Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 5

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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNESCO Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant - Template:UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity includes all masterpieces (the masterpieces were the base of this new list). Incomplete - it doesn't even list all of the masterpieces. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant —PC-XT+ 03:13, 6 September 2014 (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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dennis Schmidt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

currently, none of the novels have articles. note that two of the blue links are not actually "articles", but a single line stubs stating that the stub in question is about a book. the other non-redlinked novel is a redirect. given the length of time that has lapsed since the stubs were created, it seems unlikely something will happen soon (although sometimes a TfD/AfD helps speed the process). in any event, I would say delete this navbox as being redundant to the list of articles in the Dennis Schmidt article, and it can be trivially recreated if a few articles are written (and by articles, I mean more than one sentence stubs). Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Frivolous template. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy for now until more articles are created (if that happens) as a premature/useless navbox —PC-XT+ 03:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 03:35, 6 September 2014 (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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Human sexuality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The topic is too broad to be managed by a single navbox. in this case, the navbox links a very limited selection of articles, which are not the main human sexuality articles. Expanding it to include more articles would make it too cumbersome to be useful, as above. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The template has been useful to people for years, and I see no sign that it has not been useful. It has the selection of articles that it does because the template is about
  talk) 17:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Flyer, as these are separate, though related, topics, which are not redundant, and this is not a merge discussion —PC-XT+ 03:56, 6 September 2014 (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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top 20 ICC Player Ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is too 'outdated'. Can't say it provides wrong or old info since its already mentioned in the title - " October 25 2012, but still this is a completely unnecessary and thoroughy useless template unless updated. Its the ranking table for TWO years ago, TWO. I can't think how it would be useful to anybody seeing it on any page. It would only provide false info to those who overlook the date in the title. I think someone should update it (I'll try to do so myself if I get the time) but till he time it 'is' updated it should be deleted. King Of The Wise (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, as it appears no one has the energy to keep it up to date. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above (I've tried to update these things, before, but unless you commit to keeping it updated, it probably won't last.) —PC-XT+ 02:40, 6 September 2014 (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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV logic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Absolutely no transclusions whatsoever. We have {{too few opinions}} to replace this. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is there a template for tagging the lack of multidisciplinary approach to topics that cross disciplines? We have {{globalize}} for topics that cross regions. {{too few opinions}} seems to be for treatments within a field, and not cross-disciplinary approach. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete it is linked (not transcluded) on some very very old orphaned-template lists. I would say delete it, since it unused, and doesn't appear to be needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. This template is specifically for logic articles that are not cross-disciplinary enough, though this specificity could be obtained by posting on the talk page after tagging with {{Too few opinions}}, so some may consider this one redundant. —PC-XT+ 04:47, 6 September 2014 (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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP living dead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Highly conditional usage, with only 53 transclusions found. I don't think we need it. Merge proposals welcome. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Used for tracking BLP issues across other Wikis. For example, there are dozens of biographies of living people on here that are shown to be deceased on other projects. Seeing as BLP issues are a concern to the whole project, a way of tracking them was introduced. It may only have 53 transclusions now, but it did have several hundered when the template was created. In other words, highlighting the issue to other users has helped reduce the BLP issues and fix any annomiles between different language Wikis. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as useful per Lugnuts, unless an appropriate merge target is found —PC-XT+ 02:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, if people work hard it will reach zero transclusions in a few days :-) but is still needed... Christian75 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2014 (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

). No further edits should be made to this section.