Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 1



Template:Godfrey

 * 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; deleted as G2 by AnomieBOT ⚡  09:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Apparent test page, no other use Auric    talk  23:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Godfrey
 * Delete as nominated. Unused and seeminly useless.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   04:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Someone already tagged this with db-test. —PC-XT+ 00:42, 3 July 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:No redirect

 * 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 merge if possible. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Propose merging Template:No redirect with Template:No redirect conditional.
 * No redirect
 * No redirect conditional

IMO, there shouldn't be any case where we want a link with an unnecessarily complex target (with "&redirect=no" being appended), if a regular one would suffice. This is also about not giving viewers an incorrect hint about the target being a redirect. I therefore propose merging the code of into, falling back to its original behavior only if subst'd. Note that I couldn't properly tag the former, as it's fully protected. PanchoS (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 22:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support unless someone can present a counterexample —PC-XT+ 00:45, 3 July 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:Infobox KHL team

 * 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 here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC) not much in the KHL team template that's not already in the generic hockey team template. so, no real reason for keeping a second infobox template. just merge them. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Infobox KHL team
 * Infobox hockey team
 * Comment. The same can be said about Template:Nationalliga Team and Template:Infobox Pro hockey team as both are useless and rarely used. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 21:58, 1 July 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:Corruption in India

 * 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 here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Okay, I'm going to give this another try, because nothing has changed since the previous nomination. You might wonder at this nomination, because it seems at first to be an entirely reasonable topic. However, if you dig a little deeper, you find that a) the main article covers little or none of the subjects in the template, b) the list of scandals and involved individuals is incredibly arbitrary and ad hoc, with no systematic inclusion criteria, and c) the creator and the other major editor have both been indeffed for socking, which strongly suggests that maintaining NPOV was not the highest priority of the folks who created this. Also see WP:TNT; this might be a legitimate topic, but if we need a navbox about it, we need to start over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Corruption in India
 * Keep The Template created in 2011 has been edited by multiple editors here not just two and if there is any issue that can be dealt with through normal editing.This is very valid topic.Further if there were any issue with the inclusion criteria or any other issue with the template this could have been raised in the Talk Page of the Template.But None have been raised in over  5 Years even once.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pharaoh of the Wizards, ordinarily, I would agree with you. I do not lightly nominate this for deletion. Yet I spent quite a while figuring out how to make this a reasonable set of links, and come up with nothing. The set of scams is entirely arbitrary, as is the list of people, and the miscellaneous links. The "legislation" section is the only one that makes any sense. Do you have any suggestions? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest deleting all entries in "Scandals" section and only keep List of scandals in India maybe somewhere in footer. From "Anti-corruption activism" I suggest deleting all biographies and keep only articles related to movements/groups etc. Rest whole template seems okay to me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message .What to add and remove is a content issue ,Anyone can make any change in the template with a Edit summary and talk page message if it is major change.But as other editors are also involved it is better it be the talk page of the template Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Procedural note: This is templates for discussion, so a discussion about changing the template's scope is appropriate here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:31, 10 July 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:Portugal national football team matches

 * 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. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC) This template seems quite silly given that it's just a link to the fact that the team made it to the finals one year and then another match. Both are these are covered in the more useful template Template:Portugal national football team results. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Portugal national football team matches
 * Delete - Superfluous given the existence of the other, more detailed template. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not necessary. SLBedit (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Question - What is the match requirement for these type of templates? Most I have seen have four matches and above, would this be the minimum? (Except for Template:Denmark national football team matches and Template:Greece national football team matches, which should probably be deleted as well.) Also, just to point out, Portugal have made it to another European Championship final, not sure if that changes anything. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this template doing the same job of information box, whatever there is one linked article or more. Islam84 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; I think 4 links is a good threshold. - Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 00:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to the results template —PC-XT+ 05:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination. Not needed. Coderzombie (talk) 16:31, 8 July 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:Miss Switzerland
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Not enough links to navigate. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Miss Switzerland
 * Miss United Continent
 * Miss Universe Australia
 * Miss Teen Nepal state
 * Delete all per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nominator; they do not appear to serve a useful function. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Too few links to navigate. Nothing to navigate at all in two of them. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 1 July 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:Metro Kalibo
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion 4. There's no article on the template's subject. Sixth of March 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Metro Kalibo
 * 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).