Template:Max Palmerstone
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
should be in userspace since it's named after the creator Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't move it to the userspace. Won't be used for a better purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:30, 25 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:Infobox Vietnamese name 2
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's not clear where this is needed Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 23 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 merge to Template:Not a forum. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Off topic warning with Template:Not a forum.
Both templates, in their own words, warn against the use of an article talk page as a forum. While they are worded somewhat differently, the documentation doesn't explain when one or the other should be used. To me, they are similar enough to warrant consolidation. But, alternatively, if there is a worthwhile distinction to be made, I'm interested in properly documenting it. Bsherr (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I think both are mostly clutter with the short disclaimer at ((talk header)) being sufficient in essentially all cases I think just having one template would be better. At the risk of being overly distracting from the main discussion I just started Template talk:Not a forum#Remove a sentence to make the template more concise. --Trialpears (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose 'Off topic warning' serves to stop discussions that are appropriate for article talk pages, but are repeatedly being held on the wrong talk page (for example discussing a parent article in a daughter article, or a controversial peripheral article in a general article, etc.) The word "forum" there refers to a place for discussion in the most general sense. The 'Not a forum' template is to stop discussions that are not at all appropriate for article talk pages, and here, "forum" actually does refer to Message boards. What confuses matters here is that the 'Off topic warning' template uses the word "forum", when it should probably say something like "place for discussion". The two templates are not interchangeable as they serve to regulate different situations. The 'Off topic warning' template is more niche, and I suppose it provides comparatively less utility in its respective scope of application, but that doesn't indicate that it should be merged. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The language of the template doesn't suggest that discussions are occurring on the wrong article talk page, rather that the discussions are "non-article-related" and should be on user talk pages. The documentation also doesn't suggest that purpose. But if that is the purpose of this template, is that the exclusive purpose of this template? If not, are there certain uses that do overlap with "Not a forum", such that those uses can be replaced and the language of this template narrowed? --Bsherr (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Agree with Trialpears that neither are usually required. Consolidation is a good thing, though. No need for two unclear templates when one can do the same job with greater clarity. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge as I'm simply not seeing the need to have two templates addressing the same issue, though I agree that these are mostly just clutter redundant to the standard talk header and I would have no objections to deletion. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: With Template:Not a forum being the definitive version between the two. Curbon7 (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - the fewer of these talk page header notices, the better for everyone. These two are close enough that they can be merged (and rewritten anyway; neither are terribly clear). I also would have no objection to deletion. We probably only need one template that directs editors to our talk page guidelines. Levivich 02:14, 30 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 1. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 1 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:Culture of the Northern Mariana Islands
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful, only links to two pages. This implies a full series which sadly does not exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:42, 23 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:Culture of the Pitcairn Islands
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful, only links to two pages. This implies a full series which sadly does not exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:41, 23 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:Culture of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful, only links to two pages. This implies a full series which sadly does not exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:40, 23 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:Culture of the Cook Islands
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful, only links to three pages. This implies a full series which sadly does not exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 23 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:Culture of Christmas Island
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful, only links to three pages (with a lot of links to redirects to sections). This implies a full series which sadly does not exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 23 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:Syrian parliamentary election, 2007
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Information on the election results on the mainspace is more in-depth than the template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 29 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).
EditNotices on DAB pages (batch 2)
- 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 -FASTILY 01:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for deletion is identical to that in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 15#EditNotices on DAB pages (batch 1) and the earlier discussions linked there; namely, (1) unlinked and redlinked entries are permitted on DAB pages per WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRED, and (2) references are forbidden on DAB pages per WP:DABREF.
Trialpears has kindly offered to tag these templates with ((subst:Tfd)), which I am unable to do. Narky Blert (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, there needs to be a dab-cruft editnotice. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all there in WP:DDD, but that doesn't stop the determined. No notices will stop them from adding e.g. NN bands, alumni and residents to lists either. The community does a pretty good job of kicking those into Row Z (the legendary top tier in an association football stadium) once found. All that is needed is an acquaintance with WP:N, a short temper, and a degree of ruthlessness.
