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).
Delete Synderverse is a pop culture phrase/term. Not deserving of it's own template especially when there already is a DC Extended Universe template and a template for Zack Snyder. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think having a navigation template named after something like the Synderverse is incorrect. It passes the rule of 5 and the scope is very clear. However, my issue with this template is that it duplicates a lot of the information found in ((DC Extended Universe)). There is no need for two templates that overlap like that. --Gonnym (talk) 15:24, 20 June 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:Book-prod
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).
Book prod has been marked historical. Since tags for historical deletion processes have been kept in the past I do not consider this a G6 although I don't see any good reason to keep this around and introduce confusion as to whether it is in use. --Trialpears (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this process, and indeed the Book: namespace itself, have been marked as historical and therefore these templates serve no purpose. Unlike ((db-x1)) et al. I can’t see any reason why deleting these could cause confusion. firefly ( t · c ) 20:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as done. The namespace is going to be deleted soon and there is no point for any of these templates to stick around. Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reason to keep this around as books are long dead lomrjyo(talk•contrib) 23:32, 22 June 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).
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).
An obscure winning team of the Temple Cup. There shouldn't be a roster navbox for a pre-World Series-winning team as they are none for the teams that won the Dauvray Cup and Chronicle-Telegraph Cup. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a reason to close this Tfd. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the policy: If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally do not", not actually don't do so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep was the top level competition for the National League at the time. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, whether or not it was a major competition, this template isn't as notable for teams that have won the World Series. There isn't a template for the 1896 and 1897 Baltimore Orioles teams that won. And this template is not used on the Temple Cup mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:36, 21 June 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).
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).
Remains unused and this team won an obscure award, the Temple Cup, that is largely unknown largely in the Baseball world. There shouldn't be a roster navbox for a pre-World Serie-winning team as they are none for the teams that won the Dauvray Cup and Chronicle-Telegraph Cup. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a reason to close this Tfd. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the policy: If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally do not", not actually don't do so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep, was the top level competition for the National League at the time. Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, whether or not it was a major competition, this template isn't as notable for teams that have won the World Series. There isn't a template for the 1896 and 1897 Baltimore Orioles teams that won. And this template is not used on the Temple Cup mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:36, 21 June 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:Memorial Tournament honorees
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) 03:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template for winners of an non-notable award without an article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as template creator, see Memorial Tournament for details and history. Jack Nicklaus initiated this coveted yearly honor and its physical site which compares with the golf hall of fame (and is harder to get into) as the centerpiece of his near-major yearly PGA tournament at his Muirfield golf course. The induction ceremony is broadcast yearly, and on a quick search there are many articles about the who, what, and wheres for the honor, its yearly honorees and, for living honorees, their respect for the award and induction. A stand-alone article could be written as this is one of the major golf awards in terms of hall-of-fame type honors, but it is included within the Memorial Tournament page as the tournament is named for the honor itself, its sculpture-like outdoor monument garden which includes a mounted plaque for each of the 79 honorees, and for the time of year it is played. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. This is just navbox clutter. Creator is grossly overstating the honors significance (and that of the tournament), with the one line of prose we have in the tournament article adequately covering it. Any mentions of the honorees are almost all limited to trivial passing mentions in articles about the tournament. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, as Jack Nicklaus' tournament was designed to be a major and ended up on the second tier with the Player's Championship. The award is an honored award among golf professionals, and has near Hall-of-Fame status as an honor due to Nicklaus' vision of creating it in 1976 along with the tournament named after it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Designed to be" is a huge leap away from actually being. It is patently obvious that it is neither on a par with either the Majors, or The Players, or the WGCs. It stands below all of them as a tournament that the leading players are more than willing to miss (edit: evidenced by only 28 of the top 50 playing this week). Any claim to the contrary simply doesn't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and a three-putt. The template is about the Memorial honorees, not the tournament. An honor universally respected in the golf world. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The wider golfing world takes very little notice. Trying to elevate this to the level of the HoF is frankly ridiculous; some of the claims here would be worthy of the Memorial PR department (but they know better). In any case, this discussion is about the template, which provides navigation to articles with a connection that almost no-one is aware of, and even less would be interested in browsing. Therefore it's usefulness is practically non-existent and it is just more TCREEP on pages with an abundance of navboxes already. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus all-time best golfer creates a semi-major tournament, principally centers it around honoring individuals who have excelled at the game of golf, and holds a yearly induction ceremony where living inductees receive the honor and plaques are placed and dedicated within an impressive and dignified outdoor hall of fame-like structure, seems template worthy to me. Although not the golf hall of fame it certainly is the next best thing, and your estimation of the award's prestige among golfers, and colorful description of the unworthiness of recognizing such a thing, would make Moe Norman flinch and hit one into the rough. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In what way is this not a notable award? The mainspace article meets notability requirements and there is no way this counts as a cluttered navbox. This nomination is ridiculous. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The mainspace article is about the tournament, not the award/honor; there is just one line about the award/honor along with a list of recipients. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A notable tournament that has an award, thus this is still notable. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is certainly true is that the award is underplayed in the Memorial Tournament page, which is inconsistent with some pretty good sources. It should be expanded accordingly, and full out its own section. Maybe more eyes and interest from the golf wikiproject would assist in improving the page as regards the award that the tournament is named after. But that lack of Wikipedia emphasis aside, the honor of being a Memorial Tournament honoree, in the eyes of the honorees and their respect for Jack Nicklaus, remains consistent. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Seems pretty niche information to me. I would even question as to why we have the list of honorees in the winners tables. When adding 2021 into that table recently, I tried to look up who was this year's honorees. A non-mainstream source was where I found them simply claiming they were 'the same as last year'. Would suggest it's not really a hot topic on many people's agenda. Jimmymci234 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By saying that the honorees should maybe be removed from the winners table is not taking into account that the honorees are the purpose of the Memorial. Nicklaus wanted to create a standing memorial in his hometown for those who have exceled in the sport, and he did so by building a tournament around it. May not be a hot topic to many people, but it surely is in the golf world. The only problem, Moe Norman has yet to be inducted! Randy Kryn (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not defining. No one says "Memorial Tournament honoree Nick Price" (or whatever). Happy to have a list of winners but this template seems too much IMO. Nigej (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Search engine results for the term 'Memorial Tournament honoree Nick Price. The award is defining as the tournament itself is named to center on that year's honorees. If Joe Smo had organized the tournament and created the yearly honor you may have a point, but this award and tournament were created by Jack Nicklaus, the consensus greatest golf professional of all time. That Nicklaus is so involved in the history of this award and its physical garden-with-plaques in Ohio is what makes it notable towards the career achievements of each of the awardees. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 28 June 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).
