- 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 2023 August 6. Izno (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2023 (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(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 keep. ✗plicit 06:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant duck tags, excessive loud quacking doesn't take the matter of socking seriously, no need for this tag when a regular duck tag will do. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, widely used at SPI, more than 1,300 transclusions. I don't think "this template is slightly humorous" is a good reason to delete a template, especially when it's used exclusively in behind the scenes areas. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @192.76.8.66: Could be deleted and make a redirect to other duck templates.--Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doesn't seem like a solid deletion rationale for a widely used template on SPI cases. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I created this 13 years ago (jeez, has it been that long - the worst thing this nom did is make me feel old...) after someone made this comment in SPI and it seemed relevant/humorous. There's nothing wrong with a bit of humor and typically this is used in situations where a DUCK is blatantly obvious, so it does convey meaning. Rationale is weak and not rooted in policy. I'll note nom is an inexperienced editor who created a bunch of TFD noms in this space, but as always this nom should be taken on its merits... NativeForeigner Talk 02:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Liz and NativeForeigner. Pretty poor nomination rationale, no solid reason for deletion. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Per what I said at the concurrent TfD nomination for the 8-ball template. Kurtis (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2023 (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(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 keep. ✗plicit 06:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need to make it into any fun little game with the CU tool, just simply say confirmed, or not confirmed, magic 8-ball game is pointless. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You have made 40 edits, and not only are you familiar with sockpuppet investigations, and not only are you familiar with the use of their casepages, but you are familiar enough to have strong opinions on the internal templates that CheckUsers use to comment on these casepages? jp×g 08:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, used at SPI, nearly 600 transclusions, "this template is not serious enough" is not a good reason for deletion of internal project templates, and the nominator doesn't appear to have grasped that this is a reference to the WP:MAGIC8BALL part of checkuser policy. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @192.76.8.66: Could be deleted and make a redirect to other CU templates.--Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's strange for a relatively inexperienced editor to be nominating templates for deletion at TFD. I see no reason to delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Perfectly harmless template. The last thing Wikipedia needs is to lose whatever semblance of levity we currently retain. Kurtis (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2023 (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:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees chart
- 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. ✗plicit 06:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has two uses, both of which are Signpost articles in contexts that expect a static snapshot not an update version. Despite that was tagged as ((update)), evidently indicating this is serving as a maintenance burden for no clear value. Subst and delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I see that this only has one transclusions, in an old Signpost article. I have substed it there, so I feel good sticking a fork in it. @Pppery: Thanks for picking up the detritus... if you find any other goofy old useless Signpost shit from the misty depths of time, you can ping me and I will help deal with it. jp×g 09:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that ((BoardChart)) is a redirect there. jp×g 09:01, 29 July 2023 (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).