Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 29 July 1 >

June 30 edit

Template:Culture of South Ossetia 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar, parent article has been redirected Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, used in 7 articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete moot vote above. used only in 2 "south ossetia" articles. the parent article that User talk:TenPoundHammer refers to is literally the political entity rendering this template misinformative and uninformative.68.151.25.115 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 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:Iowahighwaysref 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) 02:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creates a link to a site that does not seem to be reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Premature—let's update the articles now to use other sourcing. It's better to at least acknowledge that the article is sourced to something than nothing. The template already tags the citations with {{verify credibility}} (and maybe that should be switched to {{sps}}, but I digress) so it's not like we aren't already acknowledging the deficiencies of the source. Once the source is no longer in use, then we can delete the template. Imzadi 1979 → 14:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: According to What Links Here, this template is not used in mainspace. So I do not think its deletion is premature.  VC  01:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 30 June 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:Irish courts pre-1922 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, arbitrary cutoff Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. The cut-off period of 1922 isn't arbitrary. That's the date of Irish independence, so the courts listed on the template are those used while Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and before 1801, a subsidiary kingdom to Great Britain. There was a whole other set of courts established under the 1922 Free State Constitution, and then under the 1937 Constitution if Ireland. However, I accept that it's unused. I created it last year, and had obviously intended to add it to the relevant pages. Could you put a stay on this for a period of two weeks to allow me to get back to this? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add it to the linked articles. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     10:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 30 June 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:Jared Leto 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 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:02, 8 July 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:Jargon lede 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused variant of {{Technical}} Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Serves a purpose, lack of current use is not lack of possible use, or even lack of prior use. Carl Fredrik talk 07:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially it is a {{Technical lede}}-template, and should be used to tag articles where the lede is too technical, but the level of the text in the body is less problematic. Carl Fredrik talk 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 30 June 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:John F. Kennedy/sandbox2 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) 02:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused variant of {{John F. Kennedy}} Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this is a /sandbox. I don't think TfD should be filled with these. (I mam the creator). -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't look like the page was ever actually used for test edits outside preview mode, and was a copy of the original with one left brace missing. There is also another extant sandbox for testing purposes. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     10:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 30 June 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:Lethbridge Hurricanes 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 relisted on 2017 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:05, 8 July 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:Libraries in the Western Cape 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 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:08, 8 July 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:Captioned 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. after replacing Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only 34 transclusions after 11 years. Redundant to {{Plain image with caption}}, which is more modern and matches the font of regular image captions. (Note that I am proposing to replace the template, not to remove its uses from pages.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 30 June 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:MFDWarning-NPF 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 redirect to Template:MFDWarning. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused variant of {{MFDWarning}} Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per docs, that template is used in the PageCuration toolbar (New Pages Feed). It is always subst'd. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:MFDWarning, then. PageCuration does not need a separate fork of every warning template. Pppery 19:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 30 June 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:Wikipedia CFGTD invite 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 move to project space Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused invite for a joke committee Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if it were "The Committee for Getting Things Deleted". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 30 June 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).

California small-market radio templates 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 merge to Template:San Jose Radio. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Barstow Radio, Template:Diablo Valley Radio, Template:Gilroy/Hollister Radio and Template:Tri-Valley Radio.
