Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 21 December 23 >

December 22[edit]

Template:Empty-warn-deletion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2020 December 31. Primefac (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2020 (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:Spam-warn-deletion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2020 December 31. Primefac (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2020 (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:WIGGINS riders[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. Craig(talk) 21:47, 22 December 2020 (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:Hang Seng China-Affiliated Corporations Index[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The index itself is obsolete. The index company still publish the index methodology and constituent . But the function was largely replaced by Hang Seng China Enterprises Index. The media also interested to report Hang Seng China Enterprises Index and Hang Seng Index only. For tech point of view. The template was tagged for need update for the constituents since 2014, but seems no one to interested to update it. Thus, i don't saw any point to keep maintain this template for now non-notable index Matthew hk (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2020 (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:US tallest buildings lists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. NPASR if a different rationale is provided. Primefac (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of linked articles are being nominated/proposed for deletion SteveCof00 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SteveCof00 I'm confused what you mean in your nom, most of these seem to be existant articles? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nominator's claim does not seem to be true.Djflem (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2020 (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:Safura Alizadeh[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this once had more directly related articles, but it's down to one album and a song from the album and no longer adds any benefit to navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2020 (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:Colombo Kings roster[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, only used once. Should be substed and deleted Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has more watchers than the template will, so they are more likely to get vandalised as templates (as fewer people will be notified of the changes). And templates for one use is not the point of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But most IPs don't know tranclusion. And as a result, they wouldn't make unconstructive edits. Empire AS Talk! 18:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have informed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, as that is the central place for all cricket articles, and more than just LPL templates have been discussed here. The outcome may affect other cricket roster templates, so better to get the wider cricket consensus on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: This is the inaugural season of LPL and this template is updated every year according to their squad. SO, I don't think it should be deleted. Best regards! (Fade258 (talk))

  • Don't see how updating a template is easier than updating a table on an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete The main point of a template is that it's used multiple times. The arguments above for keeping these are extremely weak. Using template like this to reduce vandalism is not appropriate - there are other remedies. Nigej (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need. I know a solution and it has worked for some leagues. Human (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2020 (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:Timothy Freke[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason for such a template. David Biddulph (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ordinarily I would say "userfy" but as the draft it might be used in got rejected, no point in keeping it around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 06:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe speedy delete via WP:G2). – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I came across this via WP:THQ#question. It appears to have been made in good faith, but even if the draft it seems intended for is eventually accepted, I don't see how this template would be of any use. It's basically simple text, i.e. nothing that would require a template. So, I would also see it as a "test edit" made by a fairly new editor trying to figure Wikipedia out than as an attempt to create a viable template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If I had seen that, I probably would have tagged it as G2. --TheImaCow (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even G2 seems reasonable. Not intended as a template at all, and for an article on a person which has been repeatedly rejected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 0 transclusions in mainspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_22&oldid=1073153365"