Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6[edit]

Template:LifeOnEarth-v[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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, unused. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP As OA of the template - the template seems sufficiently worthy for some relevant articles (some perhaps TBD) and related imo - however - no problem whatsoever if WP:CONSENSUS considers otherwise of course - iac - Drbogdan (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused but more importantly, there is no place a side nav like this would be ok. --Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete woah, this is not suitable for use in article space. There is no harm for article creator User:Drbogdan to move them to his article space however. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW - Template:LifeOnEarth-v has 13 transclusions at the moment - Drbogdan (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bsherr: Note: Original transclusion counts were at 09:03am/et/usa,09/07/2020 - since that time, subsequent edits removed some transclusion wikisites, which may have included all or some of the following wikisite edits: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 - hope this helps explain the transclusion count discrepancy - Drbogdan (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, but could be moved to userspace. 198.102.151.241 (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At my present, there are no transclusions. It looks like its purpose is navigation, so I'll assess it accordingly. The set of constituents are related only to the extent that they are things that existed or exist on Earth. That's not cohesive enough for navigation purposes. If its purpose is conveying the information in the timeline, that there are no transclusions would suggest the information is being conveyed in other ways. --Bsherr (talk) 19:59, 7 September 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:Nature-v[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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto; this one isn't even used –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP As OA of the template - the template seems sufficiently worthy for some relevant articles (some perhaps TBD) and related imo - however - no problem whatsoever if WP:CONSENSUS considers otherwise of course - iac - Drbogdan (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused but more importantly, there is no place a side nav like this would be ok. --Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, this is not suitable for use in article space. Again, there is no harm for article creator User:Drbogdan to move them to his article space however. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW - Template:Nature-v has 13 transclusions at the moment - Drbogdan (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bsherr: Note: Original transclusion counts were at 09:03am/et/usa,09/07/2020 - since that time, subsequent edits removed some transclusion wikisites, which may have included all or some of the following wikisite edits: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 - hope this helps explain the transclusion count discrepancy - Drbogdan (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At my present, there are no transclusions. It looks like its purpose is navigation, so I'll assess it accordingly. The set of constituents are related only to the extent that they are things that exist in nature. That's not cohesive enough for navigation purposes. --Bsherr (talk) 20:12, 7 September 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:Nature-h[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) 13:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto this one, for the same reasons as the last couple. It's only used in a couple places, but that's a couple places too many. (Now that I'm finding more of these; there may be more to follow. If someone thinks it's appropriate to bundle these all under one section, please feel free to do so). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP As OA of the template - the template seems sufficiently worthy for some relevant articles (some perhaps TBD) and related imo - however - no problem whatsoever if WP:CONSENSUS considers otherwise of course - iac - Drbogdan (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. This hybrid gallery/navbox is not really appropriate. --Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, this is not suitable for use in article space. Again, there is no harm for article creator User:Drbogdan to move them to his article space however. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW - Template:Nature-h has 15 transclusions at the moment - Drbogdan (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bsherr: Note: Original transclusion counts were at 09:03am/et/usa,09/07/2020 - since that time, subsequent edits removed some transclusion wikisites, which may have included all or some of the following wikisite edits: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 - hope this helps explain the transclusion count discrepancy - Drbogdan (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its purpose is navigation, but the set of constituents are related only to the extent that they are things that exist in nature. That's not cohesive enough for navigation purposes. --Bsherr (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.non-conventional navtemplate that is overwhelming and causes whole articles to implement side scrolling.--Moxy 🍁 20:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 16 September 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:LifeOnEarth[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) 13:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For all the same reasons as LocationOfEarth immediately below. But this also has the problem that it's just a completely nonsensical grouping of articles. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP As OA of the template - the template seems sufficiently worthy for some relevant articles (some perhaps TBD) and related imo - however - no problem whatsoever if WP:CONSENSUS considers otherwise of course - iac - Drbogdan (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. This hybrid gallery/navbox is not really appropriate. --Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, this is not suitable for use in article space. Again, there is no harm for article creator User:Drbogdan to move them to his article space however. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW - Template:LifeOnEarth has 17 transclusions (also here - as/of 09:03am/et/usa;09/07/2020) at the moment - Drbogdan (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bsherr: Note: Original transclusion counts were at 09:03am/et/usa,09/07/2020 - since that time, subsequent edits removed some transclusion wikisites, which may have included all or some of the following wikisite edits: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 - hope this helps explain the transclusion count discrepancy - Drbogdan (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like its purpose is navigation, so I'll assess it accordingly. The set of constituents are related only to the extent that they are things that existed or exist on Earth. That's not cohesive enough for navigation purposes. If its purpose is not navigation, its placement on the articles that transclude it suggests it is not being used to actually convey information at a relevant point in the article. --Bsherr (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.non-conventional navtemplate that is overwhelming and causes whole articles to implement side scrolling.