Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 20

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete for now Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2013 Big East men's soccer standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no citation that this will be the division alignments next year following realignment, not to mention SMU isn't in either division in the template, so it's obviously not the correct divisions entirely. Delete until the division alignments are announced, or at the very least change it so that all 17 teams are listed (these 16 plus SMU) without division alignment. Although I don't see what the point of that would be other than giving us a placeholder. Smartyllama (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, but could be recreated once divisional alignments are announced. Frietjes (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment from nominator I definitely think we should recreate it once the divisions are announced. But since I scoured the internet and could not find a single source for the alignments, and since SMU is not in either division which further diminishes their credibility, I think we should close this and delete it at this point. It's been a week. Smartyllama (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

doesn't work, since there is no support for this feature in the js for this Wikipedia. 198.102.153.78 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is a demonstration showing that it doesn't work
Numbers sm=n
1 sm=n
10 sm=n
5 sm=n
15 sm=n
if it was working, these numbers would sort numerically. 198.102.153.78 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep; this template is not actually open to discussion as it is part of process under jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. — Coren (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CheckUser block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Makes a block by someone look officially sanctioned. If someone requests an unblock anyone should be able to lift it. 206.71.242.249 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Per WP:Navbox: redirect Template:Bareilly to Template:Neighbourhoods of Bareilly, rename Template:Universities, Colleges and Schools in Bareilly to Template:Education in Bareilly, delete the rest. Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighbourhoods of Bareilly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Landmarks in Bareilly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hindu temples in Bareilly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Malls and Commercial Streets in Bareilly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Universities, Colleges and Schools in Bareilly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bareilly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All but the last one of these templates concerning Bareilly (a district in India) contain an unreasonably small percentage of blue links and are therefore useless for navigation. The exception is the template Template:Bareilly but that one duplicates the purpose of the existing (and better organized) Template:Bareilly division topics. Pichpich (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense to keep the navigation footers for neighborhoods and landmarks. The neighborhoods template appears to have 9 blue links (which is already tiny) for 50 neighborhoods but in fact, most of these links are not to articles on neighborhoods but to the neighborhood's namesakes. Once you remove these, there are only 3 links to articles about a neighborhood. The landmarks template suffers from the same problem: at first glance, there are 10 blue links but only 4 are to actual buildings, monuments or geographical features. And even those include the airport and a research institute and there's no reason to believe that these are widely considered to be landmarks. So we're down to two legitimate links. Pichpich (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Nabla (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Professional wrestling in Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Waste of a template as none of the promotions listed as current are notable and are unlikely at best to qualify for a WP article. Not enough defunct promotions to warrant a template 121.220.107.74 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G3 by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boneheads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be part of a truly elaborate WP:HOAX. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boneheads (TV series). The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 20 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.