Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 19

April 19

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one use. subst: and delete. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:51, 19 April 2017 (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 2017 April 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (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 2017 April 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (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 2017 April 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (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 2017 April 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN, only four links. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:25, 19 April 2017 (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 2017 April 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:23, 29 April 2017 (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 Speedy Delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template dependent on an article that has been deleted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (3rd nomination)). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:40, 19 April 2017 (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 2017 April 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:24, 29 April 2017 (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 2017 April 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:24, 29 April 2017 (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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary and redundant template article. There are two Headhunter games: Headhunter (video game) and Headhunter Redemption. Wikipedia guidelines stats that only a primary article is made when there's 3 video game articles in a series and an unrelated video game or media item. This doesn't seem to fall under that per WP:NCVG. Neverrainy (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2017 (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. No further opposition. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination following the closing of this AFD. The articles these templates were used on are now deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note: only {{isotope list}} has been relisted. Its subpages (nominated here) received no opposition to deletion. I'm relisting this in order to potentially address the ACCESS concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is still a delete for me. {{Isotope list}}, is unused. If there are accessibility concerns with the periodic table format, then that template should be improved with alt texts or whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. If someone is searching for isotope data tables then they known what the symbol for silver is. Also, they can use the full name in the search box. @Primefac: What about Template:Isolist and its subpages (Template:Isolist/m, Template:Isolist/ms/3i, etc), which Headbomb also tagged for deletion? Also used only in the now deleted article. Laurdecl talk 02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Laurdecl, I thought they were deleted; the script must have missed them. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2017 (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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

/subst. Only used in one article--no need to be a separate document. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments on the Zambia template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 29. Basically, with a big piece of code like this template, segregating the code onto a separate page reduces the risk of accidental damage to the page. Nobody needs to edit this code in normal circumstances, and in the rare situation such as this where you have lots of complicated code whose modification will make a mess without being obvious when you look at the code, we should ensure that it's not edited by anyone who's not meaning to edit it. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2017 (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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LTA userpage tag that never caught on. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:27, 19 April 2017 (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).