Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 13 June 15 >

June 14[edit]

Unused tennis performance timelines[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 move to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, but I see that there is discussion at WT:Tennis. I would suggest moving these to project/userspace until there is consensus to deploy them. if they are deployed, there is no reason to keep the stats in a separate template. you could just put the tables in the article directly, so no need for a template-space version. this is how it's done for Module:Sports table. Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A tennis performance timeline may appear in two places: the player's main article, and the player's career statistics article, e.g., Roger Federer and Roger Federer career statistics. These tables have complex calculations of numbers that duplicating tables incurs maintenance overhead and risks inconsistency, so it remains appropriate that statistics are coded at one single place. Then, template options can select relevant parts of the table to display in respective articles. Since these are subpages of the parent template Template:Tennis performance timeline, which is still under development, I see no need to move them elsewhere. Chinissai (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chinissai, for tables used in two places, we have WP:LST. for example, see UEFA Euro 1996#Group C which is transcluded from UEFA Euro 1996 Group C. Frietjes (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • From what I understand, LST doesn't work for these timelines. We need to represent a subset of the data in the main article, but the full table in the statistics article, using the same input source. LST doesn't allow this customization. Chinissai (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chinissai, you can definitely do that with an LST transclusion. the easiest method would be to wrap a particular parameter value inside of a <noinclude>...</noinclude>. or, there are other more sophisticated methods using the frame and parent in LUA. or, you can do what we do with module:sports table. for example, check the table in 2016–17 Borussia Dortmund season#International Champions Cup which is transcluded from the table in 2016 International Champions Cup#China. that method uses <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>, which again doesn't require a separate template for the table. Frietjes (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tried two things in the past few days: using LST on existing contents in top-players articles, and attempting to use LST with the performance timeline template. The LST usage on existing contents is being rejected right away as having no consensus, although some articles started to adopt that. On using the template with LST, it can be challenging and error-prone at times to control which part of the source article to be transcluded. I am worried that LST would be too complicated for the tennis community to adopt. Given my impression that the tennis community is reluctant to changes, I would propose that we keep the traditional template transclusion as an option until we have a clearer way forward. Chinissai (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least move to userspace. Based on the discussions at the tennis wikiproject, there is no consensus in actually using these templates versus using the tables that are currently being used. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not having consensus does not mean it is not likely to be used. According to deletion policy, this does not result in template deletion. Chinissai (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's not what I said. I said there is no consensus to actually use the template, which would mean userspace until there is consensus to use them. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we agree on that point, but the template deletion policy does not requires deletion if templates are not used. Chinissai (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete - While there is no consensus that doesn't mean that if there are tweaks it "might" be usable. So userfying a couple of them is probably best, while deleting the vast majority. Also, while there are usually two performance tables for a player, one is a tiny version that only covers the 4 major tournaments. The 2nd table covers those 4 majors plus all the other tournaments and stats. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure how to interpret While there is no consensus that doesn't mean that if there are tweaks it "might" be usable. At any rate, duplicating parts of a complex table risks inconsistency and adds maintenance overhead. Chinissai (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now I see you have just mass implemented them without consensus to do so. When I click on the section to edit i can't even find how to edit the table of info. That can't be good for new editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure what you are talking about. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the template... Chinissai (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These templates should never have been created on large scale before a consensus is reached on the matter. I'm certain the new coding for the tables can be used, but I don't think stand-alone templates are needed. The complete table can be used in the career stats pages of the players, whereas the shorter tables can be transcluded from there into the players' main articles.Tvx1 17:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are being created to serve as examples on how to use templates. Without them, I am sure the tennis community will never be convinced of its usefulness. Let's not jump the gun and delete them until we actually reach a consensus of how to use (or not use) the template. Chinissai (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's nonsense. We don't need hundreds of templates just as examples to verify that it works. One or two is enough. And actually, sandboxes should be used for testing, not live templates.Tvx1 23:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • True...we aren't going to use individual templates for each player. The actual data will be implemented at the player article using a standard generic template that has flexibility to adjust to our various players. None of these created templates with their extra column will get the go ahead imho, and we certainly don't need 125 of them used for examples. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2017 (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:Db-revise[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 I've G7ed it. It remained unused, after creation through this discussion, almost certainly because I never followed up with creating the category and process it would attach to, and listing it at Wikipedia:Revision deletion, but, in any event, if we were to have some form of template for this purpose, it should probably emulate {{Copyvio-revdel}}, rather than asking for a talk page posting of requested revisions to delete.Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline T2 - WP:REVDEL states that To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion under other circumstances. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:25, 14 June 2017 (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:Fullyprotected[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unless someone is planning to use it. Frietjes (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2017 (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:Fox South Dakota[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, only links two articles anyway Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:50, 14 June 2017 (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:Latin Grammy Award hosts[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a list of people presenting a ceremony, it fails WP:PERFNAV. See similar recent discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 23#Template:International Emmy hosts. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: Will you also nominate {{Grammy Award hosts}} for TfD as well? Much of the templates I made for the Latin Grammys were copied from Grammy Award templates. Erick (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:48, 14 June 2017 (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:Discuss links here[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient talk page template from 2005; no foreseeable use Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:48, 14 June 2017 (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:Current Kiribati Cabinet[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and mostly redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:45, 14 June 2017 (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:AIAssessment[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 move to project space and mark historical Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed since Article Incubation has been halted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:35, 14 June 2017 (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:ConvertAbbrev[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 no consensus. Apparently, this is not the best forum for discussing the merger, since there is no discussion after several weeks. Please feel free to either "be bold" or continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:ConvertAbbrev with Template:Country abbreviation.