- On the other side of the coin, in one of the first nominations in this series, several editors had cheerfully ignored an Editnotices "Ominous Warning" and added valid DABentries. Narky Blert (talk) 18:53, 23 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).
EditNotices on DAB pages (batch 3)
- 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 -FASTILY 01:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for deletion is identical to that in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 15#EditNotices on DAB pages (batch 1) and the earlier discussions linked there; namely, (1) unlinked and redlinked entries are permitted on DAB pages per WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRED, and (2) references are forbidden on DAB pages per WP:DABREF.
Trialpears has kindly offered to tag these templates with ((subst:Tfd)), which I am unable to do.
The templates in batches 2 and 3 were all created by Alexf; who I am not notifying separately by ((subst:Tfd notice)), as they might not welcome another 57 notices on top of the 13 which accompanied batch 1.
This is the final batch. Narky Blert (talk) 12:08, 23 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).
Automotive Hall of Fame navboxs
- 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) 14:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Templates with majority text and few links. The mainspace template on the top is just a navbox to the templates from 1967 to 1996. The mainspace article doesn't have any of these templates and I'm not sure the Automotive Hall of Fame is notable enough to have its own templates for inductees similar to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I'm the creator of these. The page Automotive Hall of Fame already existed, and the award is cited by notable publications of the industry, like Autoweek, Automotive News, and Hemmings Motor News. A majority of the individual recipient pages already referenced the award being given to them, as do newspaper entries for these individuals. Regarding the majority text and few links comment, I think inductees are almost always linked but the other two awards tend to not have pages, so perhaps I can limit it down to just inductees only, if that's a concern for notability of the template.--Engineerchange (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Engineerchange, I think you should edit the mainspace article and add all inductees as part of a section of the article by each year. That's your best at this point. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saw there is a section for Hall of Fame members. So never mind about that. These templates still don't qualify under notability standards. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Re your comment, I do have this in draft mode - Draft:List of Automotive Hall of Fame inductees, but appreciate any feedback on guidelines here. As mentioned, inductees almost always have articles already and these articles have a link to the mainspace article about the HoF awards. What is the policy on notability of templates about awards? --Engineerchange (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One way notability is required is through credible sources. So the publications you provide are mainly about the auto industry/world. If you find something outside of that can work along with the auto industry sources, that can help for your draft article. But again, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a major event/award and honor for the inductees which is why each year there is a template for the inductees for that year. I don't think the Automotive Hall of Fame is all that well-known. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:38, 4 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) 13:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rock and Roll and Television Hall of Fame navboxes don't have the same issues as Automotive Hall of Fame navboxes. There already exists a section on the mainspace for the inductees. The Automotive Hall of Fame isn't as notable enough to have its own templates for inductees. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Trialpears (talk) 11:47, 23 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:BIG3 Champions
- 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) 14:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially an even more bloated recreation after prior TfD consensus to delete. Same creator. My prior rationale still holds: The BIG3, a fledgling 3x3 basketball league, has consistently been considered non-defining for bios, with previous discussions here and here being that the league is not worth mentioning in either the opening sentence or in infoboxes. As such, this is unnecessary per WP:TCREEP, which also states: "Just because a template can be created doesn't automatically mean that it should be.
" —Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination and previous discussions. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous consensus. Rikster2 (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see nothing wrong with having a template for championship teams better to have all included on a single template then have individual ones like other major sports do. Eerie Holiday (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no need for this to have been re-created. SportsGuy789 (talk) 04:02, 24 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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a future event that hasn't happened yet. Can be recreated when the time comes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:23, 23 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:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Third Round group tables
- 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 Withdrawn. --Trialpears (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
* Template:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Third Round group tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)[reply]
For a future event that hasn't happened yet. Can be recreated when the time comes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Draw will be held in 7 days from now. Not useful if it is deleted now, because new users visit the page every day to know the format of the groups. Footy2000 (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be kept because the draw will be held 7 days from now, so it isn't worth deleting. R3alPTg (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2021 (MMT)
- 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).