Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 21

[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. ~ Rob13Talk 23:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and only connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2016 (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).
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. ~ Rob13Talk 23:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. Why is it necessary to abstract a link to Help:Labeled section transclusion into a template? Pppery (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2016 (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).
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 keep (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

out-of-date roster, no use for future (if any) editions of the competition Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]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).
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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:Rangpur_Riders_current_squad (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (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).
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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:Sylhet_Super_Stars_squad (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (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).
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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:Sylhet_Super_Stars_current_squad (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (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).
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. ~ Rob13Talk 23:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet Royals ceasing to exist in 2013, there being no "current" squad for defunct team Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As all of these nominations are for identical reasons (and the type is the same) I have combined them into one nomination. Note that while this nomination specifically mentions Sylhet Royals, each individual nomination gave the name of the team. Primefac (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking you again, Primefac. This is a learning point for me and I will be making sure in future I am looking to combine multiple cases. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 08:32, 22 July 2016 (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).
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 as unopposed, as this template is unused. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 23:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Largest' is POV. Looking at the title, only Chennai would qualify for the 'metropolitan' status. Vensatry (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2016 (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).
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. ~ Rob13Talk 23:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template with only two articles, therefore not necessary as an aid to navigation between the two articles. anemoneprojectors 07:25, 21 July 2016 (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).
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 as unused and unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 02:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-ineligible}} FASTILY 06:28, 21 July 2016 (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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as being encyclopedic. If there can be an navbox on this, what's stopping people from making navboxes for albums Rolling Stone or AllMusic have rated five stars, or half-stars, or three stars, etc.? FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think Pitchfork is so noteworthy that this is a truly special thing needing a navbox. Perfect scores from Rolling Stone? Ok, I'm on board. But an online publication with an Alexa ranking below 2,000? Nope. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 29 July 2016 (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).
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 2016 August 2Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 2 August 2016 (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).
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 2016 August 2Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 2 August 2016 (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).
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 keep. I recommend discussing the move further at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Adventure. We typically don't keep redirects from template space to a back-end space like Wikipedia: or User:, so it may be possible that The Wikipedia Adventure needs to change some things to make a new template name work. Or maybe this is an exception where we should leave the redirect. Either way, further discussion on that topic would be helpful. ~ Rob13Talk 02:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template doesn't make sense to me. Under what circumstance would one want to completely hide a page's title. In at least two occurences (User:Jojit fb, User talk:Jojit fb), this template is being used to circumvent the restrictions on the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} parser function, making the title in the header not resolve to the actual page name. Such fake titles also have counter-intuitive behavior when one tries to select the title. Pppery (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: the example I gave has been edited since I filed this nomination. Pppery (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it was. My mistake. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2016 (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).