Similar function, although {{ConvertAbbrev}} is incomplete and {{Country abbreviation}} can't convert from code to name. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better if the geography bits of {{ConvertAbbrev}} were split off into {{Country abbreviation}}/{{iso2country}} and the language bits were split off into {{ISO 639 name}}/{{iso2language}}/{{lang2iso}}. The group of templates generally seems like a mess and could use some more Luafication instead of being mostly dependent on massive switch parser functions and template names. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:35, 14 June 2017 (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:BBREF[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 2017 June 22. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 22 June 2017 (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:24 mechanized brigade (Ukraine)[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:32, 14 June 2017 (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:Fairport timeline[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) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused hardcorded progression box. We can do this much better now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:13, 14 June 2017 (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:FHL Team[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, we have a uniform infobox for teams of all kinds now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:10, 14 June 2017 (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:F.C. Barreirense matches[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) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, contains only two links that are both red Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not enough navigational benefit even if articles existed for the redlinks. Jellyman (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2017 (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:ExamsDIRlong[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, single-user wikibreak template Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:04, 14 June 2017 (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:Equation requested[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, untouched since 2010. Apparently was confusing even in 2010. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:12, 14 June 2017 (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:Entrep country policy[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to be used. Very sloppy template Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:11, 14 June 2017 (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:Energy in Africa[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to {{Africa topic}}'s Energy subset Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the latter one's existence will use that one gladly from now on. Go ahead. -- Kku (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2017 (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:Endemicsub[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 2017 June 22. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 22 June 2017 (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).

California small-market radio templates[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 2017 June 22. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 22 June 2017 (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:Globalize/Pakistan[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Use {{Globalize|2=Pakistan}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Added it on a few articles. It is not unused anymore. Mar4d (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ping to nominator to address usage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2017 (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:United Kingdom premierships[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 (if you want the list of links, see Category:British premierships). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading navbox. The majority of the links are redirects to sections of the biography page for each PM, or to disambiguation pages. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2017 (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:Electronic music navbox[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what's going on here, to be honest, but seems to be obselete. Jellyman (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jellyman how is this obsolete? it looks like it's used in about 100 articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of genres that were previously included underneath the top parameters has been removed, so the navbox contains no unique contents. Unless you add something to it, it comes up empty (there's an example of that on Grime music). So what exactly is the point of it? Jellyman (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jellyman, I see. it was intended to be used as a meta-template, for building subtemplates. however, given that the list of other genres was removed, it doesn't nothing more than add the silver background. I have replaced it in the subtemplates, so we can probably delete this now. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unused68.151.25.115 (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2017 (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:No Remorse (band)[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 per this and prior discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with only one blue link other than the title page. NSH002 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, only connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There should be no double standard. --Родолюбец (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a double standard but long-standing precedent. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not fair. --PowerBUL (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2017 (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:Stahlgewitter[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 per this and prior discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with only one blue link apart from the title page, and even that appears to be of dubious notability (in fact, both the link and title pages are of dubious notability; it wouldn't surprise me if they both get nominated at AfD). NSH002 (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, only connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary - at the very least, too soon. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There should be no double standard. --Родолюбец (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not fair. --PowerBUL (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2017 (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:Disney Channel Kuwait[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, not properly made Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:02, 14 June 2017 (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:DiscussionsACS[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused talk page box Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, was probably useful back in 2007, but the links are no longer pointing to active discussions. Frietjes (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2017 (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:Db page[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 G5 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no idea how you'd tag a page that was already deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:53, 14 June 2017 (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:Cvio1[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) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient warning template, apparently not used Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:46, 14 June 2017 (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:Cove Rangers F.C.