Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Template:Infobox spacecraft[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. Were it not for the previous discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT this discussion would be right at a "no consensus", but there's not enough here to change that previous consensus. With no current transclusions and a previous deprecation there's nothing left to do but delete. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The template documentation says it is being phased out, but I don't see the deletion discussion. If it's being deleted, it should be actually replaced (as per the template doc) with either {{Infobox spaceflight}} for articles about single spacecraft or {{Infobox spacecraft class}} for articles about multiple spacecraft and then deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep , same reason as in Tfd Template:Infobox aircraft + its still used in some articles. --Denniss (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if there are better infoboxes then nuke it. Looks like there's only 5ish real articles using it the rest is sandbox/userpages. -Ravedave (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete convert all remaining transclusions to use the proper template. Denniss your comment completely misses the point of the TFD... You don't keep a template just because it is still in use... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person who edited the template to indicate that it was "being phased out" gave no hint why, and he retired from Wikipedia four years ago, so we cannot ask him. "Spaceflight" and "spacecraft" are two distinct things, so this template has a role to play. And it's not as if it disrupts Wikipedia in any way. — O'Dea (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Did some digging around to find when and why this happened. Here is the discussion which did have the consensus of the relevant project editors and has not been challenged in over 5 years of the deprecation template being added. Also for 35 articles that still use this, changing to one of the others shouldn't be a problem and would help other editors more easily decide what infobox to use. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after replacement, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Delete per nom" is not a convincing argument, Andy; it's just a "like". That might work in social media, but substantial discussion is needed here. The outcome is not decided by numbers of votes, pro or con. — O'Dea (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well: Delete after replacement, because the template documentation says it is being phased out, but I don't see the deletion discussion. If it's being deleted, it should be actually replaced (as per the template doc) with either {{Infobox spaceflight}} for articles about single spacecraft or {{Infobox spacecraft class}} for articles about multiple spacecraft and then deleted. Happy now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9#Template:Infobox spacecraft
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that this was overturned in a recent DRV is enough for me. I agree with O'Dea that "Spaceflight" and "spacecraft" are two distinct things and remind editors here that WP:CCC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The DRV concerned itself solely with issues of procedure, and says nothing about the merits of the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There isn't any evidence that this template was a candidate for being phased out then. I also agreed with O'Dea's assessment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That could be true, if by "no evidence" you mean ignoring the discussion I linked to. --Gonnym (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes there is; you seem to have missed the link posted by Gonnym, above, with timestamp "22:47, 10 February".You're also not giving any reason that the template is actually needed. Finally, O'Dea's "it's not as if it disrupts Wikipedia in any way" is an argument of a kind expressly deprecated in WP:HARMLESS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 17 March 2019 (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:Culture of Malaysia[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 2019 April 1. Primefac (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2019 (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:Contemporary Art Galleries in London[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Appears to be an abandoned draft. No actual link content. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:03, 16 March 2019 (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:Communist Parties of South America[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NAVBOXCREEP Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (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:Comics-trades[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 2019 April 1. Primefac (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2019 (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:2016–17 Midland Football League Premier Division table[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table, already placed on the parent article directly. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (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:Chinese aeroengines[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 2019 April 3. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2019 (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:Chojnice – Runowo Pomorskie line[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks. WP:EXISTING & WP:NENAN both apply. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 16 March 2019 (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:Dreezy[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP: NENAN, too soon, not enough links. StaticVapor message me! 19:24, 16 March 2019 (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:Philippine Piso NGC series[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded as a template; subst the one transclusion and then delete DannyS712 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It serves as navigation to related wiki pages, i.e., clicking the 20-peso bill points to its main article
    Moon Rivers (talk) 11:41 24 February 2019 (UTC +8:00) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unused. Even it is was, it is an overly complex way of linking 12 articles. {{Philippine peso history}} does the job perfectly well. Nigej (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nigej, unused is due to previous bad TfD closure, the bad closure result is deleted, so it is orphaned now. I will cleanup Hhkohh (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Restored, no longer unused Hhkohh (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said above, I still think it should go. A plain simple template like the one I noted, together with links in the article is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete without substitution. better to navigate through {{Philippine peso history}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (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:Philippine peso NGC bills[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded as a template; subst the one transclusion and then delete DannyS712 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It serves as navigation to related wiki pages, i.e., clicking the 20-peso bill points to its main article
