Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 21



Template:Villages in Sincik District

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗ plicit  23:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC) All the articles are redirected now so this template is of no use Semsûrî (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Villages in Sincik District
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2022 (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:BMT4

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗ plicit  11:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Unused, replaced by Template:Station link.  Cards   84664   12:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * BMT4
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2022 (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:FCC LMS letter

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. But, please let me know if you would like me to move it to userspace or draftspace or if you have immediate plans to use it in articles. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC) No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FCC LMS letter

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether to replace FCC letter with this or convert uses of that to cite web. I made this in preparation for a likely switch of documents at the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC letter template supports short citations to URLs like http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=69738. These are documents uploaded into an FCC system called CDBS and have a five- or six-digit numeric identifier. This summer, the FCC has been quietly porting these over to their current system, known as LMS. (If you see an [LMS] link in an infobox like at KUGS, it will show links to these documents.) The same document is available in LMS from https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/dataentry/api/download/attachment/fc783d60-ec01-35bd-4c8c-fcd5ec5a9c4d. FCC LMS letter is designed to take that long hex string as a short entry. The FCC has been progressively deprecating or shutting off functions of CDBS such that all new applications in broadcasting go through the LMS system. There are 1,033 transclusions of FCC letter, many in citations (and a significant portion added by me). The end goal would be to see as many of these ported to LMS letter when the FCC decides to take CDBS out of service.I've also been musing about having many of the citations changed to Cite web instead, which would permit things like IABot to interact with them and richer metadata (right now, FCC letter does not support anything more than a title or a pre-populated title for the "history cards" that are one of the document sets accessed through it). Pinging for your feedback.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like you could update the nicely documented FCC letter to take a new lms parameter, or something similar, rather than creating a new template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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:10TeamBracket-2ElimB

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗ plicit  11:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Redundant to 10TeamBracket-2Elim. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 10TeamBracket-2ElimB
 * 10TeamBracket-2ElimC
 * 10TeamBracket-2ElimD
 * Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2022 (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).