[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) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, too few links to be used Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, looks like it would connect at most about three articles (probably only two) if used. Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no navigational benefit. Jellyman (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2017 (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:Copyrighth[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. It appears that it has already been userfied at User:Jeff G./Copyrighth Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and ancient Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:28, 14 June 2017 (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:Cornish (UK) elections[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, almost all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, and the three non-redlinks are redirects. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless. Number 57 16:14, 14 June 2017 (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:Genesis Healthcare Locations[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-needed template with no links to medical centers. Tinton5 (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2017 (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:EW50[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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken and unused; creates an external link within the article body which is a no-no. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I made this template 11 years ago to speed up the process of updating articles, and I think it was all subst'd. Besides, Wikipedia was a very different place back then.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:17, 14 June 2017 (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:ESPN Rhode Island[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 redirect to Template:Sports Radio Stations in Rhode Island. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.These are the only 2 sports stations in Rhode Island & both are ESPN affiliates anyway.Stereorock (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AddendumYes, both R.I. sports stations are ESPN now, but that may not always be the case. Another station may flip to Fox Sports Radio, for example, making the redirect wrong.Stereorock (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a redirect doesn't always mean "equal to", it frequently means "subset of". it's astonishing that you have never seen a redirect after a merger. a redirect also allows you to revive a template without going through WP:DRV or WP:REFUND. of course, once ESPN flips from a sports network, we will have to fix everything. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Frietjes. "These two titles are exactly synonymous with each other" is not the only valid reason for a redirect; "this is a subset of a larger topic, without sufficient numbers to justify being spun off separately" is a perfectly valid reason too. When we're talking about just two radio stations total, of which both belong to both sets, then it's a case of creeping templatitis to have two navboxes for them. Even if one or both of them do later flip to Fox Sports, that still wouldn't be a reason for two separate navboxes to coexist, when one navbox could still list the stations by affiliation. If there were 50 sports radio stations in Rhode Island splitting between the two affiliations, then separate navboxes would make sense — but it's not necessary for just two stations that comprise the totality of both navboxes. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so why even bother making the extra future work for ourselves? They're fine as they are, being separate.Stereorock (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because there aren't ever going to be 50 sports radio stations in Rhode Island, barring some radical restructuring of the entire United States in which Rhode Island takes over all of New England and a big chunk of upstate New York? Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who needs 50? At what point is the cutoff for what is "useful" & what is "superfluous"? Does a Providence-licensed station have to flip? The templates do provide a navigational function: they give the reader a choice of 2 sports stations & another which shows the ESPN affiliates in Rhode Island-1 fulltime & 1 parttime. You never know, there could be a 3rd station flipping formats at some point (not that I know anything about a pending format flip, but 790 & 920 in Providence have anemic 6+ ratings). What happens in 1180 in Hope Valley flips to ESPN for the New London market, or to Fox Sports Radio? This theoretical flip would impact both templates in that they would no longer contain the all of the same stations. If there were *ZERO* sports or ESPN stations in R.I., then I could see with doing away with the templates, but the number isn't 0. There *are* stations which broadcast sports & there *are* stations which broadcast ESPN. What is the minimum number of stations at which point we keep the templates? If it's 30, there are only around 40 stations in Rhode Island, so practically every template of R.I. radio would have to be gotten rid of. What about the R.I. N.P.R. template? There are only 4 frequencies of N.P.R. in R.I., & 3 of them ARE THE SAME (RINPR, on 88.1, 91.5, & 102.7), the other one is a repeater of a classical music service out of Boston & only may count because WCRB is owned by WGBH's parent company, which is an N.P.R. affiliate. Why not get rid of the R.I. N.P.R. stations template too? It's far less useful than these 2 sports templates in terms of navigation.Stereorock (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2017 (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:ESPN Vermont[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 redirect to Template:Sports Radio Stations in Vermont. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to Template:Sports Radio Stations in Vermont. Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the stations may not always be ESPN affiliates, or other stations may join, & a redirect to Sports radio in Vt. would be wrong if a station flips to, say, Fox Sports Radio.Stereorock (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    a redirect doesn't always mean "equal to", it frequently means "subset of". it's astonishing that you have never seen a redirect after a merger. a redirect also allows you to revive a template without going through WP:DRV or WP:REFUND. of course, once ESPN flips from a sports network, we will have to fix everything. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Frietjes. "These two titles are exactly synonymous with each other" is not the only valid reason for a redirect; "this is a subset of a larger topic, without sufficient numbers to justify being spun off separately" is a perfectly valid reason too. When we're talking about just three radio stations total, we don't need two separate overlapping navboxes for them — if there were 50 sports radio stations in Vermont of which 20 were ESPN-affiliated, then maybe these would both be warranted, but if we're talking about three and two it's a unnecessary case of creeping templatitis. