Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 October 15

October 15Edit

Template:Brad goldsmithEdit

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 G2 by MusikAnimal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 20:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a template at all, and not even notable MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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).

2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) templatesEdit

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. Fenix down (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
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:IRC NQTOEdit

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Template is no longer used on any articles and the site it links to is no longer registered. — ⚞ ℛogueScholar🐈 ₨🗩 ⚟ 14:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Template useless now. ミラP 17:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
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:History of Christianity in India 52-1653Edit

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 2019 October 26. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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:Skulduggery PleasantEdit

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) 21:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

After all the redirects and unlinked entries were removed, the template fails the WP:NENAN rule of thumb (three entries related directly to the series: franchise/first novel/characters), and two related through a real-world connection (author/publisher). -- /Alex/21 02:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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:UnprotectedEdit

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) 20:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Very few uses, redundant to {{RFPP|u}}. --Trialpears (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What if {{unprotected}} is easier to remember than {{rfpp|u}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • That's definitley fair. To be honest I kind of regret nominating this now. The time consumed by this discussion is definitely larger than any benefit/harm this deletion would cause. I guess I'm neutral to this now. --Trialpears (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This. Keep or redirect if possible. — xaosflux Talk 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful wrapper, easier to remember and more intuitive than {{RFPP|u}}. PC78 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
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 TribeEdit

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) 21:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

One of the pages has been deleted at AFD and the another is at AFD, so after that there will only be two links. ミラP 01:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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:Hindustani-speaking areas of IndiaEdit

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) 20:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think native language is a very suitable criterion around which to build a navbox for territorial entities. And this become especially problematic here given the significant geographic overlap between linguistic groups in this part of India. Even if such a type of template were desirable, this particular one wouldn't meet the cut: as pointed out on its talk page, it haphazardly mixes up cities and larger administrative regions, and its title and name are completely at odds with its content (which seems to go after the "Hindi" of the Hindi belt, a much much broader thing than Hindustani. – Uanfala (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete overly bloated and does not aid navigation. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
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:Substantive human rightsEdit

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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Substantive human rights with Template:Human rights.
Might as well keep this in a one glance template? PPEMES (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request on my talk page; previous discussion was unattended and the "merge" outcome was contested
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I had a look at performing the merger while it was in the holding cell and found that it's part of a larger family of navboxes consisting of {{International human rights organizations}}, {{International human rights legal instruments}}, {{Particular human rights}} and {{Human rights}}. Merging all these into one would create a way too large navbox and only merging this one would break the consistentcy currently in place as well as already then becoming quite unwieldly. Using the applicable navboxes in this family is a more sensible method for navigating between these articles. Please see the split discussion for more info. --Trialpears (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Aren't organisation and instruments categorically different scopes? PPEMES (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Human rights is a massive subject, covered non-uniformly in the en.Wikipedia, but with a huge number of articles. Specific human rights, HR instruments and HR institutions are each worth separate navboxes, while the generic HR navbox seems fine for people to start with (although some debate about the choice of what to include/exclude seems to be needed - the human's link, which I minimally fixed to humans' seems to be a compromise for the "men's" rights link discussed on the talk page; debate about which are the "big" international NGOs is probably needed too - AI/HRW/FIDH/ICRC are uncontroversially major international HR NGOs - the other two currently listed seem a bit odd on their own). Merging would make existing Wikipedia resources more difficult to find, not easier. Boud (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
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).