Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 26

< February 25	February 27 >

February 26 edit

Template:Barfamily 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barfamily (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that tries to hardcode an entire sources section. Terrible idea as it locks the entire section from being used. With 1, 2, 3, and 4, now orphaned. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a proper use of template space. Each source should be individually listed, and should not include a header. That's only if the sources can be used in a plentitude of articles -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cite cochrane 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite cochrane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very complex citation template that is only used in some userspace draft articles. If any of the users feels a need for them, I suggest moving this template to userspace but otherwise it could be substituted. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup support. Cite journal is better. We need fewer not more templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 26 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cite airliners.net 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite airliners.net (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used in four articles but containing esoteric parameters (the access date for some reason doesn't require the first two numbers of the year, there's a default author name) that can be better done with a basic cite web citation. It's not even clear this would qualify as a reliable citation though. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think it is needed, the one example of use I looked at the citation doesnt match the article source, nearly all of airliner.net has been copied from elsewhere so it would be better not to use it as a source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Andrijich-MargRiver-2003 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Andrijich-MargRiver-2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With this edit, now orphaned citation template. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have undone the edit. The template has been created for use in multiple articles. The book provides reference material about a lot of wineries, and I will add the template to other, winery, articles soon. I am just taking a break from winery articles at the moment, because I have been uploading photographs to commons recently instead. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after substitution per nom. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as article content in template space —PC-XT+ 18:04, 5 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WWW-MV 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 21 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fez 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nom, template renamed/moved/repurposed. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fez (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only two subarticles. the articles are easily connected by see also and/or normal linking. Frietjes (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is sparse, though I do think it's helpful. Not worth the argument, though. I was going to delete it myself under G7, but I repurposed it into an Indie Game: The Movie navbox, which should allay your concerns. I recommend reaching out to the primary author before taking it to TfD next time. Keep and speedy close as repurposed. czar ⨹ 18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment now that the template has been renamed, the template name {{Fez}} should be deleted as a redirect because it is not about Fez -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Tefillin scrolls 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tefillin scrolls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion. This is article content in template space, and should be subst'd. NSH002 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge with article per nom. Frietjes (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.