Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 6



Template:32TeamBracket-Compact

 * 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  01:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC) No transclusions. Redundant to 32TeamBracket. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 32TeamBracket-Compact
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:05, 7 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:There's no citation

 * 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  01:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC) No transclusions. Simply not needed. The convoluted logic contains inaccuracies and does not make sense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no citation
 * I made it on the fifth because I expected to use it occasionally, and it's tagged inline with a bulky deletion notice, so I'm unsurprised there are no transclusions. Can you tell me what the inaccuracies are? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC) HLHJ (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Just use the standard template. Many articles are completely unsourced but are not considered unverifiable -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How should I use the standard template to add a single cited sentence to such an article, without either citing the preceeding sentences or challenging them?
 * The standard template, according to assorted policy documents, means that I consider the tagged content unverifiable. If it is clearly verifiable but unsourced, then according to WP:OR, it does not need a citation, so I think it should not be tagged "citation needed". We don't tag every unsourced statement with "citation needed"; just the ones that need citations. If I use "cn" to tag unsourced content that is clearly verifiable, there's also a risk that someone might look at it and say "Well, that's been challenged for a while, and no-one has sourced it, so while I know little about this subject, I guess it is unverifiable and I'll remove it". See usage example in template doc. HLHJ (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While a single source can verify an entire paragraph, I don't think there is an inherent assumption that this is the case. In my opinion, in the usage example you gave the template you proposed is redundant; it is quite obvious that the source applies to the sentence "The moon does not shine with its own light; moonlight is reflected sunlight" and not to anything before or after. Muhandes (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Muhandes, I agree it's obvious that it doesn't apply to anything after. I'm not sure it's obvious that the source doesn't talk about the source of sunlight, without reading it. Without reading it, how would I be able to tell if a source verifies an entire paragraph or just the preceeding sentence? Is one sentence the default assumption? A "source cites entire para" exemption-forom-default template seems like it would be messier. 00:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, confusing and not needed. --Muhandes (talk) 07:51, 12 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:Quando Rondo

 * 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  11:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Only two links other than the main subject, navbox not needed. Muhandes (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Quando Rondo
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:44, 6 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:Promotional-2

 * 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  11:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC) This appears to be unused, and I'm not sure that it ever should be used. This template orders admins to indef the editor after deleting the userpage. The actual policy, at WP:PROMONAME, indicates that it's not just a clearcut delete-and-block situation, and it's the admins, not CSD patrollers, who need to make these decisions. (The template creator WP:VANISHED a few years ago.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Promotional-2
 * Delete. This template should not be used as part of the deletion process in these situations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, Exceeds the authority of anyone who could not simply do the block themself, so quite useless. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment it seems like it should be promotional-4 instead of 2; delete wrong level -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Can be straightforwardly handled by the deleting admin or reported through WP:UAA. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:40, 10 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:10TeamBracket-HorizonLeagueBasketball

 * 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  11:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC) No transclusions. Redundant to 10TeamBracket-ByeToSemi –Aidan721 (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 10TeamBracket-HorizonLeagueBasketball
 * Delete per nom. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:39, 6 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:8TeamBracket-Headers

 * 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  11:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC) No transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 8TeamBracket-Headers
 * Delete per nom. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:40, 6 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).