Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 26

< January 25	January 27 >

January 26

Template:Cities in Azerbaijan

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 redirect to {{Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan}}, as there is a small precedent for such redirects to exist. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities in Azerbaijan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unreliable template with links to towns, a ghost towns, a disambiguation page, a rayon. The Banner talk 23:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Changed to delete (see below). Not a reason for deletion, please see WP:SOFIXIT. Anyway, I've done your work for you and fixed it. However, this template is not transcluded in any articles, and that is potentially a reason for deletion, except that it's easy enough simply to add the template to all the articles it lists. ~~@Sondrion:, can you do that, please?~~ --NSH002 (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not going to clean up other peoples mess. And certainly not in an area with active ARbCom-restrictions. The OP should have checked his links in the first place. The Banner talk 18:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3 as redundant to {{Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have check for redundancy. (As an aside, it's always struck me as odd that T3 takes the same time as a TfD, at least for obvious, clear-cut cases). However, the point I made about an invalid reason for deletion still stands. --NSH002 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Now that I have seen, that all the cities and towns are indeed listed in {{Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan}} which I have overlooked, you can redirect this template to that template or delete it - whichever method the administrators see fit to choose. --Sondrion (talk) 11:17, 30 January 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).

Template:Fact-now

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. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fact-now (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The exact same functionality can be implemented with {{subst:citation needed}}, as that template is unsubstified. Ppp ery 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If {{cn}} is inserted without a date, a bot very quickly adds an accurate date parameter. Typing "subst:fact-now" seems like a lot of extra typing for no apparent benefit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The bot's edit just adds clutter to the edit history and it's nice to have a way to insert the date without having to type the full {{cn|date = 28 January 2017}}, even if it's only a little bit shorter. – Uanfala (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uanfala: Which I provided in my nom: {{subst:cn}} auto-dates it. Pppery 14:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I see – thank you for pointing this out – I should have noticed it in the first place. Rescinding my keep !vote as fact-now has no value as a shortcut then. – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete/superseded/redundant. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:14, 29 January 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).

Template:Performance art

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 February 12 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Performance art (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Events at the 2016 ASEAN School Games

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; deleted as G8 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Events at the 2016 ASEAN School Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As with the 2014 and 2015 version - individual events were deleted after AfD - just redlinks now Peter Rehse (talk) 11:15, 26 January 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).

Template:Stella image

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. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stella image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons under {{Stella image}} FASTILY 06:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not needed here. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for it here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused --Tom (LT) 00:22, 5 February 2017 (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).

Template:Flickr

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. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused file description template, replaceable by {{Information}} FASTILY 06:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused --Tom (LT) 00:22, 5 February 2017 (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).

Template:South Florida Expressway

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. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Florida Expressway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here. Rs chen 7754 04:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete–per precedent. Imzadi 1979 → 12:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per past precedent. Dough4872 14:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 26 January 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).

Template:Curcuminoid

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 Keep. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to Category:Curcuminoids. Not useful for helping users move between topics. WP:NENAN also applies. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It appears to meet the five criteria listed in the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. I just expanded the Bisdemethoxycurcumin article and will likely do the same for Desmethoxycurcumin if no one gets there first. Also WP:NENAN is merely an essay (and has been wielded too often as a blunt instrument in my opinion). Mojoworker (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now. Quicker navigation than category, and could be improved significantly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Rich Farmbrough. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nice coherent navbox that satisfies all the conditions in WP:NAVBOX. --NSH001 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 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).