Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 26

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 25 March 27 >

March 26 edit

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 100 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) 00:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, the category is sufficient for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 27 March 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 2nd 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) 00:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, the category is sufficient for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 27 March 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:List of awards and nominations received by Annette Bening 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; deleted as G6 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template and seems more like an article than a template. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 18:30, 26 March 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:Db-u1/log 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, in particular if I've broken something by deleting it. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Twinkle log pages are just like any other user page for {{db-u1}}, there is no need for a separate template. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:01, 26 March 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:Video game ratings 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) 00:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template was deprecated five years ago and has no uses in mainspace. czar 15:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 12:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as deprecated and now unused. I cannot think of any reason why it would be needed, given we don't list out video game ratings like this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:01, 27 March 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:Thatcher I Cabinet 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) 00:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox isn't transcluded anywhere in mainspace, and is largely made redundant by {{Thatcher Ministry}}. --Nevé–selbert 15:01, 26 March 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:Cvgproj2 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) 00:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Created in 2006, seems like a substitute of the project banner per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive 20#Template:Cvgproj2?. A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 14:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as deprecated and now unused and superseded by standard naming. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:42, 26 March 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:TES-in 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 April 3. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 3 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:West Coast Conference men's soccer navbox 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. I will note for the record that only three of the links point to actual men's soccer articles, so there might be NPASR provided a different rationale is given. Primefac (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Template is fixed to reflect all linked articles to meet WP:EXISTING. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also would like to go on the record for these articles, having this template can help with WP:AOAC Quidster4040 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still only linked to two articles, which is not enough to navigate. It needs to be in at least 4. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just cleaned up the template to meet that threshold, so I'll continue to support that it's kept. Is there a policy that explicitly says that templates need four links? Quidster4040 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 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:Test 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 April 3. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 3 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 23rd 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) 01:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 26 March 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 19th Waffen GD 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) 01:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 26 March 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 13th 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) 01:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only one actual article remains; the other two are redirects to a list.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 26 March 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 10th FD 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) 01:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 26 March 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:Dutch politics/party colours 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) 01:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{*/meta/color}} templates for political parties Mélencron (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mélencron, please be more careful. The TfD notice broke the infobox in every article this template was used in. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, there were only a handful of valid transclusions, which I have now replaced. make sure the subtemplates are deleted as well. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator. At one point in time, I was hopeful that we might be able to consolidate all the meta/color templates, but this particular template was not the answer. Yes, we should delete the subtemplates as well. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 28 March 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_March_26&oldid=1084289389"