Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 15
| < January 14 | January 16 > |
|---|
January 15
[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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Pittsburgh Penguins first-round draft picks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
per previous template discussions this should be replaced by a succession box. Similar to NHL Number One Draft Picks currently at TFD. Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per much previous consensus that these templates were replaced with succession boxes. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete consensus is to replace such templates with succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Football player statistics
[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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete after substitution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Football player club statistics 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Football player club statistics 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Football player club statistics 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Football player club statistics 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Football player club statistics 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Football player national team statistics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Football player statistics 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Further to consensus of near-identical templates at this TFD from December 2012. GiantSnowman 14:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- delete after substitution. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This should be superfluous to any competently-linked article body: there are too few links for it to be worth using. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – It's a useful navigation template. Why should the article on Vocal fry register have a link in its body to Whistle register, or vice versa? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- That somewhat proves that these subjects are not strongly linked enough to warrant such prominent inclusion in articles as a sidebar template. Sidebars are significantly more prominent than navboxes, and we'd normally consider a navbox with so few links to be unnecessary. The vocal register article itself serves as a sufficient jump-off point for these topics should a reader be interested enough in them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- weak keep, seems useful since there is a well-defined ordering and connection between the subjects. Frietjes (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This is currently an orphaned Rail routemap template. A 2008 discussion on Talk:F Market & Wharves#Dropped the line diagram from the infobox indicates the three reasons why it was apparently removed from the article more than four years ago: it makes the infobox too long, it is misleading an inaccurate, and the article already has a map image. I am neutral on this particular consensus; my only concern is that the template has been orphaned since 2008 and thus should be deleted if it is no longer useful. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.