Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 3



Template:Place

 * 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) 06:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Evidently, the purpose of this template is to place small annotations (1, 2 and 3) regarding place, such as in competition. Only transcluded in a handful of articles and surely something better exists. Delete or merge as prudence dictates. Safiel (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Place
 * delete and WP:SALT. very rarely used as intended, and redundant to sup.  Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2016 (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).

Adelaide Football Club navboxes

 * 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) 06:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC) These navboxes are all for redlinked articles that are unlikely to pass WP:N. As such, they fail WP:NAVBOX criterion #4. Additionally, the recent WP:AFL consensus is that these relatively minor individual club awards are not notable enough to merit a navbox. Jenks24 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Phil Walsh Best Team Man Award
 * Mark Bickley Emerging Talent Award
 * Dr Brian Sando OAM Trophy
 * Chelsea Phillis Coaches Award
 * 19th Man Award

Would argue to Keep the Best Team Man award, and Emerging Talent award ones - Best Team Man is considered a prestigious award at all levels of the game, and the amount of focus on rookie type awards in the AFL is high (even if probably out of proportion). Screech1616 (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all fail navbox #4 and realistically will never have articles about them due to failing GNG. Also in accordance with the recent AFL club awards navboxes which were deleted. Flickerd (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * delete, navbox cruft, not a particularly notable award. Frietjes (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (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:Shenyang 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Unused. Not useful, considering that each line of the metro only has one station with an article. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 08:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shenyang Metro
 * delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (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:SYDTcolour

 * 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) 06:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Unused, replaced by SYM color. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SYDTcolour
 * delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2016 (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:SYDT

 * 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) 06:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC) No usage. Despite the documentation and the template headers, this is not a navbox for the Shenyang Metro but for Guangfo Metro line 1, for which a template already exists. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 08:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SYDT
 * delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2016 (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:Uw-vandalism4im

 * 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 Speedy keep. Inexplicable nomination by a now-blocked editor. Cannot imagine this getting a delete vote, so saving time for all those about to say "keep". Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Is misused very often and has little to no practical use Krett12 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Uw-vandalism4im


 * Speedy keep: It's definitely a practical template needed to warn egregious and blatant vandals. only (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but admins hardly ever accept it. I know you're all about only this only that (haha get it?) but still, it is often regarded in 99% of its uses as invalid, I've never seen it properly used once, and on IPs, you can NEVER use it. What's the point of it?! Krett12 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet here you are using it hours after nominating it for deletion. So, why are you using "invalid" templates, then?  And, as an admin, I've seen it used plenty of times appropriately.  only (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I don't know if this is some kind of performance art or just good old fashioned cluelessness but deleting one of Wikipedia's most important templates would need an actual reason. &#8209; Iridescent 19:55, 3 February 2016 (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).