December 9
Template:Semi-orphan
- 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 G7 by Tom harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is not and never has been any such thing as a "semi-orphan" on Wikipedia, and introducing such a thing would be a massive cultural shift which at the very least would require a full-fledged RFC (which would almost certainly be resoundingly defeated). Assuming the intention behind this is something along the lines of "three or fewer incoming links, disregarding links from within navboxes" this would encompass a huge swathe of Wikipedia, including a sizeable proportion of featured articles. ‑ Iridescent 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is meant to replace the "few" parameter of ((orphan)); I will move it to a better title. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody should be using the |few= parameter on en-wiki, as it's an artefact left over from a long-abandoned notion from Nupedia days that all articles should have at least three incoming links; every time it's ever come up for discussion (most recently here) consensus has overwhelmingly been against expanding the definition of "orphan" from the existing "only place the ((Orphan)) tag if the article has zero incoming links from other articles" (in big bold letters on WP:ORPHAN, so it's not as if it's hidden). ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I will change the template to remove the ambox-Orphan CSS class. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2016 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine small battle units
- 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient navigation: only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2016 (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:Id Software file formats
- 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 2016 December 17 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:12, 17 December 2016 (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:Cc-by-sa-2.0-be
- 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) 17:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused image licensing template. ~ Rob13Talk 06:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's a permissible license, and it has been used in the past. --Carnildo (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2016 (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).
Radio stations
- 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) 01:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Every station link just goes to the same station in each of these. ~ Rob13Talk 18:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as format templates can be sorted 3 ways (call, frequency, community of license); station formats are fluid, so stations get moved from one template to another as their format changes; other formats have templates with translators too, and each represents a different way of hearing said station/format.Stereorock (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: For example, the Maine template used to have more stations with the W-Bach network, each a fully-licensed station. A station could flip into the classical format at any time.Stereorock (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: WCVT in the Vt. list flipped from Classical, but VPR operates a Classical network, which has been listed & there are several different stations in the network with their own pages.Stereorock (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An unused navbox with only 1-2 links does nobody any good. If a list of stations is desired, it can be added directly to the article. As a side note, we shouldn't be using navboxes to link to other unused navboxes, which is currently how they're being used. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. a better idea would be to create subcategories for Category:Classical music radio stations in the United States, and link there as needed. or, create a list article. Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2016 (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:Yugoslavia squad - 1967 FIBA World Championship for Women
- 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, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
unused, non-notable squad Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Should not be deleted for a reason because it connects the article of the players that are this year played for the national team. — Nn94 14 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nn94 14, why is a 6th place squad notable? Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Frietjes:, for example there is this template about men's national team of Germany at FIBA World Cup played 2010 when it is Germany finished at 17th place? This and similar templates is was not disputed existence. Whether it is 17th place significant than 6th place? Did the men more significant than women? What is the problem to the template was deleted? — Nn94 14 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nn94 14, the Template:Germany Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship should be deleted as well, along with all non-championship winning squad templates. as a female, I will ignore your attempts to assert gender bias in my nomination. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per long-standing consensus to not maintain non-notable squad templates for non-winning/significant squads. This is unused because it doesn't define any of the players in the navbox. ~ Rob13Talk 19:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2016 (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:Slovenia Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship
- 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 2016 December 29 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2016 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 215th ID
- 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 ~ Rob13Talk 11:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template contains one entry K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2016 (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:KCwithOL
- 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 ~ Rob13Talk 11:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:NAV
- "Templates should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value" -- this template links over 800 articles, which is excessive
- "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles" -- the articles are not related apart from the subjects having received the same award.
This template replicates "Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves" and is unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2016 (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:Unblock request declined
- 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 Unblock request declined Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Unblock request declined with Template:Unblock reviewed.
This is just a hard-coded instance of ((Unblock reviewed)). The syntax required for both are literally identical, though, and this is meant to be substitute-only. It's not clear why we need this. ~ Rob13Talk 04:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I too can't see any reason for having this. However, I really don't see "I can't see a reason for having both" as a reason for getting rid of one of them. If they both do the same thing, what harm is done by keeping them both? And it is just possible that there actually is some advantage in having both, that neither you nor I have thought of. (There is probably no point in trying to ask the editor who created the second version, as he has not edited for over two years, and the template was created about five years ago.) Most probably it will make no difference whatever whether we merge them or not, but in the absence of any benefit to be gained by merging, we may as well leave things as they are. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as a pointless wrapper template Pppery 20:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC) (edited: 02:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- Question Just as ((Unblock request declined)) is a hard-coded instance of ((Unblock reviewed)) with the
|decline= parameter selected, the template ((Unblocked)) is a hard-coded instance of ((Unblock reviewed)) with the |accept= parameter selected. If the latter is so useful as a shortcut/mnemonic that it isn't being considered for merging, then why isn't the former? --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Contrary to the nominator's assertion, the syntax of the two templates is not identical, literally or otherwise. ((Unblock request declined)) does not allow an
|accept= parameter, for obvious reasons. If you redirect it, you then enable the possibility of making that mistake. In what way could that be considered an improvement? --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like an unlikely mistake to add a parameter you don't want, whose name describes it pretty well. Pppery 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Errare humanum est - why make it easier to make even unlikely mistakes when there's nothing to gain from a merge? --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting on the above keep rationale, ((Unblocked)) would be a likely follow-up nomination. If an administrator is so incompetent that they decide to use the ((Unblock request declined)) template but accidentally (how?!) use the accept parameter instead, they've likely already botched things by failing to supply a decline rationale. Additionally, they shouldn't be an administrator with that level of incompetence. Meanwhile, while this hypothetical but entirely implausible error is being mentioned as a rationale to keep, we have actual real errors occurring. Administrators using this template are not substituting it despite it being a subst-only template. (Note that WP:T3 borderline applies to this template in any event, although I didn't consider it appropriate given the transclusions.) ~ Rob13Talk 22:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "declined" is just a hard-coded instance of "reviewed", and Rob's arguments re: mistakes are perfectly valid. Rexx's concern about mis-typing a response is rather odd, given how many mistakes would have to be made to create the error mentioned. I don't think a redirect is necessary, given that it could cause confusion (i.e. someone using a redirect ((unblock request declined)) might forget to put in the decline reason), but I certainly think the "declined" variant doesn't need to exist in its current form. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- delete the declined template as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2016 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the Feldherrnhalle units
- 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 ~ Rob13Talk 11:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template contains three entries two of which are redirects to a list K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2016 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the FPD 2
- 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 ~ Rob13Talk 11:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template contains one entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2016 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the Luftwaffe reconnaissance force
- 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 ~ Rob13Talk 11:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template contains one entry K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2016 (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).