Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6

Template:Carmelita Jeter

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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Template:Carmelita Jeter. ~ RobTalk 02:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to a series of links to championships the athlete has competed in and the athlete's coach and brother. Carmelita Jeter is not a sufficient person to warrant her own navigation across these pages SFB 18:03, 6 September 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:ExtractedBG

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; deleted as

G7 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Unused. Despite using the userbox template, it does not seem to be meant as a userbox; however, I have no idea what the intended purpose of this template actually is. (I wish

WP:CSD#T3 also covered unused templates, like it did before.) —Keφr 07:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It can go if you want. It was just a little identifier that the logo was extracted from a PDF by myself, this was from years ago and in hindsight was a bit of unnecessary self-promotion (I saw someone else do it and created something similar). I probably only used it two or three times. Feel free to delete. Gibbsyspin 10:40 pm, Today (UTC+10)
You can {{
db-author}} it. —Keφr 12:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. Cheers Gibbsyspin 13:43, 8 September 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:Minor provinces of British India in 1907

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. While no other editors have commented here agreeing with a delete, the RfC linked by SpacemanSpiff represents a clear consensus on this issue. In the absence of any opposition whatsoever, the consensus developed there is still applicable. ~ RobTalk 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should never have been made a template, it's content that was being made to get in through the backdoor. Was rejected through an RfC and has been unused in the four years since. See also {{Major provinces of British India in 1907}} —SpacemanSpiff 06:04, 6 September 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:Major provinces of British India in 1907

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. While no other editors have commented here agreeing with a delete, the RfC linked by SpacemanSpiff represents a clear consensus on this issue. In the absence of any opposition whatsoever, the consensus developed there is still applicable. ~ RobTalk 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should never have been made a template, it's content that was being made to get in through the backdoor. Was rejected through an RfC and has been unused in the four years since. See also {{Minor provinces of British India in 1907}} —SpacemanSpiff 06:02, 6 September 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:Metatalk

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 at

talk) 10:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redundant to similar talk-page header templates. Only 31 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment which talk page headers is it redundant to? The documentation explains which circumstances this template should be used, and why it shouldn't be used widely -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because this template solves a problem and doesn't violate policy. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge with
    Template:Off topic warning. They serve similar purposes, although there're some differences. Ctwabn (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:35, 6 September 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:A2 honeycombs

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 at

talk) 09:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Orphaned template. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a dimensional series, like Template:A3_honeycombs Template:A4_honeycombs Template:A5_honeycombs... Tom Ruen (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it uses Coxeter notation, I linked it there as an example of the Extended symmetry section. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete. I haven't evaluated whether this could ever be useful, but right now it isn't. I wouldn't object if a future editor wishes this to be restored for use in an article, but for now we just have a two year old template with zero transclusions. It's adding nothing to the wiki at the moment, and I have no reason to believe it will in the near future. ~ RobTalk 05:22, 6 September 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:"USS Whale"

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 Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned unusable template. Just text here. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unreferenced stub article masquerading as a template -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the obvious; not even a template. ~ RobTalk 05:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Moved to mainspace but upon some quick investigation discovered was a hoax and deleted, and blocked the account involved.NativeForeigner Talk 08:01, 7 September 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:"Spooked" The New York Times Magazine April 27, 2003

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/speedy delete. Per the rationale below.

(｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Orphaned, unused I presume specific-source citation template. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused and improperly formatted source template -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Templates used for individual references are rarely if ever appropriate. ~ RobTalk 05:23, 6 September 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:Cite doi/10.7326.2F0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00010

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 for now. Iron out how this is all going to be handled on the talk page of {{

talk) 09:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I listed this for CFD under T3 but that was rejected. This template is now orphaned following this edit. Its only use was a possible reference at Wikipedia:Choosing Wisely/American College of Surgeons and was never used on any articles. If this citation is used, it can be done with the simple cite journal text rather than from the deprecatated cite doi and this hard-coded text. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 59k at Category:Cite doi templates, a significant number of which are cited once or perhaps none at all. I'll make a bot request or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 14 September 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
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_6&oldid=1076619010"