    Moon Rivers (talk) 11:42 24 February 2019 (UTC +8:00)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unused. Even it is was, it is an overly complex way of linking 6 articles. Nigej (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nigej, unused is due to previous bad TfD closure, the bad closure result is deleted, so it is orphaned now. I will cleanup it Hhkohh (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restored, no longer unused Hhkohh (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said above, I still think it should go. A plain simple template like {{Philippine peso history}}, together with links in the article is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete without substitution. better to navigate through {{Philippine peso history}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no reason to have this as a template. Subst and delete. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 17 March 2019 (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:Philippine peso NGC coins[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded as a template; subst the one transclusion and then delete DannyS712 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It serves as navigation to related wiki pages, i.e., clicking the one-peso coin points to its main article
    Moon Rivers (talk) 11:42 24 February 2019 (UTC +8:00)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (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:NGC Series banknotes and coins[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded as a template; subst the one transclusion and then delete DannyS712 (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It serves as navigation to related wiki pages, i.e., clicking the 20-peso bill points to its main article
    Moon Rivers (talk) 11:40 24 February 2019 (UTC +8:00) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Moonrivers: your comments on this and other TFDs show you are completely missing the point. No one is saying to delete the content, there is just no reason for there to be a template. Place the image and the link on the one article in question directly, no reason for a template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the image it used was deleted from commons on the 9 March 2019 so the template no longer had any content/function. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no valid content/image Hhkohh (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no reason to have this as a template. Subst and delete. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 17 March 2019 (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:Nippon Professional Draft by year[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 speedy keep. I  withdraw this nomination given its use now, closing as speedy keep per criterion #1. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nippon Professional Baseball draft doesn't exist; neither should the navbox. DannyS712 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The main article will be created shortly and at present this is the only item that allows users to move between draft pages by year, otherwise the url needs to be manually changed. I'd prefer it remains to allow ease of navigation. Cynikles (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2019 (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).

D&RGW S-line 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 Delete -FASTILY 05:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2019 (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).

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad S-line 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 Delete -FASTILY 05:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2019 (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:Ceres–Negros F.C. 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 withdrawn. Now in use. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete until using Hhkohh (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused, not maintained. Nigej (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs updating and adding to relevant articles, not deleting. I have added to to a few, so it is no longer unused. GiantSnowman 11:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep @Zackmann08 and Nigej: using now (added to some articles by GiantSnowman) Hhkohh (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Given that Category:Philippines football squad navigational boxes has only 1 entry, I'm still doubtful that it's required. Nigej (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigej, you can create more navboxs if you want to do. The club players are notable because they pass WP:NFOOTY. Also, the club is currently played in fully-professional league Hhkohh (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hhkohh - I'm not doubting that the club + players are notable. I'm doubting that we need a navbox for the current squad of every football team in the world. Nigej (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're not saying every club, though, just ones where there are many notable players (like this). GiantSnowman 12:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I look (randomly) at Category:Albanian football squad navigational boxes I find {{KF Apolonia Fier squad}} has 3 blue links but 5 transclusions. {{Besa Kavajë squad}} has 1 Rogers who seems to have left them in 2016. These "current" templates are worse than useless unless someone keeps them up to date. Nigej (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not do so yourself? GiantSnowman 14:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe that the concept is fundamentally flawed. These "current" templates should be restricted to situations where there is significant interest. Otherwise they get out-of-date and nobody notices because no one's using it. Nigej (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nigej, again, why not help us update instead of deletion? Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2019 (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:Catholic Bishops of Pittsburgh[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unused. Succession boxes seem to be preferred. Nigej (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2019 (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:C Sharp[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:28, 16 March 2019 (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:CSR stations[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template that just produces a plainlink. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:27, 16 March 2019 (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:CONCACAF Gold Cup MVP[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete until using Hhkohh (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no obvious referenced content about the MVP, so must go. Nigej (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (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:CONCACAF Gold Cup winning managers[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:NAVBOXCREEP at its finest. There is an article about the winning teams, we don't need a navbox linking all the managers... Plus this template isn't even used. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (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).

Unused C.D. Primeiro de Agosto 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 Delete -FASTILY 05:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navboxes that all list the playes that were on a certain team in a certain year. Not EVERYTHING needs a navbox. The current team is one thing, but linking every player that was on the team in the same year is just overkill. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - These sort of template should be reserved for just the most important teams in a sport. Nigej (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no need for historical squad templates (and certainly not in soccer). GiantSnowman 10:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all unnecessary navbox Hhkohh (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2019 (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:Three Men in a Boat[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 merge to Template:Jerome K. Jerome. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Three Men in a Boat with Template:Jerome K. Jerome.
