Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 10



Template:House of Aragon

 * 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC) unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * House of Aragon
 * House of Bourbon (Spain, 1700–1833)
 * House of Bourbon, 1833-present
 * Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as unused. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 13 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:House of Habsburg (Mary I of England arms)

 * 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) same template, different image ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AComparePages&page1=&page2= see diff] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AComparePages&page1=&page2= see diff]), nearly unused and redundant to House of Habsburg (Spain). Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * House of Habsburg (Mary I of England arms)
 * House of Habsburg (Charles I arms)
 * House of Habsburg (Isabella and Albert, Sovereigns of the Habsburg Netherlands)
 * Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete all redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 13 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Msg start/end

 * 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 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Used in only one page as a seeming test. Izno (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Msg start
 * Msg end
 * Delete. Unused, and Flow does it much better anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as an abandoned experiment. Creator has not edited since 2009. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 13 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:User wikipedia/Content Creator

 * 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.

Do I really need to explain why this is a Really Bad Idea? The idea that "content creators" are some kind of special group somehow distinct from the general editor base is not one that should be encouraged, and adding a "Content Creator" userbox serves no useful purpose (any genuine content creator is perfectly capable of adding some examples of the content they've created to their userpage, if they feel the urge to boast). Please, lets nip this in the bud before it has a chance to spread onto userpages. &#8209; iridescent 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User wikipedia/Content Creator
 * Delete. I agree that this is a false dichotomy that we don't want to encourage. I see that we also have Template:Content Creator topicon and Category:Wikipedian Content Creators, as well as the page Content Creator itself. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * wrong venue, userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD per the instructions at the top of WP:TFD. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing here to move to MFD. &#8209; iridescent 20:56, 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Navbox-noheader

 * 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Only one transclusion (in Killiondude's sandbox at User:Killiondude/oregon). If the functionality was more widely used we could integrate it into Module:Navbox, but with one transclusion there doesn't seem to be much point. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Navbox-noheader
 * Comment why is this permanently protected as a highly visible template? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably back then it had lots of transclusions. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 13 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vale of Leithen F.C.

 * 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Links to only two or three articles, difficult to see how these are useful aids to navigation, particularly given that all the extant blue links are given in the primary club articles in the first instance. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Vale of Leithen F.C.
 * Stirling University F.C.
 * Spartans F.C.
 * Selkirk F.C.
 * Preston Athletic F.C.
 * Gala Fairydean Rovers F.C.
 * Edinburgh University F.C.
 * East Kilbride F.C.
 * Dalbeattie Star F.C.
 * Cumbernauld Colts F.C.
 * Wick_Academy_F.C.
 * Rothes F.C.
 * Lossiemouth F.C.
 * Keith F.C.
 * Huntly F.C.
 * Fraserburgh F.C.
 * Fort William F.C.
 * Forres Mechanics F.C.
 * Formartine United F.C.
 * Deveronvale F.C.
 * Clachnacuddin F.C.
 * Buckie Thistle F.C.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete all - simply not needed. GiantSnowman 17:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:42, 10 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Trade route 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 Delete vertical, keep horizontal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Trade routes (vertical)
 * Trade route 2 (navbox)

Trade route 2 is duplicate of vertical template with same content, Template:Trade routes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a second template and refactored accordingly. Dharmadhyaksha's nomination was to delete the "route 2" version. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your change to my !vote was incorrect. My supporting statement obviously shows what was to remain. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You wanted to merge them; ergo not keep both. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep both I think it should be the choice of editors to choose between sidebar and footer navbox. Possibly merge, we can create a switch to choose between the two -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep navbox - but delete the vertical version. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the sidebar; most sidebars are obtrusive. Alakzi (talk) 11:33, 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NZ Parliament

 * 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 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Template was created in 2007 and was not designated as being subject to substitution; as of Aug 2015, there are 0 transclusions of the template. In January 2014, the template was placed into a category indicating it did not conform to standard citation template style and no edits have been done to it since then. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * NZ Parliament


 * Delete as unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused. I can't determine if the intention was to manage Hansard or references to Acts, bills or Special Regulations but all use a different format. --Karl Stephens ( talk &#124; contribs ) 09:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as an abandoned experiment. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 13 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). No further edits should be made to this section.