December 24
Template:Infobox NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament (1999-Present)
- 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2015 (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:Euro Digital Songs
- 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. BethNaught (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused for some time. Inclusions here have since been deleted. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:50, 24 December 2015 (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:Coinco
- 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. BethNaught (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
superfluous - navigation between two articles failing WP:GNG and a redlink. Widefox; talk 10:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, nearly pointless. Frietjes (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pointless and unlikely to see future use. APerson (talk!) 19:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has only two links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 29 December 2015 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template is being used to in effect deface thousands of articles. Being underlinked is not a big deal to justify the use of such a conspicuous template. Concerned editors could take just a minute and Wikipedia:So fix it themselves. Finally, Underlinked template is often used in conjunction with other templates, contributing to the annoying "multiple issues" message readers see all over the site.[1] – Gilliam (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified WT:Twinkle and WT:AutoWikiBrowser as mentioned on the template page. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not like the expression "deface". Wikipedia is always under construction. - Magioladitis (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a very valuable template which is currently used in almost 20,000 articles, allowing interested editors to go through and add additional links to the text of these articles which have been identified as needing this work. The reason it is often used in conjunction with other templates is, in my mind, because Template:Wikify is no longer in use. Often, people will add large blocks of unformatted plain text to Wikipedia, and such text will have multiple issues needing attention, for example, needing copy-editing and being underlinked.
It is a pity that we now have a proliferation of maintenance tags instead of the SOFIXIT culture of the past, but that is simply a reflection of the sheer volume of new and expanded articles that patrollers have to deal with, and is not a reason to delete an individual maintenance tag. You do raise some good points, and a discussion or RFC regarding maintenance tagging in general might be worthwhile if you are interested. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikilinks are an integral part of Wikipedia; they provide readers with context to aid their understanding of a subject, and help bind the whole encyclopedia together. An underlinked article is a problem that needs to be fixed, and a template that alerts editors to this problem is entirely appropriate. It does annoy me that AWB automatically adds this tag to any article with less than three wikilinks, but as noted above, that's a not a good reason to delete the template. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for letting me know AWB does that. It seems abusurd this is "underlinked" warranting the ugly box, while (merely by linking the word California) this is acceptable.– Gilliam (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We need to fix the semiautomated/automated processes that add this tag using metrics that don't justify its placement in many cases. Also, perhaps tools like Twinkle could possibly disallow its placement in articles where it doesn't make sense, based on smarter metrics. I think it's a useful tag, though. It takes a lot more time to fix problems in articles than to mark them for necessary work, and this applies to a lot of issues we run across. As far as "defacing" is concerned, that is a problem with tags in general, not this one in particular. If another way to tag articles is found that has less of a defacing effect, let's have a community discussion about that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per editors above. stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 08:23, 28 December 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 16:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty slim on content and we don't usually have footers for actors by film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is very little in this template. Does this person's article even meet WP:NACTOR? Cocoaguy ここがいい 07:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really unnecessary navbox for the limited number of marginally related articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent and longstanding consensus not to have actor filmography navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2015 (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:Miss World America state
- 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 07:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox without links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, this template is completely unpopulated and does not look like it will get any good links for a while. Cocoaguy ここがいい 07:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an easy discussion. Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2015 (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).