Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template is useless and adds nothing substantive while only appearing on 8 pages. There is no need for this navbox. Terasail[Talk] 20:33, 28 August 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).

IPA help talk editnotices

[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. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These IPA help pages are not "information pages" in the sense intended by Template:Wikipedia information pages talk page editnotice, as there is no policy or guideline that they are summarizing, and thus the edit notice makes no sense. After deletion, these pages need to be salted, or else the bot will immediately recreate them. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:16, 28 August 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).
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 06:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One usage on an RfC page, fully protected for some strange reason, not categorised (and no DS categories fit, because it's not really part of the ArbCom DS system of templates). Not really a 'template' either, its purpose seems to have been limited to that single RfC. Proposing subst+delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

will require an admin to tag the template ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:05, 28 August 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).
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) 18:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the new generic Template:YYYY in continent association football category header. All uses of the nominated category have been replaced with {{YYYY in continent association football category header}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 28 August 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).
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 September 13. Primefac (talk) 16:47, 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).
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) 05:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Sdkb stated on the talk, this template is ineffective and pointless. Most editnotices don't have this on their talk/main page, most people don't know about this template (indeed, it has 282 transclusions), and (in the few places it is used) it just adds to the useless talk page banners. Its purpose was apparently categorisation, which should be done in the editnotices templates themselves anyway. Perhaps it was useful when created, but due to how editnotices are used now, it becomes a bit of a rather pointless template with a logically flawed premise. For general tracking we have Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Editnotices/, and specific child templates may also have their own tracking cats. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 28 August 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).
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) 18:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not in use, has errors, and I believe has been abandoned. It appears to have been an attempt to separate the table from World Boxing Council Muaythai, but did not work, and other editors reverted and placed the table in that article. Additionally, the template as it currently is coded includes itself (mis-understanding of {main} I think), and fails to close the table it opens (showing up in a lint error report). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:05, 28 August 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).
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. If updates to {{WarningsSmall}} are desired based on this "look", feel free to hold a discussion at that template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion on a user page. Similar to the more widely used Template:WarningsSmall so as to be redundant. Bsherr (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Main question seems to be merge or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:21, 28 August 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).