August 30
Template:American Inline Hockey League
- 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 ~ Rob13Talk 21:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following up with this TFD, these remaining templates are all leftover from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Inline Hockey League. The first template is used on two stubs for particular teams but the league itself is a red link. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2016 (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:Nations at the 2013 World Combat Games
- 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) 03:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ambitious collection of red links assuming individual nation articles for a non-major sporting event would be forthcoming. Three years later nothing. Any information in the template (i.e.. which nations participated) is already in the main article which is the only article which uses the template. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2016 (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:Mock the Week
- 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) 03:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NENAN Launchballer 19:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. With two links, this template has become pointless. anemoneprojectors 21:07, 30 August 2016 (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:Manchester Lines North Current
- 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) 03:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused outdated template. Superseded by Template:Manchester Lines North. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2016 (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:Manchester Lines North (Present)
- 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) 03:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused outdated template. Superseded by Template:Manchester Lines North. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2016 (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:Manchester Lines
- 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) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused out of date template Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2016 (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:Manchester Lines 2
- 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) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused out of date template. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2016 (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:Ruch Radzionków squad
- 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 2016 September 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:00, 9 September 2016 (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:Dolcan Ząbki squad
- 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 2016 September 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 9 September 2016 (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:Flota Świnoujście squad
- 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 2016 September 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:02, 9 September 2016 (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:Kolejarz Stróże squad
- 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 2016 September 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 9 September 2016 (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:Zawisza Bydgoszcz squad
- 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 2016 September 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:04, 9 September 2016 (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:Fb team Wadi Degla Sporting Club
- 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 redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Useless. There's already a template for this club (Template:Fb team Wadi Degla). A delete or a redirect to the other template could work. Ben5218 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2016 (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:Gary Education Sections
- 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) 03:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
old and redundant to list in List of schools in Gary. if we really need it, we can create a navbox. Frietjes (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 August 2016 (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:1984 Summer Olympics men's football group B standings
- 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 2016 September 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:05, 9 September 2016 (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:History of Cologne
- 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) 03:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
not needed after restructuring of ((Cologne Sections)). Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2016 (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:30 may
- 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 as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template appears to be nothing more than text created by a new editor for the sole purpose of trying to make this edit to Bryshere Y. Gray. Not sure if this qualifies for speedy deleteion per WP:G2, so I figured I'd nominate it here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2016 (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 2016 September 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 9 September 2016 (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:Autocol long
- 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 ~ Rob13Talk 14:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this serves a technical function, merge it into the main template. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by author. I developed {autocol_long} to auto-number columns of names in long lists, but which runs 3x times slower than numbered lists of 60 items. Also, the maximum capacity of {autocol_long} could be expanded without affecting the shorter-list template. It seems "unused" because people keep removing it from pages, and there is no history of where it is used in prior revisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, introduces a list gap while this is a far better solution. In particular, the use of ((div col))/((div col end)) removes the WP:LISTGAP and allows for the number of columns to adjust based on the browser width. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2016 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Single-use external link template. No other article-space links to the Amicus site. