Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 10



Template:Online newspaper

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC) There is no obvious use for this template and it was created by an editor who has been adding one blog, pakistanviews.org, across numerous articles. Per the first edit at this template it looks as this is part of some potentially spammy campaign. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Online newspaper
 * Delete – While we may eventually want an infobox more specific to internet media outlets than, this isn't it. Ibadibam (talk) 21:29, 10 June 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:Rugby league footballers with 325 NRL games

 * 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 rename. But, feel free to renominate if you would still like to consider it for deletion. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC) the benchmark of 325 games is completely arbitrary. why not 300 games? 315? LibStar (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rugby league footballers with 325 NRL games
 * Rename as Template:Rugby league footballers with 300 NRL games, which appears to be a recognized cutoff. Ibadibam (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename It's true. The "300 club" is often mentioned and a "325 club" never is. As the author of this template, I felt that the 300 club was too large so I wanted to keep this down to a smaller size, as I'm acutely aware of the huge problem rugby league articles have with these ever-proliferating, ever-expanding (and thus ever-diluting in meaningfulness) navbox templates. But the point about sources is an important one (as we should all strive to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with sources) and it should probably be changed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How many articles are we talking about in the 300 club? ~ RobTalk 01:01, 18 June 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:2016 Libertarian Primaries

 * 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 on 2016 June 20. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2016 Libertarian Primaries
 * 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:2016 Green Primaries

 * 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 on 2016 June 20. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2016 Green Primaries
 * 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:PD-source

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 01:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Unused attribution template essentially redundant to Template:PD-old-text. Ibadibam (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PD-source
 * Support SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:46, 10 June 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).