Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 December 25

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) 16:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. Does not really create a template, just lets you know if the link exists or not. Gonnym (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2019 (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) 16:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly redlinks and otherwise redundant to {{Wallace and Gromit}}. 98.230.196.188 (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2019 (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) 16:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Its own content can be typed out by a keyboard by placing <nowiki>~~~~~ </nowiki>. -- Bank Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 10:49, 25 December 2019 (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) 16:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Its own content can be typed out by a keyboard by placing <nowiki>~~~ </nowiki>. -- Bank Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 10:48, 25 December 2019 (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) 16:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Its own content can be typed out by a keyboard by placing <nowiki>~~ </nowiki>. -- Bank Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 10:48, 25 December 2019 (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) 16:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Its own content can be typed out by a keyboard by placing <nowiki>~ </nowiki>. -- Bank Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 10:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this and all similar templates nominated above. Like other character-substitution templates, this one is used for escaping special wikicode characters. This one is much less likely to be used than say {{3~}}, but its existence is reasonable to expect as it's part of a series. And I find it surprising that there's a suggestion to force people to always use <nowiki></nowiki> tags instead: these are really cumbersome to type and they make the code less readable. – Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator of these has been CU-blocked. I was wondering why we need separate ones for all of these rather than just using {{~|5}} for example, though. I guess people expect the others to be around, but it just seems like the wrong way of setting it up in the first place. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a discussion in which I wasn't involved, I'd close all as speedy keep, without tagging the talk pages. – Uanfala (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2019 (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) 16:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Its own content can be typed out by a keyboard by placing <nowiki>~~~~ </nowiki>. -- Bank Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 10:44, 25 December 2019 (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 redirect to Template:Uw-vandalism1. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Uw-vandalism0 with Template:Uw-vandalism1.
Even though this template has gone through a deletion discussion in 2013, and the result was keep - the discussion that took place was over six years ago. I don't know of any user or bot who still uses this template in 2019 or 2020 and thus the template is likely to be deprecated. Almost all Wikipedia users and bots (including me) use Template:Uw-vandalism1 instead of Template:Uw-vandalism0. Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 01:27, 25 December 2019 (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) 16:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only one link still works. Template no longer serves a navigational purpose as a result. Hog Farm (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a link to First Age#Battles, but there is still no justification for keeping the campaign box. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 29 December 2019 (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) 16:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Navalranks with Template:Military ranks.
Seems redundant. However, feedback would be welcome on how to deal with the sections and their headings of the merging template. PPEMES (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 25 December 2019 (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) 16:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently empty. Not sure if it would add something to Template:Vertical Maya. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 25 December 2019 (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).