Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 26 October 28 >

October 27[edit]

Template:Soviet Estonia Elections[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to {{Estonian elections}}, which is used on the relevant articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a duplicate of {{ESSR elections}} --Nug (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As duplicate of {{ESSR elections}}. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator note, the content in {{Soviet Estonia Elections}} and {{ESSR elections}} was removed today from {{Estonian elections}}. I think the better question is whether these two templates should be merged, though I note that a 2018 TFD indicated they should both be kept. I would encourage Elli to add the ESSR template to this nomination in order to give it a fair discussion (i.e. you should not nominate one of two nearly-identical templates for deletion and leave the second). Primefac (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete {{ESSR elections}}, which is a POV fork. Number 57 09:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No POV fork here, maybe a case of the eye of the beholder's own strong POV? Clear consensus was achieved in 2018 TFD for keeping {{ESSR elections}}, as you well know. {{Irish (UK) elections}} isn't a POV fork of {{Irish elections}}, nor is {{East German elections}} a POV fork of {{German elections}}. Different state entities and/or geographic scope warrent different templates. --Nug (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a clear POV fork, and all the 'keep' votes at the last TfD came from the usual group of Estonian nationalist editors. As for who has the POV, I am not the one who has been topic banned from this area. And the Irish/German election templates are not equivalents – please stop pushing this disingenuous equivalence. Number 57 19:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Facepalm. Is the best argument you can come up with is to reference something that happened a decade ago and slurring others who don't agree with your POV as "the usual group of <insert country> nationalist editors"? How about you start with articulating why the Irish/German election templates are not equivalents? --Nug (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deletion is not the end of the world. But the main Estonia election template should state or categorize the listing of the elections during the Soviet Estonia period. As modern Estonia didn't exist until around 1991/92. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current template {{Estonian elections}} references elections of the ESSR in the footer, in a similar way as the templates for Germany and Ireland do for their respective polities. I'm curious as to where you sourced the notion that modern Estonia didn't exist until around 1991/1992? According to the Estonian parliament, there is direct continuity to the pre-war republic, starting with the 1st-riigikogu of 1920, up until the current sitting 13th riigikogu. --Nug (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-war republic and post-Soviet Estonia are two different periods. Modern Estonia doesn't date back to before Soviet rule. History isn't determined by the parliament of the country. And if one template does the job, then there is no need for multiple templates. The main elections template does that. And no the footer doesn't do anything other than link to this template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but there are a ton of reliable sources that contradict the claim, see the cites in State continuity of the Baltic states. We could take it to WP:RSN to see if a state's parliament is a reliable source for it's own history. --Nug (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2021 (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:Dutch Caribbean Age Group Championships[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 09:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but red after this Afd deleted the articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2021 (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:Philippines labelled map[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Reasonable nomination, no opposition. Primefac (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and have been sitting around for years. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete these are unused because (my experience in the anatomy space) such templates are difficult to use, difficult to scale, and occasionally don't work on mobile devies. Additionally because they are maps they will eventually fall out of date. As these are unused, I agree with nom. Tom (LT) (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2021 (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:1999 Mid-South Conference football standings[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that would be better off as a table in an article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; member of well-established class of college football standings templates that can and will be used on multiple articles that either exist or should be created including 1999 NAIA football season (redirect that should be created), Georgetown Tigers football or 1999 Georgetown Tigers football team when created, 1999 Lambuth Eagles football team, 1999 Mid-South Conference football season, List of Mid-South Conference football standings, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You created this template 2 years ago and it is still unused. A template should be created when there is need for it, not because you can. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2021 (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:2005 NAIA independents football records[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. I don't think it could be used on many articles anyways.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2021 (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:SignedWizdzy'sGuestbook topicon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. No prejudice against a restoration and subsequent move to the creator's subpage. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems pretty useless and the long name makes it annoying when searching for "Template:Signed..." The template has also never been used anywhere, just on the sandbox page of the user who created it a while ago. ― Levi_OPTalk 19:07, 27 October 2021 (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).

County councils in Washington (state)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 10:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navboxes for county councils whose members do not meet appropriate notability requirements, thus making them pointless and decroative. SounderBruce 07:21, 27 October 2021 (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/2021_October_27&oldid=1053713645"