Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 30



Template:Led Zeppelin IV tracks

 * 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. ~ RobTalk 01:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC) duplicates the corresponding navbox. Frietjes (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Led Zeppelin IV tracks
 * Delete. The Led Zeppelin IV navbox serves the same purpose. Follows precedent of Abbey Road and Abbey Road tracks, among many others. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:38, 1 April 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:See for

 * 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. Unopposed. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Two transclusions total and completely redundant to for. Only difference from for is that this one has the nonstandard form "See Y for X" rather than the usual "For X, see Y" and doesn't use the standard hatnote meta-template. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 22:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See for
 * Comment I have converted it to hatnote ; however it is still redundant -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: since this TfD seems uncontroversial, I've gone ahead and replaced the two transclusions, at The Ara Project and Real-time analyzer. I also struck the outdated bits in my nomination above. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 16:39, 3 April 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:Cal State Fullerton Titans athletic director navbox

 * 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  04:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC) WP:EXISTING -- Two links does not navigate a navbox... 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 21:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cal State Fullerton Titans athletic director navbox
 * Corky, the navbox now has four blue links. Will you withdraw the nomination?  Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination – there are now enough links to navigate. 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 01:52, 31 March 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:Sahaba

 * 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. ~ RobTalk 01:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC) A template makes no sense for a long list. Besides, there is List of Sahabah and Category:Sahabah. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sahaba
 * 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:Packers1995DraftPicks

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Unused. ~ RobTalk 17:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Packers1995DraftPicks
 * 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:Worcestershire Lines

 * 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 Worcestershire Railways. Izkala (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Unused; not at all opposed to userfying if someone decides they want these or will develop an article on this topic. ~ RobTalk 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Worcestershire Lines
 * Worcestershire Railways

I would like to try and implement this into some pages (example), however I've never been able to successfully do this, as I'm not particularly au fait with the wikipedia system. Given the work put it, I would appreciate if any guidance could be given to use this in other pages (as well as perhaps develop the article itself), rather than have it deleted. Class172 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer one over the other? They seem to both be basically the same template. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination, but I think it's best to remove whichever one of them you consider the lesser, since they're redundant. As for how to incorporate them into articles, it's really simple! All you have to do is type  wherever you want the template. You'd do the same with the Railways template if you decide to use that one instead, just changing the name within the double curly brackets. Hope that helps! ~ RobTalk 22:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a response from Class172, I'll leave it up to the closing editor which of these should be deleted as redundant and which should be considered withdrawn by me. Personally, I'd prefer to keep Worcestershire Lines and delete Worcestershire Railways as redundant, since Lines has less white space. ~ RobTalk 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've userfied both of them at User:Useddenim/Worcester RDT, so it doesn't really matter to me, as long as it's possible to restore (at least) one of them at a future time. Useddenim (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I have been away for the past week so haven't been able to keep track with events until now. I would agree that Worcestershire Lines is probably the better to keep, given as you say it is slightly better designed. We're probably safe to delete the Worcestershire Railways as it is effectively a duplicate. Over the next month I will be very busy however after that time I will aim to construct some body for the 'Lines' article - which might be best to start in my user area. Class172 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 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:Overseas Security Advisory Council

 * 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. ~ RobTalk 01:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Despite its lengthy set-up, this entire templates seems to have never been used. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Overseas Security Advisory Council
 * 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).