These templates and certain others in Template:California Radio Markets are likely original research - and some can be merged to larger markets' templates, per the Arbitron radio markets map. For instance, Template:Barstow Radio can be merged into Template:Victor Valley Radio; Template:Diablo Valley Radio and Tri-Valley Radio in Template:San Francisco Radio, and Gilroy/Hollister into San Jose. I could not find any instances where these small regions are referred as unique "radio markets". Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 30 June 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:Sandwiches 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to List of sandwiches and Category:Sandwiches, and there's no way this navbox can contain either a comprehensive list of all sandwiches or a balanced, representative sampling. Ibadibam (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – a valid template per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Sandwiches, which helps to aid in navigation for users interested in various types of sandwiches. The template consists of notable sandwiches, and is not intended to list all sandwiches in the world. If the template becomes too lengthy, it can be WP:SPLIT into sub-templates by sandwich type. North America1000 09:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have performed some copy editing to the template to organize content. This has served to present a more balanced and representative sampling. North America1000 10:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dunno if it changes the underlying issues, which are structural: these are all pages linked by being types of one thing—members of a set (read: members of a category). There's not much interrelationship between the articles, which is what WP:NAVBOX guidelines #3 and #5 suggest for navbox membership. The other issue is that, even exercising your best judgement to make an appropriate sampling in the navbox, a navbox isn't supposed to be a sampling; it's a comprehensive collection of a discrete set of related links. Presenting an arbitrary subset, as much as it was chosen in good faith, is subject to bias, and is going to give rise to endless disputes over what deserves inclusion. Ibadibam (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 30 June 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:Anna Anthropy 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only navigates three games. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:NAVBOX recommendations. Parent subject is a game dev who is still making works and whose existing works might also be independently notable. Sufficient for four articles and potential to expand.   czar 06:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 30 June 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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Connecticut 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) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one link Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 30 June 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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Hawaii 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) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one link Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 30 June 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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Louisiana 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 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 8 July 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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in New Jersey 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) 01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one link Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 30 June 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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Rhode Island 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 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:59, 8 July 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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Vermont 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) 01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one link Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 30 June 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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Massachusetts 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 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:59, 8 July 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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Wisconsin 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 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:59, 8 July 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:Mprotected2 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. TFD is the wrong venue. As per this protection templates's instructions, this is used to temporarily tag templates and images that have temporarily been protected because they are linked from the main page. The template may appear to be unused most of the time, as such protection may not need to be applied every day. A discussion should instead be made on Talk:Main page or some other policy page regarding the fate of this protection template. If memory serves me, this was frequently used when it was created in 2006, when many of the intermediate protection levels like template protection did not exist yet, and there were vandals that specifically targeted such images and templates. I am no longer active in protecting areas regarding the main page, so I do not know if this is frequently used in 2017 as it was eleven years ago, so discussion should be made elsewhere than here on TFD. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because although we tend to use a Commons bot to protect images hosted there, this is part of the system for protecting images when the bot falls over (as often happens) or when we don't want to wait for the bot. Hmm, this is for protecting images or templates in articles that are linked to from the main page, not for images or templates on the main page. I don't know how often we need to do this anymore (there was a time when sneaky template vandalism was used to affect the appearance of a TFA for example without the method being obvious, but I don't think that happens these days in the same way) but it's worth keeping around just in case. BencherliteTalk 09:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 30 June 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:The Hill School 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 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 8 July 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:ArbCopyvioEvidence 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) 01:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused from 2013, unlikely to be used Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:44, 30 June 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:Aerotag 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to {{WPAVIATION}} Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Apparently meant to be substed [1]. – Uanfala 21:32, 7 July 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:Aero-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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:45, 30 June 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:Administration in Kosovo 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) 01:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, navigates nothing Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • not sure why you say it "navigates nothing". it has 3 links. but, for three links we can use simple 'see also' and other 'in article' linking. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 30 June 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:Active Rock Radio Stations in Massachusetts 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) 01:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN, WP:EXISTING Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:26, 30 June 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:Abundance of the elements 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) 22:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, seems like it can be subst'd if needed Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:26, 30 June 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:AVC Presidents 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) 22:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:EXISTING Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:24, 30 June 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:ABS-CBN News personalities 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) 22:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:30, 30 June 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:Netflix 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 keep. The template in question was determined to keep, with its contents being split off to three new templates (Template:Netflix original series, Template:Netflix films and documentaries, and Template:Netflix specials) and Template:Netflix being replaced with the contents of Category:Netflix. - (non-admin closure) Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:NAVBOX tells us that navboxes "are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles". By no stretch of the imagination is over 250 articles a small group. This group is much too large to be suited to a navbox. The material is, however, covered at List of original programs distributed by Netflix and Category:Netflix original programming. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely keep. Perhaps it could be split up, and I believe it already is with the current/upcoming hidden sections, but a multitude of articles is absolutely no reason to delete a solid and well-defined navbox. -- AlexTW 23:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A multitude of articles that ranges in the hundreds is absolutely a reason to delete a "well-defined navbox". Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates outlines the distinct purposes served by categories, lists and navboxes. The topic is well-served by List of original programs distributed by Netflix and Category:Netflix original programming, but it does not fit the purposes of a navbox if the topic is as large as this one. While I'm sure that WP:NAVBOX is intentionally vague in not defining "small", there can be no doubt that it is referring to a group more in the range of a couple dozen articles, not a few hundred.
