Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 2

< June 1	June 3 >

June 2 edit

Template:Non-free gov 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) 19:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free gov (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This has been around three years, but it only has three transclusions. I'd recommend substituting the few transclusions that exist and then using {{Non-free fair use}} going forward. ~ Rob^Talk 21:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Also went ahead and substituted the few transclusions to something more standard. -FASTILY 09:22, 12 June 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:K.Pone.Inc 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) ~ Rob^Talk 01:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:K.Pone.Inc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Record label catalogues and artist roster unsuitable for navbox inclusion per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 2 June 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:LongestTunnel 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) 04:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've just replaced this with succession boxes as per standard practice. Now unused. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 22:06, 2 June 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:Mary 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 2016 June 12. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Wilt 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) 04:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Albums all redirect to band article. Nothing to navigate. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, doesn't provide enough navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:09, 2 June 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:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 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) ~ Rob^Talk 00:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same rationale as Template:Green Party presidential primaries, 2016 Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For same reasons described by Abjiklɐm. Acidskater (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strongly oppose deletion - Templates are the standard on primary elections pages, see the GOP and Democratic primaries. Jp16103 21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after merging with the article. single use template. Frietjes (talk) 22:09, 2 June 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:Green Party presidential primaries, 2016 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) ~ Rob^Talk 00:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Green Party presidential primaries, 2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template unnecessary since it is transcluded in only one article. I've already copied the infobox code directly into Green Party presidential primaries, 2016. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For same reasons described by Abjiklɐm. Acidskater (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very strongly oppose deletion - Templates are the standard on primary elections pages, see the GOP and Democratic primaries. Jp16103 21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because they are transcluded on more than one page. That's not the case of the Libertarian and Green infoboxes. Templates are not the standard for election infoboxes. They are used for the Democratic and Republican primaries simply to keep all the articles that transclude updated at the same time. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still strongly disagree, templates help prevent vandalism on contentious articles. Leave the template it makes editing easier and more organized. Removing the template would be pointless. Jp16103 19:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. This template is in all likelihood on fewer people's watchlists. Keeping this template makes maintenance harder since it scatters the material over multiple pages. In any case, templates are used when the same content is repeated on several pages, which is not the case here. I doubt there are other infobox templates used only once on Wikipedia, and it goes against the convention established over all election articles. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the archives of the talk page on the democratic primaries, the consensus reached there (which I was apart of) was that we should keep the template for better organization and vandalism protection. Transclusion wasnt even considered. Jp16103 22:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The better organization you speak of is precisely what I mean by transclusion. When the same infobox is used more than once it is indeed better organization to place it in a separate template. When it is not the case, a separate template is not only useless but actually makes it more cumbersome to update. The purpose of a template is not to ward off vandalism. If vandalism becomes a problem, semi-protection should be more than enough. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, after merging with the article. single use template. Frietjes (talk) 22:09, 2 June 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:Global Force Wrestling 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) 04:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Global Force Wrestling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The most pertinent linked items actually redirect to the main article, the Global Force Wrestling tournaments article will likely be deleted soon. Other companies, are linked as "Partners", are only tangentially related.LM2000 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - majority of links are now redirects to the main article, because they lack independent notability, and the promotion is marginally notable at best. Subsequently, the navbox doesn't have enough unique links to sustain itself. oknazevad (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:31, 2 June 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).