Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 9

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

January 9

edit

Template:Uw-bics

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This recently created user warning template is overbroad and, because it only gives examples of problematic conduct, does not specifically identify the particular conduct at issue and link to the relevant policy, as do the existing user warning templates. Bsherr (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2021 (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:2021 US Capitol Storming

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 Keep for now. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template really just functions as a list of notable groups/persons who were present at the storming, but in template form. The groups/persons are already discussed and mentioned in the article. Mgasparin (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep there's a bit of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNSOURCED as is, but I think it can be salvaged. There seem to be enough otherwise-notable pages to put the navbox on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep leaning toward Keep. A template on the storming could be useful but the current template needs work. Participating groups and notable individual participants should be listed in the template with credible sources backing them. Especially since users have been purging participants/participating groups from the storming's main article (though that should, hopefully, end after the "smoke clears"). Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Mt.FijiBoiz. As the main article continues to expand, there is an increasing likelihood of more articles being spun off from it and more content being added to existing articles of relevance. Therefore, a template is a good way of navigating through all of the relevant material. Love of Corey (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rationale given for deleting implies that only one article uses the template. There appear to be 17 articles that transclude it, so the rationale is invalid. Nurg (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This creates WP:BLPCRIME issues insofar as it's connecting low-profile(ish) living people to criminal activity. It also creates WP:WEIGHT issues insofar as, if used properly, it will appear on each of those individuals' articles, strongly suggesting that their involvement in the riot is a central fact of their biography, which is not necessarily the case. There are further WP:WEIGHT issues internal to the navbox itself insofar as it suggests that the groups listed played the foremost role in the event, when in fact they're just the groups who happened to turn up with flags that journalists could interpret, and in all likelihood the vast majority of rioters were unaffiliated to any of them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- most if not all of the current elements of this template are up for deletion, and I don't think there will be enough left to create a full template. Right now, having a main article which links to related articles ("International reaction," the articles of all wiki-notable participants, etc.) is sufficient. I'd rather delete this template and re-create it once there's enough to put in it, rather than leave it sitting mostly useless. RexSueciae (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sj: What do you propose the template be renamed too? Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the least, uncapitalizing "storming". Then wait two weeks to see about the name. If there is an obviously related series of events involving the same groups or people, perhaps the same nav will be used for related events through the following days. – SJ + 03:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The template is more than just a list of notable groups/persons who were present at the storming.
  2. Even if it was, that would not be ground for deletion. It would be ground for renaming the template.
Banana Republic (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2021 (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:UnitedHealthcare riders

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. Craig(talk) 03:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, since it seems that this is intended to be the current riders. Nigej (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2021 (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:Aqua Blue Sport riders

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. Craig(talk) 02:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, since it seems that this is intended to be the current riders. Nigej (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2021 (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:Commanders-in-chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary; only 2 of the ~70 entries have articles. I redirected the equivalent List of commanders-in-chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans to List of members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, but that list isn't defining enough to justify an infobox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (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:User Roblox

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 nominate it at WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox does not contain any useful information. I nominate this template for deletion per WP:NOTBLOG, as you cannot identify the user's Roblox profile. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seventyfiveyears, if you look at the instructions at the top of WP:TFD you will see a "What not to propose for discussion here" section which has "Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside." So, if you follow those instructions, this discussion should be moved there. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:43, 9 January 2021 (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).

Australian closed station deprecated templates

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 deprecated {{s-line}} templates for Australian closed stations replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Australian closed station. Fleet Lists (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2021 (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/2021_January_9&oldid=1142562298"