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 relisted on 2021 July 6. Izno (talk) 03:54, 6 July 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).
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) 17:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template is unnecessary. Accusations of paid editing should be addressed immediately through the reporting process detailed in the Paid-contribution disclosure policy. I think one non-escalating warning should be enough. And even then, I'm not sure if a templated warning is ideal. Serious allegations should be substantiated with evidence, not boilerplate text.
Another problem with this template is that it misrepresents policy. The template states, "You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing." As far as I'm aware, there is no requirement that editors disavow claims of paid editing, and the arbitrary demand that editors cease all editing to address allegations of paid editing is not supported by policy either. Schierbecker (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Schierbecker, why have you not nominated the level 2 and 3 templates, as well? ― Tartan357Talk 09:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This TfD is kind of my trial balloon for the others in the series. I would like to hear some others' opinions before I proceed with any more. Schierbecker (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Schierbecker, I suggest you add the level 2 and 3 since or perhaps level one since they are pretty much the same as Uw-paid4. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For many years all we had was the milquetoast language at WP:COI "strongly" recommending editors with a COI disclose their conflict of interest (notwithstanding the fact that many editors have taken to treating its recommendations as mandatory). Finally, when the Terms of Use were updated to require mandatory paid editing disclosure, we actually had a policy mandate (and added WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY to WP:COI)
Great! Those with a financial connection in their edits must disclose that connection. Now what? We have some non-self-executing words, somewhere (that are to this day ignored by the vast majority of paid editors – thousands of non-conforming edits every day).
This template series is essentially the only pragmatic enforcement mechanism we have. Users must disclose; many don't; they make edits that only an insider ever would; we ask them to respond to an inquiry as to whether they have a financial connection (editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative and to respond to good-faith questions); we explain that it's mandatory; point them to the TOU and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; and give explicit, spoonfed instructions on how to disclose so they can actually comply easily—telling them about ((paid)) and its parameters, and where it can be posted. They ignore it and continue making edits, so we ask them to respond again, and escalate just like any warning series.
There is no other way to enforce mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements which, by its very nature, requires we ask based on behavior, and act accordingly. I have never seen and can think of no alternative to this template series to give the policy its due. Or shall we just leave it as an inoperative footnote?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A template series that overstates the presumption of guilt is no better. I can think of no internal sanctioning process that presumes guilt when the accused editor refuses to participate in the fact-finding process. The burden of proof falls on the editor making the accusation of paid editing. Unanswered paid-editing inquiries should be escalated through designated channels if there is evidence to support the claim. Schierbecker (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - use of this template is tracked using ((z162)) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, conventionally, users behaving in a manner that may suggest paid editing and not addressing claims of such can often result in blocks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (at least down to level 2, although it better have another discussion). We do not go, or should not go, out threatening and banning users just because one (couple) of admins / users did not get a reply to a question. - Nabla (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm leery of anything that seems like it might make undisclosed paid editing harder to detect, report, warn about, or act upon. Concerns about the presumption of innocence seem, to me, a bit beside the point when talking about a level 4 warning template; those get applied when serious grounds for concern exist. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would honestly expect uw-paid to be a 4im notice or warning template roughly equivalent to paid1, not an escalating series. Once you're past the first one, really what you care about is the fact that they're violating some other policy such as NPOV. --Izno (talk) 03:37, 6 July 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:A26 road
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) 03:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still unused. If it becomes used by the end of the week, replace to keep. Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 20 June 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).
Multiple Planck unit templates
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).
Proposed deletion. Misguided templates and redirects to them; unnecessarily cluttered articles they were used in (Planck's natural units and its redirects) or not appropriate as a template (Base Planck units and its redirect); not used since I removed all mainspace transclusions. —Quondum 02:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The instance of Template:Base Planck units in the Planck units article has already been substituted, while Template:Planck's natural units now links only 2 articles, too small for a navbox, after the other Planck units were deleted or redirected. I removed the redirects from the nomination because they will be deleted per G8 if the templates are deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needless in both cases. The former is too small to be a useful navbox, and the latter is the sort of thing that shouldn't be a template in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 23:19, 21 June 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).