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: the templates perform different functions. The ESPN one identifies which ones are full-time & which are part-time; the sports one just identifies which stations are sports stations. Clearly, they have different reasons for existing. Also, the sports template is incomplete.Stereorock (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The different information can easily be copied into the other template, because there aren't enough stations involved for a formatting change to be disruptive at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the number when there are enough stations?Stereorock (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2017 (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:Dmoz request[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. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, DMOZ is defunct Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 14 June 2017 (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:Dmoz[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 keep. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ is defunct, so this link is no longer valid. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep DMOZ as such is defunct but the community still exists and has mirrors/forks elsewhere. We can just choose a more appropriate continuation of the site. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at this article and you'll see magnifying glasses are needed. It just doesn't look good. Lotje (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the TFD link isn't terribly practical or accessible. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Work is ongoing to get the site up and running again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While DMOZ continues to be considered an appropriate external link, this template is helpful. TheDragonFire (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DMOZ listings continue to be appropriate. The fact that they are now hosted on a mirror and are likely to be moved in the future is why this template is useful, because it makes it easy for us to update links. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Note: I was an editor on DMOZ, and probably will ne on its successor.) Even if it doesn't come back as an editable directory, it may still be a useful reasource. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2017 (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:Diaspora-AC[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) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:32, 14 June 2017 (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:Differential equations topics[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 2017 June 22. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (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:Neilgorsuchopinions[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 G6 by Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in two articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Also, the template was nominated May 5, 2017 for deletion and deleted per decision on May 13. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As an Associate Justice, Justice Gorsuch will be writing opinions and, I thought, should have an opinions template like his eight colleagues. (The part about his Court of Appeals opinions was not added by me, which I gather is why the template has been nominated. Other Justices' templates have a similar bevy of red links to their lower-court opinions.) Aaronjbaylis (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aaronjbaylis, it seems pointless to delete this now only to recreate it again after October when we have a second term list for him (and a third, and a fourth...remember, it's a lifetime appointment...). The COA redlinks should eventually be filled in, though that hasn't yet been accomplished for any other justice yet either. If everyone thinks that's an issue for now that section can just be commented out in the template until the content is there. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a navbox is to NAVigate, which right now it doesn't. When there are enough links in the box where it can navigate, then it can be refunded. It was deleted for a reason in May. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But here we have a template that we know is going to expand. It exists now, so that infrastructure we know will be needed is there for the future addition of links and deleting it now just means wasted time recreating it later. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR would seem to be on point here if nothing else, because nothing would be accomplished by deletion now. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2017 (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:SumatraMegathrust[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) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused for the last three years. It was superseded by {{Earthquakes in Indonesia}} in June 2014. Dawnseeker2000 02:06, 14 June 2017 (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:JavaMegathrust[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) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused for the last three years. It was superseded by {{Earthquakes in Indonesia}} in June 2014. Dawnseeker2000 02:05, 14 June 2017 (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:Disambiguation user[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unlikely to be used Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for future use. I created this in 2013 as {disambiguation_user} to track those userpages which help disambiguate between usernames with similar spellings. The primary usage was intended to tag username pages which list other usernames with similar spellings, but examples were difficult to find or remember. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify or Delete If it hasn't been used since 2013, it seems unlikely to be used at all. Wikid77, if you want to save it for future implementation, why not move it to your userspace? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, usage violates WP:CSD#U2. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this "violates" U2. Disambiguation pages for similarly named users seem to serve a similar purpose to user pages for misspellings of established users, which are explicitly exempt from U2. – Uanfala 08:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if users are similarly named, they are likely doppelganger accounts68.151.25.115 (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2017 (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:Deadliest earthquakes by US state[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) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table, no foreseeable use Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – This odd template was created nine years ago by an inexperienced editor (someone with 47 live edits over the course of 10 years). The template is linked from an equally odd disambiguation page (Deadly earthquakes). I've been very active with WP:Earthquakes for the past five years and I don't use either of these items. Dawnseeker2000 02:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or convert into actual page: This shows unique information of the deadliest earthquakes in each state. It should either be kept as a template or converted into an actual page, with a page title like "List of deadliest earthquakes by U.S. state" or similar title. If the latter choice is taken, it should be properly sourced. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Earthquakes has around 150 lists as it is and set-matching lists are continuing to be created regularly. I would argue that we probably don't need another non-standard (one off) list when only 1/5 of US states have earthquake-related deaths. Dawnseeker2000 03:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
arent earthquakes quite common? rarely do we have articles on them and only notable ones have wikiarticles so why turn this template into a list?68.151.25.115 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2017 (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/2017_June_14&oldid=1136430057"