Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 5

[edit]
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The result of the discussion was withdrawn (nac). Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, created in 2008. Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 5 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 August 13Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 13 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 delete per author. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Website is dead and no longer in use. No need to notify creator, I created the template. Carl Francis (talk) 18:46, 5 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 August 13Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:43, 13 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 August 13Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:43, 13 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 discussion was withdrawn by the nom. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 16:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXISTING -- These link to the main athletic articles, no season articles. Only links to one (1) article. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 16:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional. Fixed now. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:16, 5 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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is named Vallejo but most of the links are linked to Wink (band). Also, the template was originally named 33Miles. Should this template be deleted, or moved to the appropriate band? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 14:11, 5 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).

Roster templates

[edit]
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are for former teams, so a roster isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 13:37, 5 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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zero links MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 13:35, 5 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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. Links are either to parts of the article on him or links to articles that have nothing to do with him. Proud User (talk) 11:57, 5 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 wrong venue. (non-admin closure) MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 13:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection as secondary school in Malaysia means the user's age is between 13 years old to 17 years old. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. NgYShung huh? 05:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will be moving the discussion to WP:MFD. And also, I already noted that secondary school in Malaysia is between age 13 to age 17, its not the same secondary school in other countries. (Request for closing this discussion as wrong venue) NgYShung huh? 13:05, 6 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 delete per author. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created about 2 & 1/2 years ago, along with a number of other navigation templates for WikiProject United States courts and judges. This is the only template I am challenging. This court has never been used and as a result it does not maintain a website. No way to verify the current judges of the court, short of actually contacting a court information officer. I just removed a Judge from this template who had not heard ANY cases since 2014 and thus obviously no longer served on the court. Very likely, this template is out of date in other aspects and for the reason given above, keeping it up to date is not a simple matter. Due to the obscurity of this court and the fact it has never been used, the difficulties in maintaining this template far outweigh the very small utility it might provide. Safiel (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As said creator, this seems pretty fair. Support per above. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:43, 5 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).