Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

April 30 edit

Template:Cleanup remainder 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. Replace with {{cleanup section}}. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup remainder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Cleanup section}}. Every instance I've found was actually being used for what {{Cleanup section}} is used for. "Remainder" vs. "section" also does not seem to be a sufficient division to warrant two templates. Either merge to {{cleanup section}} or delete outright. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Jdcomix (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant, and clumsy ("this article's remainder" is puzzling) – Train2104 (t • c) 02:47, 4 May 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:Select Sixteen 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. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Select Sixteen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not seem to be a notable grouping, title is far from neutral. John from Idegon (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, not notable. Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 2 May 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:Article probation 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. Remove or replace with DS notice as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article probation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article probation is no longer used by ArbCom and has replaced with discretionary sanctions on article it was previously active on. No need for this template, other than maybe redirecting it to Template:Ds? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I created the original version of this template in 2006, during a period when I served as one of the first arbitration clerks. The arbitration committee in its elected form was at that time just a little over a year old, and the role of the clerk was even newer and very controversial. The current institutions of Wikipedia come from such origins but have no doubt changed and adapted to the needs of a maturing community.

This template should probably be referred to the current arbitration clerks, as its use was probably intended to be restricted to that semi-official role. At first glance it seems to be long obsolete, but on the other hand I see no pressing need to delete it. But the current lot may well have their own opinions, and it's a matter of record that I relinquished my role under a cloud, at the request of the Committee. This template has been relisted after an initial listing that drew no comments. I draw the conclusion that its deletion would otherwise be without controversy, so let's refer it to the present-day clerks. --TS 00:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd prefer deleting the template instead of redirecting it, since the name might confuse. We passed two motions in 2015 (removing articled probation where it was where it was no longer necessary and where the articles were already covered under discretionary sanctions), so there should not be any articles that are under article probation. There aren't very many pages where this template is used (fewer than 50), so we should just replace the template with the discretionary sanction template, or remove it where appropriate, and delete it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 3 May 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:Top level women's association football leagues around the world 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 May 9. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top level women's association football leagues around the world (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:Family of William Shakespeare 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) 17:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family of William Shakespeare (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant given the existence of Template:William Shakespeare family tree. Opera hat (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the family onto the main {{William Shakespeare}} template, minus son-in-laws. Families are usually listed on the main template of the subject. Randy Kryn 10:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant (maybe). I waffle back and forth on this. But with the family in the main topic template (Thank's Randy!), I think I land on the side that says it's redundant and could be removed. Incidentally, Randy, the sons-in-law should be included with the family in the template: they are for various (not necessarily obvious) reasons as significant and relevant as the blood relations. --Xover (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added back the in-laws. Since the family template is now complete within the not-overly-large main template will join the Delete as redundant reasoning. Randy Kryn 13:05, 30 April 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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 40 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) 17:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 40 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient navigation -- only two entries. The rest have been redirected to alphabetical lists for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 30 April 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 75th ID 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) 17:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 75th ID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient navigation -- only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 30 April 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 7th SS MD 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) 17:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 7th SS MD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient navigation -- only two entries. The rest have been redirected to alphabetical lists for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 30 April 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).