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's a single-source citation template with a high possibility for reuse. I have it on my extended to-do list to work out a way to make these all (we have hundreds of them, an entire category tree for them) all subst-able into standard CS1 templates without leaving behind template detritus, but this is going to take time. These templates are harmless and "cheap" for now, and despite all kinds of handwringing and hairpulling about them over the years, they have not, in fact, exploded into zillions and zillions of templates. Meanwhile they actually do encourage additional citations; most of them are for citations that are quite tedious to keep re-entering by hand, and editors create them for a reason – they intend to use them (and for others to use them) to increase our content's verifiability. For over 5 years there have been continued attempts to delete them all en masse or to pick them off one by one. The answer, every time someone notices and opposes, has been to leave them be, even if we know we need to replace them with code that will cleanly subst (which is quite a pain in the butt and will require significant effort). Since I'm the only one working on it and no one else is stepping up, it's just going to take as long as it takes. The free software (and hacking) community's exhortation to "write code!" applies here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This supposed "high possibility for reuse" (my emphasis) has not been realised in the seven years of the template's existence, and it is clear that it has done nothing "to increase our content's verifiability", and it fails utterly to "encourage additional citations". Furthermore, there are no bare links to the target site that could be converted to use it. Citation templates that do find use (and there are many good and well-used examples) should most definitely not be substituted, since their benefits include i) ease of update when the URL structure of the target website changes, ii) fetching IDs from Wikidata. This is certainly not an attempt "to delete them all en masse or to pick them off one by one", indeed I have created many such templates and am in the process of upgrading and improving many more them, which is how I came across this and few others that are variously unused, defunct, or redundant. Finally, no, "the answer" to past TfDs for such templates has not been "been to leave them be" - many have rightly been deleted, for the reasons I list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Library and Archives Canada catalogue is a good source of information. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is whether the template is needed, not the quality of a source (even if it is one we only use once in over 5 million articles). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the question also about whether the template is likely to be used? Then the quality of the source becomes relevant. Uanfala (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2016 (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:Subst check top
- 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 replace/delete, but make sure no functionality is lost in the process. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Templates using the substitution check templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Misuse of *top/*bottom templates causing extremely confusing behavior in which categories and other non-visible elements in the template that should have been substituted but wasn't still appear, but the visible content doesn't. Pppery (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is part of a template coding and documentation system (see Template:Subst check top#Related templates) that the nom doesn't seem to have figured out. The nomination isn't cogent, anyway. "Misuse of top/bottom templates" isn't a real thing; since there is no prescribed use of them, there cannot be a violation of such a prescription. If the nom is meaning to suggest that the template isn't functioning as intended or expected, this is a bug report to raise on the template's talk page. "I don't understand, and you'd better change this template immediately or else" isn't what TfD is for. It is possible that the template might not be needed or might be broken and irreparable in some way, but there is no demonstration of this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SMcCandish: However, the issues I mentioned above are not fixable - there is no way to code ((x)) and ((y)) such that
((x))[[Category:Example]]((y)) does not result in the article appearing in Category:Example. In a similar type of issue, these templates rely on a CSS hack to hide the contents of the template that should be substituted, which causes accessibility issues. Pppery (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I welcome suggestions on how to correct an accessibility issue on the template's talk page, but the solution to an accessibility issue isn't to nuke it from orbit. This template is undeniably useful, and it's not meant to be transcluded for any long period of time, so the issue is minimal. ~ Rob13Talk 09:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @BU Rob13 and SMcCandish: Can any of you come up with any advantages this template has over ((require subst))? Pppery (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You lose the values of all parameters if you use ((Require subst)) and trigger the error. It doesn't preserve them. ~ Rob13Talk 15:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: What do you mean? Pppery (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, actually, I may have been incorrect. I know there's a use case where ((Requested move)) annoyingly gets rid of everything you wrote and instead substitutes in an error message, but that's unrelated. Is there an advantage to ((Require subst)) over the top/bottom method? Is it better for accessibility? ~ Rob13Talk 15:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: There are two disadvantages to ((subst check top))/((subst check bottom)), which are fixed in ((require subst))
- Non-visible elements such as categories and the recording of links in Special:WhatLinksHere still word even through the template pair method
- The output of the template is still included in the HTML source, but hidden using CSS. This causes accessibility issues similar to those that lead to the abandoning of HiddenStructure.
- replace with ((require subst)) and delete. as far as I can tell, there is no reason why we can't just replace the two template system with the one template solution. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2016 (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 merge the contents of ((vanish)) into ((HD/vanish)). Primefac (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Vanish with Template:HD/vanish.
No need for two help desk templates about courtesy vanishing. Pppery (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose, no demonstration of a merged template. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Frietjes: IMO such a merged template is basically one redirecting to the other without change in the other. Opposing in such a vein as yours seems WP:BURO (on this particular template--I've seen good use of that argument). --Izno (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Izno, so which is redirected to which? It must be hard to decide since after 14 days no one has been able to decide what the merged template will be. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to keep ((vanish)) since it a) has documentation and b) is much more concise about what is or is not expected. --Izno (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Izno, my preference is to do it the other way. All help desk templates should be under ((HD)), rather that forked out everywhere. Pppery (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opinion on the final page title, so that seems fine. I have a preference for the text and documentation in ((vanish)). --Izno (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ((
HD/vanish)), favoring the content of ((
Vanish)), per the above, as the default output, since it is going to be more helpful to the intended audience. It could maybe be pared down a little, but that's up to discussion as the template talk page. Having two templates for this purpose is redundant. Project-specific things should live in the project's space. If the icon is part of the standard presentation of these responses, then retain it.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
