Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 8



Template:Nelson-geo-stub

 * 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 redirect as proposed. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  at 09:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC) After this CfD, this stub template no longer has enough articles to justify its own category. It's currently just populating Category:New Zealand geography stubs, so we might as well just redirect to NewZealand-geo-stub ~ RobTalk 19:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nelson-geo-stub
 * Delete as keeping this would seem to be continuing the previous confusing categorization —PC-XT+ 22:11, 13 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:CollapsedShell

 * 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 04:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC) There are a couple reasons for deletion, mostly focused around duplication of WikiProject banner shell: I would not support a merge of text back into WPBS per #2. Izno (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * CollapsedShell
 * 1) In some uses, this template is being "misused" (I use that term lightly) as it is not being used as a WPBS. It is instead being used to collapse miscellaneous items. In that usage, it can and should be replaced by collapse top, so it duplicates that template to some degree.
 * 2) Where it is used as an alternate on WPBS, the collapsing is rarely necessary (in my judgement). The single customization parameter text was recently removed from WPBS (and its actual instances) as being of low usage and generally unnecessary.  The collapsing behavior can be manipulated in WPBS trivally. So in this way, it duplicates WPBS without need.
 * Support iff (and only if) current usage is adapted to utilize WPBS as indicated by the nom, and a redirect established as necessary assuming any instances remain after appropriate conversion. A template like this, used by over 100 pages, should be deleted only when existing uses are adapted when the reasoning for deletion is duplication by an existing template. -  Floydian  τ ¢  01:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - please, stop removing instances where this template is being used along with all the content they contain. Either you should move content into an alternative template OR wait until decision is made. As for my vote: Support if instances will be correctly replaced by WikiProjectBannerShell where appropriate. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Easy there. I removed one use (collapsing a single entry) and then decided it would be better to TFD it than to remove 50 some-odd uses, some of which are in archives, etc. etc. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, assuming the conversion will be handled appropriately, of course —PC-XT+ 22:15, 13 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:AFL Capricornia

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Only has redlinks so it fails as a navbox because it doesn't navigate anything. Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * AFL Capricornia
 * 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:The Cure singles

 * 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 04:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC) All the group's singles are listed on the main Cure navbox; this is unnecessary duplication. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Cure singles
 * delete, duplicates template:The Cure, no need to present the same information twice in a navigation box. Frietjes (talk) 20:21, 8 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:Molecular and Cellular Biology-category

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC) This is a template for the project used on only six categories but it doesn't categorize the pages into Category:Category-Class MCB articles. This is replaceable with Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology on each page. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Molecular and Cellular Biology-category
 * 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).