Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 27 December 29 >

December 28 edit

Template:Infobox NCAA Division III football rankings 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) 04:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one page. I see no real need for this sort of an infobox. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:56, 28 December 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:Spo.rs 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license template; doubt anyone will ever use it, but if they do, this is replaceable by {{OTRS permission|2009010310014167}} and {{GFDL}} FASTILY 22:12, 28 December 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:Verizon FiOS IP 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 January 8 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:08, 8 January 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:Verizon Wireless IP 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 January 8 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:08, 8 January 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:Wikitable 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. I appreciate the problem this is trying to solve, but consensus is that this is too confusing to be a good solution. Happy to userfy on request.Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially documentation that does not do what the name implies. The usage I have seen is people apparently thinking that putting {{wikitable}} at the start of the table syntax will create the table header. As for the content, it's redundant to Help:Tables. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly, during 2005-2010, {wikitable} was a different template which, in fact, set table header styles. -Wikid77 (talk)
  • Note creator has fixed/removed improper usage of the template, but the main concerns about its potential misuse (and redundancy) are still applicable. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, problematic. or, redirect to {{table}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as fixed: This template is used now mostly as non-transcluded during edit-preview mode, and not logged in page-views. The prior template, under the same name, led to "problematic" usage, now corrected. Hence there are no true reasons to delete this template. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if this is intended to be helpful as a concise means of showing how tables are made there is probably a way to do it that does not include putting it in template space. It looks very helpful to me, but template space is not the place for it. Perhaps userfy for the time being? It seems too useful to simply throw entirely away... Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far more likely to hurt than help due to the demonstrated instances where this caused confusion. ~ Rob13Talk 00:49, 10 January 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:Calculation 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 above; happy to userfy on request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused "help" templates redundant to mw:Help:ParserFunctions. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The templates package help-text for screen width and multi-window operation of mobile phones as a physical reality and not a display option of a /doc page, but rather a separate page format. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as copies of Template:Calc. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by author: These pages (as original versions, not copies) are used as non-transcluded during edit-preview mode, and not logged in page-views. Hence there are no true reasons to delete these templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just use the docs to document. ~ Rob13Talk 00:48, 10 January 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:For/help 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. Happy to userfy on request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant (and unused) template that duplicates the /doc of the template. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I have added {{about/help}} for the same reasons. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need these. if there is a problem with mobile view, we should address that at {{documentation}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues for screen width and multi-window operation of mobile phones are a physical reality and not a display option of a /doc page, but rather a separate page format. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by author: These pages are used as non-transcluded during edit-preview mode, and not logged in page-views. Hence there are no true reasons to delete these templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to have pages like this instead of just relying on the doc. ~ Rob13Talk 00:48, 10 January 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:2016AKGen 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) 04:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates United States presidential election in Alaska, 2016#Statewide Results. note that it appears the same is true for all the other 2016XYGen templates in Category:United States 2016 presidential election templates, which I have added as well. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:40, 28 December 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:KJIVA 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) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a walled garden around KJIVA. None of these articles meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete if the articles are deleted, keep if the articles are kept. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are sockpuppet accounts spamming and disrupting the AfD process for KJIVA, a subject with no reliable sources, not one. See Kjiva - the first deletion nomination - for more. Scorpion293 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 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:United Naxal Records 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) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a walled garden around KJIVA. None of the articles in this template meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, record label templates are generally deleted since they tend to not have much left after you remove the artists. in this case, the related links duplicate links in Template:KJIVA, and if those are removed, there really isn't anything left. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 29 December 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:Soccer in Nauru 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, as there is only one Wikipedia article (Soccer in Nauru) linked to from the template. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, not enough working non-redirect links. Frietjes (talk) 14:01, 29 December 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:Furanochromone 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass the five-link minimum test suggested by WP:NENAN. Most of the links are red, and no articles have ever been written for them (there aren't even log entries saying such articles once existed but were deleted). Even if these pages were created, this navbox seems useless for navigational purposes; it's called "Types of furanochromones" but "Furanochromones" is an entire subset of the navbox. One member of the navbox exists in its own little row, and a brief skim shows that the term "furanochromone" doesn't exist in the article for glycoside and likewise for the other way around. The two seem, from my perspective as a chemistry outsider, unrelated, but even if they were related, a navbox seems useless for connecting them, since it would seem to be basic information mentioned on both articles in blurbs that included wikilinks. If the second row were cut having been deemed irrelevant, the top row would simply be redundant to Category:Furanochromones. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 11:00, 28 December 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:Bicarbonate 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) 15:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, aside from a single archived discussion where it would not be difficult to decipher what the compound is chemically since it's attached to the talk page for sodium bicarbonate whose formula is the same with an added Na. We don't allow article content to be stored this way anyway; formulae such as these are easily written in article space. No need for a template. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, I can't imagine how many of these we would have if we had templates for every compound. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 29 December 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:Chromism 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 January 6 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:33, 6 January 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/2016_December_28&oldid=1138533048"