Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 7 August 9 >

August 8

Template:Very busy

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used by only three editors. Redundant to {{Busy}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Attica

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. Marking as historical would be a reasonable alternative for a once-active project that might be expected to revive, but this is all but unused, and trivial to restore or recreate should the need arise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 8 August 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
).

Vacation templates

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 all. Consensus is that a variety of templates for different situations and English variants is useful. Certainly there is no consensus for deletion, merging or redirection. BethNaught (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Busy}}; and each other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having more than one "vacation" template is a bit redundant; at most, it's cosmetic. I agree with that. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They don't all say the same thing. I have always found the variety of vacation notices helpful as well as mildly aesthetic. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am using vacation right now ([1]) because I'm on vacation, not busy. They are different things, and replacing one with a parameter to the other will impose additional work load on servers, which would have to process those parameters every time page is displayed. The space occupied by additional templates is zero compared to the rest of Wikipedia, freeing it is not worth any effort. But saving additional work is something we should take into account. --CiaPan (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a ludicrous argument. Deleting all these redundant templates is saving work for editors so they don't waste time, work, and effort deciding which template to use.Algircal (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination statement is wrong as it assumes "busy" and "vacation" are synonyms. Try telling your boss "I'm busy next week" as opposed to "I'm on vacation next week" when they ask you to do something and see what reaction you get. Also curious if the "redundant" service awards are going to be the next deletion target? --NeilN talk to me 14:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how deleting these status templates furthers the mission of Wikipedia. ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 02:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just used one of the templates because I went on vacation. Going on vacation is often the opposite of being busy, anyway. starship.paint ~ KO 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They mean different things. "Busy" means you are still around and can respond to things. "Vacation" and its variants is more likely to mean that you are completely out of touch, possibly for a long period of time. All three templates further the mission of Wikipedia by facilitating the editing experience for users here. They say that "redirects are cheap"; aren't templates cheap? Why delete them, if they make an editor's life easier and their user experience more friendly? --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Using {{
    vacation3}} right now. They are not redundant to {{busy}} as they do not substantially say the same thing; 'busy' and 'vacation' have different definitions. As far as furthering the mission of Wikipedia: these templates provide a user-friendly way to tell other editors that one will be away for a period of time. We are losing editors because the experience of editing can be tedious and disheartening. By all means, let's take some more customization and fun out of being here by deleting templates like this that are widely used and easily modified. We can't continue to build a free encyclopedia if there are no editors to do it. KrakatoaKatie 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Spot the difference:

One of those is {{Vacation3}}, one is {{busy}}. Tell me again why {{Vacation3}} is not redundant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 11 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Request infobox person

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. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redundant to |needs-infobox=yes in {{WikiProject Biography}}. The mere four transclusions (now thus replaced) betrayed a lack of community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant to the WP banner and {{
    talk) 23:09, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Camping

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (and unreadable). Redundant to {{Busy}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Formula links

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Marked as an experiment since July 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 8 August 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:EmoCOTMvoter

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 8 August 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:Femininity Archive of common concerns

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 subst: and delete. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only applies to the one article, so subst and delete.
    talk) 23:15, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dmoz request

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. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well, that's the point. I took it out of talk pages once I had found an appropriate category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Koavf: When & where was this last used?
      • Uses I'm not sure but I know that I've replaced some transclusions within the past year. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Kovaf uses it to track requests, and removes it because requests have been fulfilled, then obvioiusly, it wouldn't show up with transclusions. Indeed any request template should not be expected to have transclusions, since they could have been fulfilled quickly after being requested -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:06, 11 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Commons page

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 2015 September 15. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just four transcusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep It shouldn't be transcluded: someone should fix the problem and remove the template. I'm not sure if this is really that necessary for en.wp but the fact that it's unused is actually a good thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 11 August 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:Cluestick

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. Memorial questions aside, this pretty much is a barnstar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Redundant to barnstars, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Let's zigzag our way through this discussion. I created this template after getting a clue from a Wikipedian on a template that was driving me bonkers. I found the award on the personal user awards page, and it was a perfect match. I don't do this very often. When I looked at the user page of the person who first created the award, it appears that at one time she was very active here and well liked. It seems she may be deceased. This inspired me to create the template. I had four objectives in mind in doing so. First, it would encourage presentation of this award more often, since I think it is quite clever; hopefully, making it easy to present will spur usage. Second, I wanted to present this award in a dignified fashion to the person who helped me. Third, the top of the template page lists the prior recipient to whom the award was presented by its creator; this is effectively an honor roll. Fourth, and most important, it serves as a memorial of sorts for the award's creator who appears to have been a significant contributor here and may no longer be with us. For this reason, the template, when used, includes a link to her user page. Admittedly, these are emotional appeals. However, unlike many of the templates nominated for deletion on this page, this one has a reasonable possibility that may even approach a likelihood of being used again. I think this differentiates it from the rest of the lot. Further, if this is redundant to barnstars, it can easily be argued that most or all of the barnstars are redundant to each other and could all be deleted. Occasionally, when we glance up through the rain, we realize that people feel inspired when they are appreciated and recognized. This template encourages that, and, in a small way, could serve to improve the encyclopedia. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason this template should be deleted, as mentioned before because of it's memorial status as well as somewhat of an award that is meant to spread WikiLove.  
    ♥ Melody Concerto ♥
    02:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
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:CurrentHOSCOTM

