Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 1



Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Part of WP:PUF, which is no longer active. ~ RobTalk 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a edit notice that isn't necessary anymore. APerson (talk!) 15:24, 2 May 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:Pufc

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Part of WP:PUF, which is no longer active. ~ RobTalk 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pufc
 * Keep Still used on lots of pages. Users might have forgot to remove the template after discussions have been closed. The pages which use the template should be checked for problems before the template is deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete And responding to User:Stefan2, the notice was placed in the caption field of an infobox in three articles, and remained after their discussions closed even though the link to the image was removed. With no image, the caption didn't display. I've removed these tree uses. All the remainders are talk archives, where it never should have been placed in the first place, and it won't do any harm to red link them. If you're really worried, we can request that Anomiebot subst them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Substitution would be better in that case in my opinion. I don't think that it's a good idea to create lots of unnecessary red links in talk page archives. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, page is now in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted and the bots should have it done shortly. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the future, please wait for the TfD to be concluded before orphaning a template, since orphaning a template can influence the result. At this point, there's zero transclusions, so this is open and shut. It may have been less so if transclusions remained, though - who knows. ~ RobTalk 22:48, 1 May 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:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Possibly unfree files is no longer active. Edit notice no longer required. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
 * Delete after removing the template from the page WP:PUF (we don't want red links there). Doesn't seem to be needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete once the above tidying has been done. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 3 May 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:Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry

 * 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 03:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Duplicates Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. DrKay (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry
 * Delete It's a useless template. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * keep it - the Koháry branch is one of three cadet branches of the House of Sachsen-Coburg. There is the ducal line (which became then the British line), there is the belgian line and the Koháry line. There is a template for the Belgian royal family as well as one for the British and ducal line. All of these templates would be just duplicates then. Rovere (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Kohary line is also shown on the same template as the British and ducal line. Hence, it is a duplication. The Belgian royal family template is not a duplication because Prince Lorenz of Belgium and his children are not Saxe-Coburgs, and so the people on that template are different. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 6 May 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:Puf top

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC) There are no more discussions at WP:PUF that need to be closed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Puf top
 * Puf bottom
 * These no longer seem to be needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 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:Puf log

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC) All discussions at WP:PUF are now closed. No one will remove the header on the daily subpages anymore. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Puf log
 * Delete This is not something which should be 'removed' on pages - it's a template which is added at the top of all new log pages using {{subst:puf log}}, and the substituted template should remain there forever for easy navigation between different PUF pages. Since it has been substituted on all pages, the template doesn't seem to be needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete. No longer necessary to maintain this. ~ RobTalk 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to substitute as there are no transclusions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm more-or-less endorsing the fact that it was already substituted. In the future, of course, editors should not mass-substitute all transclusions of a template until a TfD concludes that this should happen. ~ RobTalk 22:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there has ever been any transclusions of this template. The bot which created the daily log pages AFAIK always substituted the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 2 May 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:Planet Network

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Navbox only has one link... The1337gamer (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Planet Network
 * Delete as useless for navigation due to only having two blue links (inclusing title). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:09, 2 May 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:WikiProject Language revival

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Empty template (content consists only of the template's own name), referring to a WikiProject that doesn't exist. Created erroneously by newcomer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Language revival
 * Revise and keep Whether a newbie created the template (and if he did, fair dues, it's not so easy to work out how to do it) this template can easily and usefully be populated. Language Revival is an important area. I agree of course that there is no WikiProject, but a Language Revival template is a good idea. -- Evertype·✆ 12:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhm, the purpose of a "WikiProject" template is to note that a page is within the scope of a certain WikiProject. If no such WikiProject exists, what use could the template possibly be? (Beyond duplicating the function of a Category:Language revival on the article page). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unless such a WikiProject is begun. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; devoid of content. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-existent wikiproject, and the creator of the template does not seem to be creating a wikiproject. No edits to the WP:COUNCIL proposal page for such a wikiproject either. New editor with misconceptions about how WikiProjects work, speedy delete as DB-TEST -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 08:05, 3 May 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:Rui En

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC) A mass of linkless black text, with only 4 proper links, and 1 improper link. The improper link to L'Oreal is not useful navigation. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rui En
 * Support the template was probably created for filmography purposes. Timmyshin (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Total fancruft and bordering on WP:PROMOTION with the listing of endorsements. I'm ignoring the fact that the original author seems to have a possible COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:59, 4 May 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:Istanbul Open tournaments

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC) NAVBOX with only one entry. If the 2016 tournament is added, then it is 2. Still too few. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Istanbul Open tournaments
 * Keep. The tournament start on 2015, it is normal to have only 2 entry. --Vencin (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 02:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per vencin Ninefive6 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 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:2019 in space

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Way Too soon and essentially blank and unused. This template should be recreated near 2019 when more info is available. Davidbuddy9  Talk  04:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2019 in space
 * Delete - agree, way way too soon. Probably recreate near the end of 2018. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CBALL. jps (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created the template, just because this series of templates is intimately connected with, which someone had already started using (and all of whose members are presumably relevant to the template). All other  categories have the template, so I was merely trying to observe the standard format for space-year categories. I don't hold strong views either way, I was just trying to be tidy and follow a well-established format. So I'd either keep both the category and the template, or delete both of them. But I would note that the nature of astronomical phenomnena means that they are predictable a long way in advance and people will create articles on eg a comet that will only be visible on Earth several years hence. So I'd suggest that they are OK per WP:CBALL - "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". It's the nature of astronomy that such events are foreseeable further into the future than events subject to human foibles - for instance,  already has 14 members. Le Deluge (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Categories are usually made before the templates are made, however there really is nothing useful to put in this template until a nearer date. Thats why I nominated this template for deletion. Plus these templates can easily be recreated in less then 10 minutes.  Davidbuddy9   Talk  02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - agree, way too soon.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:22, 2 May 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).