Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 16



Template:Interwiki 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. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Interwiki redirect with Template:Soft redirect.
 * Interwiki redirect
 * Soft redirect

Only 67 transclusions and soft redirect can do the job fine. I don't think it's necessary to have a separate template for this. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Interwiki redirect seems pointless.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. When is a soft redirect not an interwiki redirect?  The cases I can think of have their own templates like, or just also use the standard , as at Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The two templates have the same use and Interwiki redirect has only 67 transclusions. &mdash; Music1201  talk  17:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support a deletion of "interwiki redirect". That said, I think we should maybe consider updating "soft redirect" to be a little less ancient in its reference to the redirection arrow, which is unlikely to be intuitive. --Izno (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge as redundant per nom —PC-XT+ 05:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge; redundant. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:06, 21 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:Tprod

 * 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 01:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Undocumented template draft, created in May 2006 in the wake of the Userbox War, this template was apparently supposed to be an inline version of Prod intended to be used for PRODing templates. Proposed in the now historical Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates, the idea newer was implemented. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tprod
 * Delete per nom as an unused template. --Izno (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused test that probably shouldn't be marked historical since it was never implemented —PC-XT+ 06:08, 20 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:Prod-reason

 * 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. Given the existing transclusions which would need to be substituted or replaced, I'll recreate this as a redirect after deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Redundant to the slightly older Prod hint. Used 13 times between 2006 and 2009, and once in 2012. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Prod-reason
 * Delete or perhaps redirect as redundant because it seems inferior in that it doesn't include a header (I can't think of a reason why we would need a separate template without a header) and the wording doesn't sound better —PC-XT+ 06:22, 20 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:PRODWarning-notalk

 * 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 Talk 01:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Redundant to Proposed deletion, only used on three occasions, and not used since 2008. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PRODWarning-notalk
 * 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).

Various bowl game 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 / replace. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Not enough links to provide useful navigation (two bowl games or less). ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Georgia State Panthers bowl game navbox
 * Georgia Southern Eagles bowl game navbox
 * Georgetown Hoyas bowl game navbox
 * Fordham Rams bowl game navbox
 * Florida Atlantic Owls bowl game navbox
 * FIU Panthers bowl game navbox
 * Eastern Michigan Eagles bowl game navbox
 * Denver Pioneers bowl game navbox
 * Davidson Wildcats bowl game navbox
 * Central Arkansas Bears bowl game navbox
 * Centenary Gentleman bowl game navbox
 * Cal State Fullerton Titans bowl game navbox
 * Buffalo Bulls bowl game navbox
 * Appalachian State Mountaineers bowl game navbox
 * Alcorn State Braves bowl game navbox
 * Delete. I've replaced the Davidson navbox on 1969 Tangerine Bowl with the program navbox. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rob doesn't cite a policy nor guideline which defines it.  Also, what if the boxes are deleted and the program subsequently makes it to a third bowl game afterwards? Tom Danson (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * then the navbox will (rightfully) be recreated?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The above ping likely didn't work due to technical limitations, so I'm pinging on 's behalf. (The ping has to be on a new line with a new signature.) nyuszika7h (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:EXISTING. While it isn't written into a guideline, there's a plethora of TfD precedent that four links is a minimum for navboxes. If there are more coaches in the future, the navbox can be undeleted. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EXISTING. Corkythe hornetfan  18:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. If these are deleted, the bowl games should be added to the existing football team navboxes and those boxes should replace the bowl game navboxes on the individual bowl game articles. I'll happily volunteer for such duty once this discussion is over. Also, keep Alcorn State. It has four bowl appearances but several of the articles are unwritten at present. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional merge per Mackensen provided WP:CFB creates standardized allowance for teams with less than the number of minimum number of bowl games necessary for the navbox (more than 4-5 should be granted their own navbox). If exception is tabled or rejected then deleteUCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:31, 17 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).

Lacrosse coach 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 Relisted at Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 1 (non-admin closure)  Omni Flames ( talk ) 12:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fairfield Stags men's lacrosse coach navbox
 * Harvard Crimson men's lacrosse coach navbox
 * Navy Midshipmen men's lacrosse coach navbox
 * UMBC Retrievers men's lacrosse coach navbox
 * 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:President of the Philippines timeline

 * 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 unused and a template which could only ever be used in a single article. Strength of arguments based on typical practice at TfD and the listed reasons for deletion is strongly on the side of deletion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Unnecessary template. We don't need a template for this. I replaced the timeline in the "President of the Philippines" article, which was this template's only article namespace link, with a better-designed version. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Segoe UI', verdana, sans-serif, arial;">Mediran  [talk]  10:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * President of the Philippines timeline
 * Keep The template was kept there to protect the article from WP:Vandalism and WP:Edit wars. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason. Request page protection at WP:RPP and/or report the edit warriors at WP:AN3 if necessary. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and his further discussion. --Izno (talk) 17:34, 19 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:Top Gear nav
<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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Redundant template. Formerly used in the infobox of TV season articles, however convention is to just link to the main episode list, per infobox instructions. All seasons are linked in Top Gear which is the navbox used in these articles. There is no need for two templates that link to all season articles.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Top Gear nav
 * Delete as redundant to the navbox. --Izno (talk) 17:34, 19 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).