Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 24

April 24

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 userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retsam nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and useless. 2.83.162.197 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2011 (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). 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) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ProjectNav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and useless. 2.83.162.197 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2011 (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). 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River Song chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Taking the unusual step of nominating a template I created for deletion. It was a nice idea, but I don't think it's going to work. Taking the latest episode ("The Impossible Astronaut"), River suggested that she will appear in a more-or less linear backwards way from her timeline, making this pretty much redundant. And these new episodes, although placed on the template by another user, are unclear whether they take place in River's timeline. I was wrong to assume we'd be able to place River in her personal timeline every time she appeared. U-Mos (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the time being anyway. It does Have a little bit of WP:OR involved at the moment. Perhaps when, or if, her storyline is brought to an end there will be a source (or more than one) that will allow you to recreate it with more accuracy. Thank you U-Mos for bringing this up. I hope that you are able to restore it down the road. The minute I heard those lines last night I was reminded of the way that Merlin is presented in T.H. White's The Once and Future King. MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't Doctor Who (in his future) identified as Merlin in a Seventh Doctor episode? Now it's River who's acting like Merlin? Coincidence? I say Delete and talk about the chronology in the River Song article.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the Seventh Doctor being called Merlin. It was in the story entitled Battlefield. Good job on the memory front. MarnetteD | Talk 01:14, 25 April 2011 (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). 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 speedy delete. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox 5linx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently spam Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 24 April 2011 (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). 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welsh National League Division One teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox containing links to non-notable football club articles. The only bluelinks in the article are currently in the process of being deleted. – PeeJay 17:49, 24 April 2011 (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). 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 userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User zionist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I understood that POV userboxes were consigned to userspace by community agreement. I'm nominating this for deletion, but without objection to it being userfied (if someone wants it) and the redirect deleted. Scott Mac 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep and move it to userpage space. (i'm in favor of giving my userpage for that matter if it helps.) --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.
Moving it back here would seem to be a good idea. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (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). 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. Deleted by author. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nocrap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

BITEY and unnecessary. We've got proper warning templates. Sure sometimes a sharp message is understandable, but it hardly needs a template. Scott Mac 15:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good lord. It's been five years since I wrote that. Really unnecessary, and in retrospect not the best idea; I've deleted it. DS (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (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). 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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Papua (Indonesian province) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{West Papua}}. {{West Papua}} is at a better name, so it should be kept. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2011 (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). 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 withdrawn Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thanthi group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only three working links this navigation template serves very little purpose which can't be easily served by inline wikilinks and see also sections. Muhandes (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear muhandes, I am in process of adding more pages related to this. In a week or so I would do it. also i had renamed the page by substituting caps G in Group--Mahizhini1977 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. for now, letting the editor populate it, while keeping watch. --Muhandes (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2011 (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). 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multidel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be largely deprecated in favor of {{Old AfD multi}}. I don't see this template serving any useful purposes that couldn't otherwise be served by the aforementioned template. At less than 500 transclusions it's not commonly used anymore, and it wouldn't be especially laborious to switch the rest to {{oldafdmulti}} if we needed to. elektrikSHOOS 03:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which deletion processes doesn't it support? elektrikSHOOS 05:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, anything that wasn't AfD. Only AfD links with "page", there's no option to select a deletion process for each entry. If it was changed to support all deletion processes equally, then it should be renamed oldxfdmulti. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably check again. It supports most any other discussion via parameters which allow you to specify custom links and/or captions for non-AFD processes (and DRV if necessary). You're right, the template title may be a bit misleading, but that's a separate discussion. elektrikSHOOS 22:45, 25 April 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.