Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 21

September 21

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 Delete with no prejudice against recreation or undeletion if a majority of the season links contained in this template are created. ~ RobTalk 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template JMHamo (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, or userfy until more team articles are written for this conference season. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment right now, this should be added to the Louisville season for that year, so that it's not a completely unused template. Given that several other teams in this defunct conference are prominent programs, I think it's safe to say that the season pages will exist over the short to medium term. If kept, the template needs some serious cleanup. Billcasey905 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that it is safe to say that the other Metro programs from the 1985–86 season will be created, unless you plan to. Only two other teams made the NCAA tournament that year and the articles haven't been created to this point. The Louisville article is a special case because they won the title (which is why it was created in 2009). Rikster2 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2015 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grave-dancing template mostly used on user pages or user-talk pages. Recent consensus was to delete the similar {{Banrevert}}. Only 149 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to note is its documentation;
"This template is not intended to be placed on the user or talk pages of all banned users. It is intended to be used only when ban evasion through sockpuppetry is discovered. Its purpose is to remind the banned user that they are banned regardless of what identity they may choose to try and use to evade the ban, and to inform other users that this user was banned under another identity and that therefore any and all contributions by them may be reverted or deleted without further cause. If found being used outside of these limited circumstances it should be removed."

Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But on the list of things likely to make a socking user stop socking, a template reminding them of the banning policy is somewhere between "interpretive dance" and "singing telegram". Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe something that will persuade a banned editor from gaming the system like this is the thought that everything they have done (good, bad or indifferent) is going to be shredded when they get found out. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the reasons for the objection, but I think Xyl 54's argument has merit--it is an alert to others. Looking at the "only" 149 transclusions, I think it very much belongs on at least some of these pages. That's about the right number of appropriate uses. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 23 October 2015 (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. 1) There is no expectation that a defunct wikiproject should be deleted at all, much less before its components are; and 2) there is some disagreement in the larger series of defunct project template TfDs about whether to delete or merely mark them inactive, but while topic-oriented wikiprojects may return to activity, this one is particularly unlikely to reanimate itself and make retention of the template worthwhile. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template for a project whose last activity was in 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 21 September 2015 (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).