Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 6



Portal:Switzerland/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 delete. Normally a template with this magnitude of transclusions would merit more discussion, but I see no reason why a now-historical project would need an empty template to track, well, seemingly nothing. If there is serious concern that this was deleted "too hastily" I will relist this discussion for further debate. Note that this template was only transcluded on about 60 templates, so the article-space transclusions are double-transcluded and will clear when the job queue catches up to it. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Listing this here instead of MfD since it's template protected and has almost 6k transclusions. It has no content and it's only possible usage seems to be the what links here list. Looks completely redundant to Category:Switzerland stubs. --Trialpears (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Portal:Switzerland/Stub
 * Delete per nom. Does seem to be redundant. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:20, 7 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:Space colonization

 * 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 15. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Space_colonization
 * Space_Colonization
 * 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:Spoken Wikipedia-2

 * 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 merge to Template:Spoken Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Spoken Wikipedia-2 with Template:Spoken Wikipedia.
 * Spoken Wikipedia-2
 * Spoken Wikipedia-3
 * Spoken Wikipedia-4
 * Spoken Wikipedia-5
 * Spoken Wikipedia

It is better to have one template which can support varying numbers of files rather than 5 templates that only can support one specific number. --Trialpears (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support totally agree.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Completely agree here. --Gonnym (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I'm totally agree. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions  20:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the merge. Should the result of the merge be a module? —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:15, 13 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:NotSafeForWork

 * 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC) No disclaimers in articles – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NotSafeForWork
 * Delete. Newly created template that violates longstanding practice. There's a possibility the practice could change, but that would have to be through a large discussion at WP:VPP or similar, not the creation of a new template. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rather subjective, and by the time the disclaimer is visible, so is some content that may have prompted this disclaimer in the first place. Many articles "needing" this are obvious by their title anyway. HalJor (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DISC (goes along with WP:NDT). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Knowledgekid87. Explicitly violates WP:DISCLAIM. — Goszei (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Also touches on WP:NOTCENSORED in that it's trying to serve exactly the same purpose as censorship would by trying to dissuade a reader from even being in a position to see objectionable content altogether. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete not needed and we should also delete template:NotSafeForWork/doc.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:23, 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:Good article2

 * 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Redundant, duplicated from Template:Good article. 115.178.211.161 (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good article2
 * Speedy delete per WP:T3. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, T3. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * T3 has a 7 day waiting period. Since it's already at TfD, it's actually faster to just let this process play out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:33, 7 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).