--Moxy 🍁 20:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 16 September 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:LocationOfEarth[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) 13:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is some sort of inappropriate gallery/navbox hybrid that's not being used in any sort of sane way in articles. In many cases, it's just stuck at the very bottom of the last section of the article body. As a navbox, it's redundant to {{Earth's location}}. As a gallery, it's inappropriate per the MoS. (Side notes: The template page is also being linked to directly from at least one other navbox; this is yet another instance of this "clickable" nonsense in nav templates) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP As OA of the template - the template seems sufficiently worthy for some relevant articles (some perhaps TBD) and related imo - however - no problem whatsoever if WP:CONSENSUS considers otherwise of course - iac - Drbogdan (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. This hybrid gallery/navbox is not really appropriate. --Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, this is not suitable for use in article space. Again, there is no harm for article creator User:Drbogdan to move them to his article space however. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW - Template:LocationOfEarth has 27 transclusions (also here - as/of 09:03am/et/usa;09/07/2020) at the moment - Drbogdan (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bsherr: Note: Original transclusion counts were at 09:03am/et/usa,09/07/2020 - since that time, subsequent edits removed some transclusion wikisites, which may have included all or some of the following wikisite edits: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 - hope this helps explain the transclusion count discrepancy - Drbogdan (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For me this is a closer call than the other similar templates up for discussion, but I think the better course would be to add images into Template:Earth's location if consensus is that's an improvement. --Bsherr (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.non-conventional navtemplate that is overwhelming and causes whole articles to implement side scrolling.--Moxy 🍁 20:53, 8 September 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:Leave message[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 after replacing with {{Message}}. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only 27 transclusions, so lacks community take-up. Used on talk pages, which accept messages by default, so redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as doing the same thing as {{Message}}. --Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per nom and Gonnym. Easier for all if there is less confusion and these sorts of rarely used templates are standardised. Replace and delete is important so that editors can see the name of the template in use, rather than one of several merged titles.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to {{message}} or history merge since it predates the {{message}} template. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 16 September 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 delete , after substituting existing usages (as a wrapper of {{Message}}). (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now only 11 transclusions, three on the pages of users who have not edited this year. Lacks community take-up. Used on talk pages, which accept messages (and display email links where available) by default, in standard locations, so redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As one of the 11 villains still using it I don't think that there is enough usage to make it worth while keeping. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete, redundant to {{message}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 16 September 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:Prime Ministers of Spain - Democratic Spain graphical 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Template:Prime Ministers of Spain - Second Republic graphical timeline was recently deleted as well. Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Again, looks like the consensus reflected in the relevant article is that tables convey the information better. --Bsherr (talk) 20:31, 7 September 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:Horizontal scale[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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and won't be used as {{Horizontal timeline}} has been replaced with {{Simple horizontal timeline}} which has scales. Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 6 September 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).

Module:Language/name[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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused module. Was used in two places (and in the deleted Module:Language/text) which were replaced with different modules. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the sub page Module:Language/name/data should not be deleted and could probably be moved up and take its name. --Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 6 September 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:Decade categories[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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another redundant categories-by-year navigation template. At some point it may have been quite widely used, but by yesterday it was down to ~800 transclusions of a set of about a dozen sports team establishment category headers (e.g. {{Futsal club estcat}}). I have updated all those templates to use {{Navseasoncats}}, and this template is now unusued. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 6 September 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:Dublin Bus Route Map (No. 90)[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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and very likely to remain so, as the parent article was merged into Dublin Bus. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:10, 6 September 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:Decline stale[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. If a future discussion determines that this type of unblock decline is no longer acceptable, there is no prejudice against renomination of this template for deletion. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to deprecate this template for the following reasons:

  1. It does not encourage admins to review the block - i.e. this encourage admins to be lazy. It also does not encourage discussion or comment in detail (by blocked user or other community members).