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't been updated since January 2009. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 8 August 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:CurrentCityCOTM

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never used. Los Angeles has been CotM since 2008. BethNaught (talk) 08:48, 31 August 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:Current-SCOTM

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last nomination was in 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 8 August 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:Current Theatre COTM

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used only to announce that theatre "was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 25, 2005." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 8 August 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:Current Musical Theatre COTM

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last nomination (failed) was in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 8 August 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:Failed India COTW

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. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Used to announce on ten article talk pages that some editors decided half a decade or more ago not to jointly edit the respective articles. So what? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary, meaningless as a log entry Kraxler (talk) 00:14, 28 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Current India COTW

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. The related Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics/INCOTW was marked as closed in 2009. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete defunct project, useless leftover Kraxler (talk) 00:12, 28 August 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:Current India COTM

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used to mark two articles as "a collaboration of the month" since 2009 and 2001 respectively. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary, leftover from some defunct project, probably Kraxler (talk) 00:09, 28 August 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:Current F1 COTW

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused means it's useless Kraxler (talk) 00:08, 28 August 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:Current Earthquake COTM

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Bam earthquake has been marked with this template as "the current earthquake collaboration of the month" since October 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 8 August 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:Current Cinema COTW

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last nomination was in August 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 8 August 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:CricketCOTF

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Collaboration's talk page was deemed inactive in December 2005. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 8 August 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:Infobox arab tribe

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. The extra parameter has been merged into {{

talk) 12:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Fork of {{Infobox tribe}}, to which its single unique parameter, nisba, should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:F.B.C. Unione Venezia squad

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. (

talk) 12:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

A zombie template that haven't been update since 2009, i turned to a redirect temporary in order to update it for some time. But seems it is not necessary NOW for an amateur side. After another bankruptcy this year (last in 2009), the template MAY useful when the club back to Lega Pro (MAY be in 2016 but wikipedia is not crystal ball) and especially much more when in Serie B. However, for an amateur side, a template linking a list of red-link amateur footballers wasn't a good idea. Matthew_hk tc 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a defunct club does not need a 'current squad' navbox, and an amateur team (full of redlinks) does not merit one. GiantSnowman 21:04, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:A.S. Varese 1910 squad

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. (

talk) 12:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Since

A.S. Varese 1910 was folded and replaced by a amateur side, which technically they may back to professional league after at least 2 seasons, such template was only useful in professional team not amateur. Matthew_hk tc 19:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a defunct club does not need a 'current squad' navbox, and an amateur team (full of redlinks) does not merit one. GiantSnowman 21:03, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Privadoygenteism

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. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Navigation template full of redlinks (which includes the "main" article), centered around some kind of fringe political ideology. Only used on one userspace page, MFD pending. (Please also delete

WP:G8 if this is deleted.) —Keφr 17:59, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pactagonal

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. (

talk) 12:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Unused award type thing. None in use, none awarded (afaict), the linked project was deleted as the company's software lacks notability (so clearly there's no demand for the award), and the awards is wholly inappropriate in design, as the company does not, nor ever has it, had anything to do with Pac-Man, making it utterly misrepresentative. We shouldn't be allowing a non-entity of a company to hijack some one else's game.oknazevad (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, checking the links to the image it seems this was never used. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 27 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:House of Glücksburg (Denmark)

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 merge - uncontested. 

talk) 12:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Propose merging

Template:House of Glücksburg (Denmark, 1947-1972 Coat of arms)
.
rarely used and nearly identical, see this diff and this diff. only substantial difference is that the first template has some additional grandchildren and the choice of image in the third template. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigy144 and Buho09: Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sydney Metro

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. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

This template exists solely to provide navigation among pages for four related metro rail proposals, all of which were announced and then cancelled between 2008 and 2010. Non-notable. Mqst north (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so – a discussion on that point is ongoing at Talk:Sydney Metro (2008 proposal) Mqst north (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The merge has been performed – the template is no longer required. Mqst north (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need for navigation for a defunct project. Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 27 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Endoscopy

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 relisted at

talk) 23:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

This template is not useful for navigation. It is in fact a

talk) 01:20, 8 August 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_8&oldid=1142562600"