[reply]Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (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:DBNAME
- 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) Primefac (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Useful when needing to create multilingual links, although a server side Magic Word would be better. — Dispenser 21:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep apparently substituted —PC-XT+ 00:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom unless there's evidence this is used in a programmatic way by projects or tools across multiple language's Wikipedias (if it is, then keep it as a background, subst-used scripting tool). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is quite odd. On the English Wikipedia, this template will only ever output "enwiki" when substituted. I don't see how this could even be used as a programming tool unless it were created on all language Wikipedias and other projects, but at that point, why not just type the database names directly into your code? It's at most the same amount of effort as manually creating this template on all projects. Either way, there's no evidence this is being used in such a manner, unless Dispenser can provide some. ~ Rob13Talk 09:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So the issue was at Template:GeoTemplate, translators were copying the wikitext, find+replacing translating a few words, and calling it done. Many of the services have multiple languages, fix that with
((CONTENTLANG)). However, I needed this template when it came to our internal services and rather than hard coding enwiki_p (translators wouldn't fix) or using ((CONTENTLANG))wiki (which breaks weirdly), I created this template. — Dispenser 04:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, served a purpose at one point in time, but apparently no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2016 (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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if it would be useful in articles from Category:IEC standards but otherwise delete —PC-XT+ 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This would surely see more use if it were categorized in Category:Specific-source templates where people could find it. [Update: I just added that category to it.] The main reason to ever link to an IEC standard is as a source. Citing specs is not something people usually think of an a WP:EL matter rather than a WP:CITE one, so it's simply miscategorized. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You offer absolutely no evidence for your belief that recategorising this (or any other) template will result in its greater use. Do you have any? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, I fixed the low transclusion count. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2016 (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 Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems unnecessary. The template is a navbox for judges on a court which has only three judges. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Typically, four links is considered a minimum, and this template has exactly four. The connection between these judges is extremely strong, and in the absence of an infobox, we'd certainly want to link them in a "See also" section. Additionally, the number of current judges happen to be too small for a category per WP:SMALLCAT, so a navbox is the best solution. If anything, this could possibly be expanded to include former members. ~ Rob13Talk 09:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, seems fine. links four articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2016 (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 merge/redirect with/to ((ISSN link)). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undocumented ISSN link template, with only seven transclusions. Redundant to ((ISSN search link)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect Frietjes (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep [see further comment below]. The markup this template generates is different from what ((ISSN link)) and ((ISSN search link)) do. I can't tell at a glance what the differences in markup are supposed to achieve—except be different depending on whether the article is displayed as normal or in print—but its behaviour is anyway not identical to the other two templates and thus can't be handled with a redirect, and I don't think a merge would be smart (unless it coincided with a move to a common Lua backend for all three). --Xover (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC) [Modified: Xover (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Let's see:
((ISSNT|0951-8304))- 0951-8304
- HTML:
<a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.worldcat.org/search?fq=x0:jrnl&q=n2:0951-8304">0951-8304</a>
((ISSN link|0951-8304))- 0951-8304
- HTML:
<a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="//www.worldcat.org/issn/0951-8304">0951-8304</a>
((ISSN search link|0951-8304))- 0951-8304
- HTML:
<a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="//www.worldcat.org/issn/0951-8304">0951-8304</a>
So yes, there is a difference. Why do we we need ((ISSNT)) to perform a search (an undocumented search, used on just seven pages), when the precise ISSN is known, and can be used to link to a more specific web page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
((ISSNT)) is meant to be a parallel of ((ISBNT)), and is obviously meant to behave as ((ISSN search link)). What would deletion accomplish, rather than merging or redirecting? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. It looks like all three of these ISSN templates could be merged into one. ((ISSN search link)) could be redirected to ((ISSN link)) as its functionality and syntax looks like a strict subset of the latter; and ((ISSNT)) could be redirected to the same if the ((only in print))/((hide in print)) switches are added to it (but the change in behaviour might need testing first). The non-standard search link looks like a bug essentially (a direct ISSN link to WorldCat is the equivalent to Special:BookSources), and could/should be changed IMO. Oh, and if history merge to preserve the edit history of ((ISSN search link)) is possible, that would be a good thing. --Xover (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2016 (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:Mmuk phoetc
- 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) 03:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Target site is defunct, and links now redirect to a Bing map, not an aerial photo. Also redundant to ((Coord)). Only 34 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Please see the substantive edit made shortly after the TfD started, which removed the defunct website. Should this still be deleted despite this? Is the remaining link worth the template? Should the template be orphaned or replaced, and if replaced, what with?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 09:32, 30 August 2016 (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 2016 September 11 ~ Rob13Talk 17:59, 11 September 2016 (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 2016 September 10 ~ Rob13Talk 04:41, 10 September 2016 (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).