  2. The message is obscure for blocked users (In many cases, it is better to point out the issue in the unblock request)
  3. In some times this template is not used properly, e.g. used more than one time by same user regarding the same block, which is not encouraged by Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblock_requests. GZWDer (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that I created this template. Prior to unblock reviewers using this template, unblock requests simply stayed open for weeks or occasionally months at a time. This does nobody any good. Far better to point out to the user that their unblock request was no good and if they wish to be unblocked, they need to rewrite it. Yes, it's better if the reviewing admin specifically makes a decision, but that often does not happen. Right now, for example, Category:Requests for unblock has 51 unblock requests, far beyond the "backlog threshold" of 15, and five of those have been open longer than 14 days. While the template wording could be tweaked, the reality is that this template is necessary to give blocked users a path forward. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins should really point out what the problem is in unblock request. For example this one is not really helpful for the blocked user.--GZWDer (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's challenging, though. I literally don't know why nobody else decided to take action on an unblock request, as they didn't leave any breadcrumbs. What would you have suggested for that particular example? --Yamla (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the nomination statement that it encourages admins to be lazy. There is a two week period during which most unblock requests are either accepted or declined. This is for the small minority that have probably already been looked at by most admins involved with unblock requests, and therefore unlikely to proceed any further no matter how long they stay open. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, a more precise remark should be used.--GZWDer (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's what the two week period is for. And yes, that would still be helpful once the unblock request has become stale, but admins were often simply declining to take any action at all, prior to this template. So, this at least offers a path forward. Perhaps, rather than deleting this template, you might want to suggest a few specific ways it could be made more precise? --Yamla (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suggestion of needing more information is a good one, and I've expanded it with text copied from the default decline message. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a guideline that provides that unblock requests should be procedurally closed if not acted upon in two weeks? If there isn't, this template should be deleted as inconsistent with the guidelines. Discussion of this template ought not to be a proxy for discussion of the merits underlying it. That discussion should take place at the relevant talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is covered in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks in the section, What happens when you request unblock. That says (copied exactly), "Verbose or undetailed appeals may not attract administrators to review. In these cases requests may be closed as {{decline stale}} if nobody decided to act within two weeks." Note that is an explanatory supplement to a guideline (and is the WP:GAB we often point people to, when they request an unblock that doesn't really fit the criteria). --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It really must be documented in Wikipedia:Appealing a block, not solely in the explanatory supplement. And I see the user who nominated this template for deletion was the one to add it. So perhaps GZWDer can provide some context for that edit? --Bsherr (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the status quo, though I will not support it.--GZWDer (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion on changing blocking policy (as codified or as applied) should be done at a different venue, Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy for example. Nevertheless, looks like there are only two admins using this template, but I suspect they're the ones cleaning the stale requests from queue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 13 September 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:Dallas Hilltoppers football coach 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 keep. I will note there is no prejudice against renomination should the number of links drop. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two links here, not enough to justify the existence of a navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep navbox now has four blue links. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count three. Are you including the link in the caption? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard procedure is for the coach navbox to link to the program article in the event that the list of coaches article does not exist. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general rule for navboxes is that it will be used on at least five articles per the essay WP:NENAN. Three links does not seem to be enough to justify the existence of this navbox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:37, 13 September 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:FC Zimbru Chișinău squad[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 closed with no action taken. Note that there is NPASR if a new rationale is provided (as the only rationale here was that the template was empty). Primefac (talk) 00:42, 16 September 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:NotablityEstablished[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) → Timbaaa talk 02:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of no proper use for this template; it seems to have been added to the top of articles or talk pages by a total of 3 editors. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Good catch, @DGG. I too can think of no valid use. This seems to be an attempt at some sort of keep-out notice to anyone who questions an article's notability, and that's not how we do things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't think of a valid use. Discussions about notability should be at the right venue and based on sources, not just a general statement like this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed. --Bsherr (talk) 20:39, 7 September 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_September_6&oldid=979212808"