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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Launching (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A lot of rocket articles have this template. It pops up on top of an article for a few days/weeks around a launch saying something like "current launch in progress, things may change".

I find this template highly ridiculous and distracting on top of articles, and sometimes two of them come live at the same time, if two launches are close. Let's face it. Rockets are cool. The future of civilization depends on them, and so on. But there is nothing notable about a rocket launch to warrant all this fanfare. A rocket either goes up, or is delayed, or goes boom.

"Current event" templates are meant to be used sparingly, for very unique and unexpected events (e.g., a nuclear reactor exploded), not for routine and periodic events where nothing much happens. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as largely unnecessary; use the usual ((Current spaceflight)) if necessary during actual launch. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thank you Oleg, I couldn't agree more. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — Iadmc♫^talk  10:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with all its subtemplates. It was certainly a lot of work to create them, and they are fun to watch sometimes, but frankly the maintenance burden is too high and the value provided to readers is questionable. HOWEVER I would keep a template formatted along these lines and called ((Launch incident)) which could be used when something unusual and notable happens (going boom or otherwise). — JFG ^talk 15:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • JFG, that's where the ((Current)) template would work fine. It's wording can be customised to suit the need. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huntster: I hear you; I'm just saying that the space-specific format of ((Launching)) with appropriate parameters would be more useful than the standard ((Current)). I'm willing to work on that if the consensus is to delete. — JFG ^talk 20:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Okay? I don't understand the point of building an entirely new template when we're trying to get rid of this one. A discussion for another time, I know, but this seems counterintuitive. "Current" alerts the end users without getting into unnecessary nibbly bits, which was one of the main points of this deletion proposal. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huntster: We may be talking past each other. I do support the deletion and I'm only suggesting to create a spaceflight-specific template to alert people about developing launch incidents when they happen, i.e. roughly twice a year these days. That will be much lighter and much more relevant than making every launch a special event with flashing lights at its rocket, spacecraft and spaceport. Wouldn't you agree? — JFG ^talk 20:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: What I'm saying is that "((current||launch incident|date=September 2016))" gets the point across in a standardised format without the need for a new template. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, we'll agree to disagree on this. Let's see what happens to the template first. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: May misrepresent established policy. 2600:1:B11A:ECCC:7455:1D15:F887:C31F (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((current spaceflight)). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Well, as the (almost) one editor who keeps the template alive, I would say that there are actually people who keep track of such events, and others who will look at Wikipedia first to see when it's flying (look at how many different editors update the template for any F9 flight, for example). Not everyone thinks this is ridiculous. ;)

As for the difficulty in keeping them updated - well let's say that at least I'll keep them useful for as long as I can do. I would suggest keeping all of them until, say, 6 months or more of inactivity for all templates. I guess I won't be around to care by then. ;)

Also I'm curious about what "misrepresentation of established policy" does this template do, and why it wasn't discussed in the past 7+ years of existence. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(off-topic) You are getting me worried: it would be sad to see you go in 6 months… Hope this is not a sinister omen! — JFG ^talk 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The major rocket families launch anywhere from 8-15 times per year. For some of them, it's rare that there isn't a launch coming up in the near future, and this template is a routine chunk of text taking up space at the top of the article. R0uge (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agreed with Galactic Penguin SST's arguments. SkywalkerPL (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2017 (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 Speedy Keep. Per new information showing this template is actually still used. ^Avic_ennasis @ 03:04, 20 Tevet 5777 / 03:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CatTrack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template no longer seems to serve a purpose, as the tool it was connected to has long since ceased to function. ^Avic_ennasis @ 03:30, 17 Tevet 5777 / 03:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obsolete — Iadmc♫^talk  10:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait—OK, let's wait to see how useful the resurrected tool is per Enterprisey — Iadmc♫^talk  02:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-keep per Avic The tool seems quite useful but the template's doc etc need updating — Iadmc♫^talk  02:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Oh come on, I had just resurrected it at toollabs:apersonbot/cat-track . Give it a few days for the data to fill up. It's my fault, though, for failing to add a note to the template page that I had done so. (Pinging Avicennasis and Iadmc.) Enterprisey (talk!) 02:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, then. From all appearances it seemed still abandoned. Nothing on the talk page and the documentation still linked to tool labs with a note about it being broken. If it's actually used (which it now seems it is) I will happily strike my nomination. I will wait for Iadmc to weigh in with any objections as well, before I speedy-keep this. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:42, 20 Tevet 5777 / 02:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem at all - I didn't tell anyone about the tool, nor did I link it from anywhere, so the nomination made perfect sense. I'm planning to import some historical data soon, which should make it a lot more useful. Thanks for the fast response! Enterprisey (talk!) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NKR Def Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GOJHL team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox danish local election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:22, 15 January 2017 (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 2017 January 23 Primefac (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Plume (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).