Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 9

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

February 9 edit

Template:Nurnb 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ItsAlwaysLupus (talk · contribs) created this template 31 January 2020 by splitting off the more contemporary entries in Template:Rhythm and blues (since restored). It definitely not a space/readability issue: the existing R&B template is rather short and includes several subgenres and styles associated within the broader R&B genre. There hasn't been any discussion or reasoning given why splitting off one subset is beneficial; readers wishing more info on R&B-related subjects are better served with one more comprehensive navbox. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:43, 9 February 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:Shostakovich symphonies 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 2020 February 17. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 17 February 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:Campaignbox South Thailand Insurgency 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 2020 February 17. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 06:59, 17 February 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:Campaignbox Thailand terrorism 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 convert to navbox. Template:Terrorism in Thailand seems like a rational place to put the content. I can easily handle the first part right now, but I will leave moving the template transclusions to others. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Campaignbox}} sidebar format is for linking related articles belonging to a single war campaign, which the listed items are not. Template:Terrorism in Thailand should be a navbox, if it is to exist at all. (Also note redundancy with Template:Southern Thailand Insurgency.) Paul_012 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not war campaign because shouldn't not wars, if something templates sidebar events the {{Campaignbox Russia terrorism}} Bonthefox3 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. According to the documentation for the template,

      One common type of navigational template in articles concerning conflicts, wars and related topics is the campaignbox template, intended to provide context and convenient navigation among articles on the battles in a campaign, front, theater or war (or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars).

      The way this template is currently arranged wastes a lot of space at the top of the article. A navbox would be preferable. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert per Paul. Better as a navbox. Also I don' think there is any reason for arbitrary italic/bold at 20 fatalities as compared with any other number. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:48, 16 February 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 Reactionaries 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) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the releases have articles, so does not provide useful navigation. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does WP:NOQUORUM not apply to templates? This is a delete from me, but I am also concerned a no-article navbox was relisted instead of sent to deletion. --Izno (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno Good question! My read of WP:NOQUORUM, particularly the section that follows that one, is that it does. The closing administrator, usually after relisting once and maybe twice (though this isn't required), would treat it as an expired PROD/"soft delete" and thus WP:REFUND would potentially apply. That would be a good question for @Plastikspork and Primefac: to clarify, though. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My general rule of thumb is that if a template is unused, there's a valid reason for deletion, and there are no comments it can be soft deleted. On the other hand, it's not the end of the world if a NAC relists in the interest of getting more views. Of course, it's easier for them to just leave it to an admin to close, it's also not the end of the world if a TFD sits around for more than 7 days... Primefac (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No need for a navbox in this situation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:48, 16 February 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:Joe Walsh 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; deleted as G7 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template that only links to Joe Walsh 2020 presidential campaign. Most articles listed here link to Joe Walsh (American politician) and other articles are distantly related to the subject. Template was created on the day Walsh announced his campaign for president and has only been edited three times in total. Wow (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I made it to mirror other Republican presidential candidates and didn't expect his campaign to go anywhere, it didn't. Lalichi (talk) 13:55, 9 February 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:BS4-2sc 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these templates. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of these templates are now unused or were never used. If it becomes necessary, the templates' functions can be performed (arguably more easily) by {{Routemap}}.

I would suggest retaining any subpages ending in /safesubst, since they may occasionally be useful in e.g. importing route diagrams from other wikis. Jc86035 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 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:MsgEmail 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 2020 February 17. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 17 February 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:UserTalkPage 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 Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:05, 9 February 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_February_9&oldid=944568465"