Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 8 December 10 >

December 9 edit

Template:Latest preview software release/Google Chrome for Android edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 00:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template was used only at Google Chrome for Android until the merge into the Google Chrome page. --TheImaCow (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheImaCow: As creator, I don't oppose to this nomination as the template has been abandoned for quite some time and will likely stay abandoned in the near future, but why isn't Template:Latest preview software release/Google Chrome being nominated as well given it's been abandoned even longer? (Related discussion) Hayman30 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (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:EPLP edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 per WP:SILENCE. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The party is defunct, User:MassiveNewOrderFan blanked the page already. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2020 (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:Party data edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 per WP:SILENCE. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2020 (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:Orduspor squad edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 per WP:SILENCE. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, club was dissolved in 2013 --TheImaCow (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2020 (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:Office 365 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 per WP:SILENCE. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar, contains only one link --TheImaCow (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2020 (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:Speedy deletion endorsed edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. Speedy deletion is meant for deleting pages for reasons that already have consensus behind them, and so it's generally assumed that editors (other than the page creator) will endorse them unless they say otherwise. Ionmars10 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2020 (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:Endorsed-user edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 speedy delete per G6. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been created just to get around the "SPI disruption" filter - there's a reason that new users aren't supposed to use {{endorsed}} at SPI, "endorsed" has a specific meaning there. This would be a candidate for WP:T2 (misrepresentation of established policy) if that were still a thing. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete with fire there is no reason for this to exist. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (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:Marium Mukhtiar edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 speedy delete per G2. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, and a template loop Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2020 (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:Sweden national football team matches edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 00:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too little links for it to be a navbox. All of the matches are already in the main navbox. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nom, insufficient entries to justify a navbox. GiantSnowman 21:53, 9 December 2020 (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:GroveMusic edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Cite Grove. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting of Template:GroveMusic. I was going to propose a merge with Template:Cite Grove but I saw this one only had 15 uses, so I've converted those into Template:Cite Grove and as such this one is now effectively unused and redundant. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, {{cite Grove}} is a citation template, and some of the templates you converted were in External links. As per this RfC, citation templates should not be used in the EL section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know Nikkimaria, I went through the ones I converted and put the grove template into "further reading" instead of EL – although Bobby Tucker was the only one I had to do this for (the others were either refs or already in further reading). It just seems silly to have two grove citation templates when they're identical and one is used far less than the other (and now not used at all after the conversion). Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure that "further reading" is different in spirit to "external links", but I do agree that having two identical templates is not (in general) useful - and hence I guess I disagree with the RFC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect no point in breaking history. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2020 (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:Lord Nelson class battleship edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. NPASR given the lack of participation. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NAVBOX for a class of ships with just two entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-JungwonTalk 08:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it is usual to have navboxes for ship classes, then this is probably a good idea. People may look to the navbox for this information and links. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2020 (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 Matches edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. No opposition. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superflous band navbox. Grouping of only 5 links; Not enough extant articles to warrant need for a navigation template. IllaZilla (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-JungwonTalk 08:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rich Farmbrough: It didn't seem so to me. There was previously a separate article for the lead singer (Shawn Harris), but it was poorly written and poorly sourced, and had been tagged for notability for over 10 years. In rewriting The Matches I believe I captured all relevant information about him, so I redirected the separate article to the band article. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)--IllaZilla (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, on that basis I won't !vote keep, but I'm not convinced that deleting improves anything, so I will !abstain. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:37, 13 December 2020 (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:AVIIAX edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

soon to be unused (transcluded on article that will probably be deleted soon) navbox with all red links FASTILY 01:58, 9 December 2020 (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/2020_December_9&oldid=1138372679"