Massive overlap between the two templates. The total set of article involved is 9 or ten, and Template:Three Men in a Boat is basically a reformatted version of Template:Jerome K. Jerome, with 3 extra links. This duplication is a hindrance to navigation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

support JarrahTree 05:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and a good reason portals should not be built blindly off navboxes. Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Absolutely right, all of the above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2019 (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).
N.B.:Since BrownHairedGirl has attempted to serve as both the nominator and the closer, I have reverted her closing edits.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Tony is not content with criticising me for miscounting (sorry!), but then repeats a false claim that only 2 links were common: it's actually three, because Tony repeatedly fails to count the head article.
And its simply untrue to assert that I have attempted to serve as both the nominator and the closer.
The closer's role is to evaluate the debate and close it. JJMC89 closed the debate in this edit[2], at 07:50, 24 March 2019
However, the closer is not required to personally do all the spadework, and it is quite common for the nominator to implement the closer's decision. So when he close was unimplemented after 44 hours, I implemented the closer's decision in these 6 edits[3].
I note that Tony has no substantive complaint about the merged template, visible here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CT Corp[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on a single page, the parent article CT Corp. Almost entirely WP:REDLINKS which violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - replicates CT Corp (which is essentially just a list) as a template. Pointless. Nigej (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2019 (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:Canadian federal by-election, May 13, 2002/Saint Boniface[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election results template. Per precedent at this tfd... To paraphrase an editor at that TFD: The results of the <insert election year> election are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Same logic applies here, particularly since the template is UNUSED! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:10, 16 March 2019 (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:1996 New Zealand general election by electorate[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. The TFD crew are in the process of creating a list of "common outcomes" at TFD. These single- or two-use templates have mixed outcomes, with some being kept, some being subst/deleted, and some (with 2+ transclusions) being shared via WP:LST. If it becomes clear(er) that one of these outcomes is the preferred outcome of such templates, there is no prejudice against renomination. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Single-use election results template. Per precedent at this tfd... To paraphrase an editor at that TFD: The results of the <insert election year> election are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Same logic applies here. The tables should be subst directly onto the page and the template deleted. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are used. Somehow there has been a naming error which meant that other templates were included on the pages instead of these ones. Thanks you for highlighting this Zackmann08, I have corrected it. Since they now have transclusions I recommend the deletion tags now be removed. Kiwichris (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwichris: nomination update, but per the precedent, they should be subst directly into the article and the template deleted. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed that omission, too. We now have double-transclusion. Schwede66 18:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It’s the convention of the NZ politics task force to use templates for results if they are needed on more than one page. Things invariably change (not the results but names, notability, etc) and not all editors know when the same info needs to be updated in several places. After chasing our tails for years we eventually started using templates and the problems went away apart from the occasional nomination for deletion. Schwede66 18:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom. Each seems to be only used once. This sort of information should only appear once. If similar templates are used more than once, this is a sign that one set of the data should be removed, linking to the only set. Nigej (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea was that the templates would be housed on both election and nth Parliament pages and that only one edit would be required to update both locations (efficiency in a nutshell). Somehow these templates have erroneously had both their transclusions removed, but can simply be re-added to the respective pages and once again comply with the agreed convention. Kiwichris (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    only one edit would be required to update both locations What about this template could possibly need updating, given that the results of past elections can't change. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The main thing that is updated on these templates are the links. Naming conventions can change and links to biographies and electorates need to be updated to reflect the change. Links are also added as candidates acquire notability and have articles of their own. Kiwichris (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, these templates are part of a series going back to 1853. The further back you go, the more uncertainty there is about results, names of unsuccessful candidates, etc. Schwede66 18:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Schwede66. Importantly, if they needed on more than one page, according of the NZ politics they forced to use for template as a result of an election, also the respective pages again comply if convention as been agreed. Links also been added and reflect the change and notability. Sheldybett (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per others, also occasionally some of the unsuccessful candidates get articles later on via becoming MPs for the later ones and for older ones getting articles via entry in one of the DNZBs. J947 (c), at 03:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also, nominate all of them if you want to delete them. I know that there was a transclusion error but it should be fairly obvious that there are others following the same pattern which didn't have an error. J947 (c), at 03:24, 28 March 2019 (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:Bonaire status referendum, 2004[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⚡ 06:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template. Per precedent at this tfd. To paraphrase an editor at that TFD: The results of the <insert election year> election are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Same logic applies here, particularly since the template is UNUSED! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete all - per nom and precedent. Nigej (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2019 (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/2019_March_16&oldid=1138372775"