Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 2



Module:Sources

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * sources
 * 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:Taxonomy/Strobus

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC) No longer used. Replaced with Template:Taxonomy/Pinus subg. Strobus, Template:Taxonomy/Pinus sect. Parrya, and Template:Taxonomy/Pinus subsect. Balfourianae. This format (genus name, abbreviation, subtaxon name) is preferred for plants according to. — Eru·tuon 03:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy/Strobus
 * Taxonomy/Parrya
 * Taxonomy/Balfourianae
 * Delete Would be tempted to simply G6 it since this is basically just a page move and no information would be lost, but I'll let an admin decide if that's appropriate. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused, unnecessary, don't conform to standard titling for taxonomy templates. Deleting mistitled taxonomy templates is routine maintenance; see previous deletion Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_2., the best way to deal with unnecessary taxonomy templates is to make an edit to blank them and add Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. Bulk deletion nominations of all the pages in that category should happen every few months (it's getting to be about time to clear it out again). Plantdrew (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time. — Eru·tuon 18:42, 3 November 2019 (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:US Census 1790

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Template linking to original research created by new user still learning the ropes. Links to author's website (I guess) by the username. Awesome Aasim  06:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * US Census 1790
 * Delete, unnecessary template that currently only links to a part of the census containing 12 names. Other citations to the census would probably need to fill out enough of the fields of cite census that this template wouldn't save much work if it were generalized. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * delete we don't need a template to link to one specific web page, even if it was an official census page. And as per WP:ELNO a link to a personal cite where someone has posted a scan of a census record is not useful at all. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:51, 2 November 2019 (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).