Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 20

< September 19	September 21 >

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox basketball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems redundant to Template:Infobox basketball season Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template I made is a merge of Template:Infobox basketball season and Template:Infobox basketball league season. My template was going to be used for Basketball league seasons. This template has more categories rather then season template. It is being used for the Australian National Basketball League seasons from 2017 till now.

The NBL has been previously using Template:Infobox basketball league season, but the template has many issues. Firstly it has no links to Finals or List of Seasons. Template:Infobox basketball league season needs improvements. Reason I haven’t fixed the issue was because changing templates would cause many issues on other pages using that template. Leaving template is best otherwise removing it will cause too many problems.

Can guys please help me fix Template:Infobox basketball league season rather then deleting page. :( Giacontigers 08:46, 21 September 2020

Forking is never the solution. If you saw issues with the template, you should have brought them up in the talk page so they can be fixed. --Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 drum & bass collective

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) 02:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox drum & bass collective (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on Reckless Crew, author of this template and Reckless Crew are same editor. Recommend subst: and delete. Template arguably has creative content, so preserving history may be required, either by way of a left-over redirect or copying history to to Talk:Reckless Crew. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template. Pointless fork of Template:Infobox musical artist. Replace it with it. --Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subst: and Delete as a single-use hard coded instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete T3, and unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just as a point of interest, T3 has a seven-day waiting period; making the nomination two days after a TFD has been started a rather pointless move. Primefac (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have replace the one use of this template with {{infobox musical artist}}, it is no longer used in any articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:ARBIPA

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 September 30. Izno (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ARBIPA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Student Organization

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. Author can request the deleted page be userifed. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Student Organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recommended outcome: WP:Userfication. New template, not used, not ready for prime time, original version was self-referencing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, T3. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to that as long as it's clear the author can request it back as a userfied page later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:ONGC F.C.

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. Majority of respondents feel that the links involved are not significant enough to merit a template for this club at this time. No prejudice against userfication for continued working, and/or recreation when there are enough significant links. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ONGC F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link, doesn't need a template. Club is defunct, so no more links will be created Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The club isn't defunct. The club plays in the MDFA Elite League. You can add more links to the template. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show what other links we have, as existing articles, or topics which can be shown as notable to create as an article, to add to this template? I'm aware of none. If that's the case, this is a poor navigation template, and I would support delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving keep voter a chance to add some more links to the template and demonstrate its usefulness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation once there are at least 5 links that are directly relevant. I count one at present. --Izno (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, out of curiosity (asking as the likely closing admin) do you not consider links to the stadiums to be "directly relevant"? Primefac (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Ah, probably not the temporary ones. You might sell me on their permanent home. I probably still tend toward "not quite enough links". --Izno (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A bit few links when considering that one is a section of the main article, one is a category and two temporary arenas. --Trialpears (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spümcø

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:Spümcø. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spümcø (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:John Kricfalusi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Spümcø with Template:John Kricfalusi.
All but one of the blue links in these two templates are shared, so there is little reason to have two separate templates. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 20:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well my count is somewhat different... The Spümcø navbox presents at least 20 bluelinks that do not appear on the John Kricfalusi navbox. Also The John K template presents at least 2 bluelinks and 3 "blacklinks" (?) that do not appear on the Spümcø template. So there may be more like 25 total differences between the two. Nevertheless it is obvious from the 12 links that appear on both templates that the topics are related. Considering the Venn diagram of the two topics, it would appear that John K has fewer non-Spümcø bluelinks than Spümcø's non-John K bluelinks, so I'm tempted to give a merge !vote to merge John K into Spümcø possibly with a group10 subcategory entitled "Other works of John K" or "See also". But full disclosure: I created the Spümcø template and Cartoon Boy created the John K template. -Thibbs (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also pinging Patriarca12 who created Template:The Ren & Stimpy Show for additional thoughts/consideration. -Thibbs (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well things seem to be pretty quiet here... Perhaps it would help if you clarified your position, Molandfreak. Are you suggesting a merge from the Spümcø template into the John Kricfalusi template or a merge from the John Kricfalusi template into the Spümcø template? And have you put any thought to the The Ren & Stimpy Show template? Should that be merged in as well? Where do you stand on the details of this proposal? -Thibbs (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'll !vote weak keep for now until some reasonable plan comes along. If a merge was to take place then I'd prefer Spümcø to remain as it is currently the largest of the templates and somewhat subsumes "John Kricfalusi" and "The Ren & Stimpy Show" as topics. -Thibbs (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm for a merge into the company template, narrowly. --Izno (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Extended techniques

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 September 30. (non-admin closure) Heart ^(talk) 06:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extended_techniques (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Dearne and Dove Canal Worsborough branch map

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) 16:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dearne and Dove Canal Worsborough branch map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a semi-procedural nomination; was put up for T3/duplicate of {{Dearne and Dove Canal map}} but does not in my mind meet that criteria (it's a reasonable split to make a smaller template for that fork). That being said, it has no uses and is unlikely to be used given that most of the stops on the map are unlinked. In other words, I don't see any controversy to deletion but there is no speedy criteria that fits (and no PROD in template space). Primefac (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my original nomination. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).