Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 14

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

February 14[edit]

Collaboration candidates[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) 08:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused remnants of defunct initiatives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 14 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:Dopey[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 userfy to User:Adrian J. Hunter/Template:Dopey. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it would only be used when someone needs to use it, as I have in the past. Is there any way to see historical transclusions? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not as far as I know, but the chances that not one of Wikipedia's active editors is affected by taking painkellers is zero. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian J. Hunter's argument, which, if I'm reading it correctly, is at least an implied argument to "keep"; else,
Userfy to Adrian J. Hunter's userspace, if desired, or, failing that, to User:Dmehus/Templates/Dopey
- Doug Mehus T·C 00:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userify per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I've used it before and might again. Not fussed whether it's in mainspace or my or Doug's userspace. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 23:16, 21 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:ArtAndFeminism2014 article[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 21. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 20:13, 21 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:Munich fare zones[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) 08:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All links direct to the same article. Navbox has no real navigational value. Ajf773 (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom's rationale. There is no need for a navbox in this situation.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:58, 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:RfA-nom[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people use this template anymore to let people know they will be nominated to be admins. Interstellarity (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, easily. Irrespective of whether "many people" use this template, it exists and is capable of serving this purpose. Also, it has some historical value, because it always will be a template that was used for this purpose in the heyday of admin nominations. BD2412 T 20:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. This is a highly useful template, and there's no way to easily track usage of substituted templates, is there? Doug Mehus T·C 00:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:58, 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:2030 cite[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute. This template formats a wikilink that repeats on one project page. Used on only one page, and since that page is historical, no convenience will be lost by substituting and deleting the template now. Bsherr (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I believe it was used elsewhere, but must've been subst'd. Subst and delete freely. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:58, 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:HSBB roster/Header[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No links, no transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:47, 14 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:Pullbox/alt[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No pages even link to it except database reports of unused templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:27, 14 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:Potd custom[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 14 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:1907 South Atlantic Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings[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 22. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:22, 22 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_14&oldid=942147600"