Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 29 March 2 >

March 1[edit]

Template:Gold Coast Blaze roster[edit]

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 as unused and unopposed. ~ RobTalk 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This team dissolved in 2012, which means a roster template is unneeded anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2016 (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:Hovannisian 2001[edit]

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 as unused and unopposed. ~ RobTalk 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These reference templates are unused. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2016 (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:Hum Award Best Comic Actor[edit]

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) sst✈ 05:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This award was only awarded once, and discontinued in 2013. There are not enough wikilinks to support it. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is totally pointless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:42, 1 March 2016 (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:Cite doi/10.4236.2Fjmp.2015.63031[edit]

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) sst✈ 05:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused citation template, and one that is not usable as a reliable source because it points to a predatory open access journal rather than a properly peer-reviewed one. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy and strong delete unused template that is a hardcoded instance of the general citation template. Wikipedia is not a citation database, there is no reason to have hardcoded citation template for low, one, or no-use citations -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but do not let this lead to yet another pogrom against various wikiprojects' (or other topical sets of) specific-source citation; it's a tedious and perennially disruptive pastime to go after them. These are routinely kept, even if their transclusion numbers are low, because they're often substituted (indeed, those that have not bee should be edited to use safesubst so they can be substituted and generate standard-markup citation templates, since this aids the ability to do maintenance on their parameters). But, yes, we do not need farically obscure ones like this. If someone really is frequently citing one DOI againd and again, they can create a userspace or wikiproject-space safesubst template for their own use. If it's unlikely that multiple editors would ever use it, we don't need it in the template namespace.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've made multiple attempts to deal with these cite doi templates but these are being deprecated and deleted eventually. The TFD here resulted in the first ten being deleted. I've asked at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Update_to_request for a bot operator to volunteer to take on the orphaned ones at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unused template. - tucoxn\talk 20:18, 8 March 2016 (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:Country data Dalen[edit]

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 keep. ~ RobTalk 15:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dalen isn't a country or region, and not even a municipality for a long time. Cycn (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose; this is part of the flag template system, which include many non-extant jurisdictions of various sorts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SMcCandlish —PC-XT+ 11:32, 15 March 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_1&oldid=710877080"