Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 1 September 3 >

September 2 edit

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the Fallschirmjäger edit

Admin comment: The closure below was overturned to "no consensus" with respect to {{Knight's Cross recipients of JG 26}} at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 12. Sandstein 11:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation. Per recent discussion at Notability:People: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross recipients, the awarding of the Knight's Cross was deemed not to confer presumed notability on the recipients, and the template thus does not serve a useful navigational purpose and is indiscriminate.

Similar templates have been deleted in the past, such as TfD:KC recipients in the Bundesheer; TfD:KC recipients of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet; TfD:KC recipients of the 4th SS Division (multi-TfD), and more.

In addition, I'm nominating the following "KC recipient by X" templates; the nominating rationale applies equally to them as well:

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all - all are useful tools that assist with navigation. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 2 September 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:Myeloid blood tests 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 September 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 10 September 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:8TeamBracket-with third-fifth-seventh 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 September 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 10 September 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:PD-Brazil-no author disclosure 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) 23:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, overly specific/non-standard tag (there is no equivalent on Commons), replaceable by {{PD-old-70}} FASTILY 23:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 2 September 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:PD-art-70-3d 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 September 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 10 September 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:USL club 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) 19:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed. Template had a single use, listing the clubs at the United Soccer League article. Such single-use charts should not be templates, and instead should be substituted onto the article, which this was months ago. All edits since have been to the actual chart in the article, meaning this is no longer maintained, and it hasn't been edited in over 8 months. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia.AlfaRocket (talk) 11:19, 4 September 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:Chiltern Main Line RDT 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 G7 by Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost exactly the same as {{Chiltern Main Line}}. I'm not sure why two of these exist. Jc86035 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jc86035: From what I recall, I was having problems getting {{Chiltern Main Line}} to transclude correctly in Marylebone Station when improving it to Good Article status. Specifically, this edit was attempting to display it inline, which didn't work; I subsequently reverted as I wasn't get anywhere, so I created a fork. If you can get the main template working correctly in that article, you're a better editor than I am. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Done. BS-map and Routemap both have this quirk where |inline= needs to be empty and not simply 0 for inline to be disabled. I'm not sure if it's worth fixing the behaviour, though. Jc86035 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, cheers, I ended up giving myself a sore head over that. Since we don't need the fork anymore, I've deleted it per WP:CSD#G7 (which was always the original intent). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 2 September 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:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) 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 September 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 10 September 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:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 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 relisted on 2017 September 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 10 September 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_September_2&oldid=1107327134"