Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 7

< June 6	June 8 >

June 7

Template:Casey Darnell

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 relisted on 2014 June 28 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:46, 28 June 2014 (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.

Template:R from subtopic without possibilities

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 relisted on 2014 June 28 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 28 June 2014 (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.

Template:Bayer 04 Leverkusen II squad

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) 22:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bayer 04 Leverkusen II squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bayer Leverkusen's reserve team has been disbanded. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - do you have a source for that claim? The article does not reflect the fact that it is a defunct team. Giant Snowman 17:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/regionalliga/rlw/603269/artikel_bayer-geht-kuenftig-ohne-reserve-an-den-start.html ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(the article needs updating, but given that without the current stuff it's almost a blank page, it needs work) ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a defunct club does not need a 'current squad' template. Giant Snowman 17:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as template is arguably now redundant (and definitely will be as of the new season). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2014 (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.

Template:International table tennis

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, no objections, and not in use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International table tennis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superfluous to {{Table tennis}}, which is the template already in use for this purpose. SFB 12:06, 7 June 2014 (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.

Template:PDNM

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) 22:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough articles to justify such a template. This is someones YouTube channels, not News Corporation. Alizaa2 (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some modifications to DeFranco's article, as well as the creation of the stand-alone Phil DeFranco Networks & Merchandise article are sufficient enough to keep this template as they branch out and link to a comfortable number of articles (such as The PDS, SourceFed) Soulbust (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2014 (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.

Template:India document comparison

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 moved to Comparison of identification documents used in India and redirected. If anyone wants to history merge it with something, go right ahead. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India document comparison (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not an deletion discussion, but a merge to article discussion.

While removing various external links and WP:NOTHOWTO things from Permanent account number, I noticed that this template was transcluded into the subsection Permanent account number#Process comparison: Aadhaar, passport, driving license and PAN. The template is not a standard navigation/informational template transcluded into multiple articles, but is instead being used as a sub-page of the parent article that does not stand alone by itself. So I am proposing this content be merged back into the parent article and the template deleted. The template has a fairly extensive edit history, so the history will need to be merged into the parent article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete this is an entire article section masquerading as a template, and a single use template. This obfuscates article coding and hides where information is located, making it hard to edit for regular nontemplate editors. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK by me~~ – When I created the template, it was because the info had been copied into 3 or 4 articles, and the copies all needed work. That was unmaintainable. Now it looks like it's only in one article, so substing it there would be fine. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dicklyon, this template is used by other articles. Many future articles will also use. Aadhaar article uses it. Soon Aadhaar will be restored from disruptive editing. Some vested interset do not want it due to political motivation and pro-corruption practices in India. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, yes, I see there are 3 transclusions. Substing would then be a bad move, causing maintenance problem. Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: @Ravishyam Bangalore: As noted in the nomination, there is only one transclusion in the article namespace. The other two transclusions are in the talk of Aadhaar and the user talk of Ravishyam Bangalore. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I understand why Dicklyon created this, but the problem here is that the content that leads in to this template is just soapboxing for the Aadhar card, we've been having this problem of spamming the Aadhar card across multiple articles, especially when it doesn't belong here. This content does not belong in any of the individual articles. If an article on various identity cards in India exists (and I don't know if it does), then it could be substd there before deletion, but it doesn't belong in the article that it's part of now. —SpacemanSpiff 13:49, 13 June 2014 (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.