uses are in now unused artistid parameters for {{single chart}} or {{album chart}} ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if indeed does not work. As a related comment, if the usage isn't directly but via those 2 templates, why would those 2 templates even leave dead code in them? Don't need a TfD to remove dead code. --Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 19 January 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:1910s in music (UK) 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 no consensus as both original nomination reasons have been invalidated with no other comments pertaining to any potential redundancy. There is NPASR assuming different reasons are given in that nomination. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template - there are redlinks and the list of years in British music are already displayed by using the correct formatting of Template:Year nav topic5 so this template isn't useful in any way. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unused, but you're right that the red links needed to be removed. Template:Year nav topic5 would result in even more red links, as there are unlikely ever to be articles on Years in British science, Years in British art, etc. Obviously that could be reconsidered if that ever happened. Deb (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: Template:1910s in music (UK) is in use now but it was unused at the time of this nomination. Template:1920s in music (UK) is still unused. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that. I'm not sure whether someone changed it at some stage after it was created, or maybe I created the template in advance of the articles. But I will put it into use now. Deb (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:28, 13 January 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:Archive bottom 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 2020 January 24. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 24 January 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_January_13&oldid=937287697"