Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 10



Template:Soil PR-instructions

 * 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. WP:G7 (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC) No longer used, and likely to duplicate, but fall out of date, existing project processes Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Soil PR-instructions


 * Delete. As the editor who created this template a decade ago, I certainly agree. --Paleorthid (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: This could potentially be tagged with WP:G7 seeing as the author agrees with the deletion. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2020 (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:Skegss

 * 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. No prejudice against a REFUND or recreation if and when there are 4-5 navigable links. Primefac (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Only one other navigable link besides the artist at this point. Even if an article were to be made for their only other charting or notable release, that would be two links besides the artist. Doesn't pass the informal rule of five per WP:NENAN.  Ss  112   18:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Skegss
 * Comment: I believe WP:NENAN is an essay, not a strict guideline. Regardless, I will attempt to create an article for their other charting release—and any other notable releases—as soon as I can. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The two articles already link to and from one another without the navbox making it a redundant navigational tool at this time. I don't see an article on one other release aiding its cause. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:27, 17 November 2020 (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).

Templates regarding territories across the borders

 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these templates. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Fail WP:NOR and WP:NOTGUIDE. Subjectively-chosen article names of the border areas of one side and the other way round. Adding all entries will make them useless. And also if we continue these templates there will be thousands of such templates without serving any purpose. Better we stop them now.  Mehra j Mir  (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indian administered territories adjoining China administered territories
 * China administered territories adjoining India administered territories
 * 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:California rapid transit and light rail rolling stock

 * 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. Primefac (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC) This is a prime example of WP:NAVBOXCREEP. There is no need to navigate between the rolling stock of disparate transit systems solely based on geographic proximity. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * California rapid transit and light rail rolling stock
 * Agreed. I can't see a need for this infobox. --RickyCourtney (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2020 (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:Autism films

 * 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 2020 November 18. Primefac (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Autism_films
 * 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:Old portal peer review

 * 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 soft delete. Template will be subst first to preserve its current use history. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC) This template is used once; this process has been marked historical, and the single use is a featured portal anyway. I propose this template is substituted with a talk page message and deleted Tom (LT) (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Old portal peer review
 * 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).