(I would not, however, necessarily be opposed to a series of navboxes comprising sub-topics of this topic.) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ribbet32: That wouldn't be "pruning" as none of those articles are currently in the navbox. Despite the name Template:Netflix, the template is for "Netflix original programming" (article: List of original programs distributed by Netflix; category: Category:Netflix original programming). What you are proposing, which I don't think I would disagree with, is an entirely new navbox without a single article in common with the existing one. Why would that preclude deleting the existing navbox? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't see how this one is any worse than Template:HBONetwork Shows. if we are going to have a discussion, let's discuss all of them. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So it sounds like you're saying WP:WHATABOUTX… 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    your lack of substantive response to the suggestion that all the templates should be discussed together is telling. note that "WP:WHATABOUTX" doesn't mention templates, just articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least, Split That much content is obviously a list and not helping anyone navigate anything. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Split it into three template, perhaps? Concluded series, ongoing series, and upcoming series? -- AlexTW 06:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be better, although ultimately the "concluded" navbox will get as large as the current one is (assuming Netflix stays in business). I really think the grouping of this content is better for "List of" pages and categories as these articles are only connected/related to one another given the fact Netflix is producing the series/film/documentary/comedy special. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We will need that template in case of any other Netflix original series that will come later on. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NAVBOX also tells us "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden." No specific reason for deletion. Perhaps reorganization as has been mentioned, but no violations of guidelines or policies. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No need for it to be deleted, but as others have suggested, potentially move info around or split some off. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -  LoMS  talk  01:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no question. Netflix is an entertainment juggernaut and its lineup of original programming meets all notability requirements. I find this template helpful personally. Break it up if it's too big, maybe fictional TV series/original movie/documentaries/standup. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split either between "Netflix series" and "Netflix films & documentaries", or "Netflix current programming" and "upcoming", etc. I am strongly opposed to deleting it, however. That would be a disservice to readers. κατάσταση 15:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great! Seems like the best solution, really. κατάσταση 19:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93: Great job. I don't have any problems with it. For those who felt it was too cluttered, they too should be fine with it now.
 The Lord of Moon's Spawn  ✉  04:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93:   Done OK with this Ribbet32 (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, much better. This sort of discussion is what should have been started, the one where a consensus was formed, not straight to a deletion request. I can easily go through and replace the templates with AWB once they've been created. -- AlexTW 05:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are a great idea. We should do that then. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Favre1fan93! I think this is the perfect solution. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Template:Netflix can then feature the contents of Category:Netflix (so this would be a clean start with attribution, over than a template move). A mock up of the new Template:Netflix will also be in my sandbox shortly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "new" Netflix template is now up in my sandbox, including all articles from the category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the consensus is clear, and the anon who started this discussion has had nothing else to contribute - shall we implement these? -- AlexTW 04:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel the consensus is clear to make these splits and convert over the existing template, and even though the IP appears to be active, we should not be hasty to close without giving them a chance to chime in. Another 24-36 hours won't hurt. If they, or another user fail to respond, then I can make the changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll add the (currently redlink) templates to my watchlist, then when they're created, I can make three lists of all the links in each new template, then run through with AWB and update the template in each of those articles. -- AlexTW 04:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: Cool. Note the stand-up one will now simply be at Template:Netflix specials, since there are two other non-comedy ones that are more appropriate grouped here than in the films one. See my sandbox for the update to all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing... What do we define as "Current"? For example, "Lilyhammer (2012–14)" has clearly concluded but is listed as Current. Should there not be three sections: Concluded, Current and Upcoming? If we had these, then the subgroups of years would probably be overkill as well. -- AlexTW 05:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Favre1fan93's proposed split – Thanks for all your work on this, Favre1fan93! As Joeyconnick, the only other proponent of deleting the template, is also open to having the template split, I think I can withdraw my nomination. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. I'll close this discussion as consensus to do the splits. @AlexTheWhovian: have at it with AWB to adjust the navboxes on each article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 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:2016 FIG Artistic Gymnastics World Cup series 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) 22:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:EXISTING Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:58, 30 June 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:2015 NPSL team map 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) 22:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:46, 30 June 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:2015-16 Futsal A Lyga 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) 01:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:33, 30 June 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:2014 Old Dominion Athletic Conference football standings 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 redirect to Template:2014 ODAC football standings. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, links nothing Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 30 June 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:2011 in Bahraini football 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) 22:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no parent article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:29, 30 June 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:2004 in Thai football 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) 22:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no parent article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:28, 30 June 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/2017_June_30&oldid=1136733982"