Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 21



Template:Literal

 * 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) 23:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Unused template. Was used in one page until now. JsfasdF252 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Literal
 * Delete or redirect to P1 which does the same thing. --Trialpears (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Useless. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:41, 22 October 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:Infobox RNLI stations

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC) unused; should be used or deleted Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Infobox RNLI stations
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:41, 22 October 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:Mobile BayBears roster

 * 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) 16:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) The team is defunct. Therefore, there is no need to keep a roster for it. The template is unused. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mobile BayBears roster
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:41, 22 October 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:Jimbo-notice

 * 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) 11:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jimbo-notice

Unnecessary message, also pretty useless. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Jimbo talk is, regardless of what some people may believe, a user talk page at the end of the day. It's not a formal place like WP:AN/I where sanctions and stuff can be considered. It's supposed to be used to get in touch with. Therefore, a template like this should not only is unneeded but simply ridiculous. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no change since the last "keep" rationale was given. Could you address "Inclined to keep this because it should be used, since User talk:Jimbo is a de facto drama board, with high noise, low signal, and little if any policing or repercussions for false accusations, etc. If this were listed in the "See also" section of similar templates, like the ANI notice, then people would use it." and say how things are now any different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this message is unnecessary and abrupt. A discussion can be notified like any other discussion and what's more given the warning-like nature of this template, I think forcing editors to think about their phrasing and tailor a specific message is an improvmeent on this. Second best option would be to keep but improve the wording. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gosh, that place really is an institution to some people.
 * 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).