Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 20

[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. but merge substantive edit history with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no links Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 13:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947( c ) (m) 21:38, 20 October 2017 (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).
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 no consensus. now in use Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, empty Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--- Updated with relevant information. Apologies on the delay in filling in these tables. Will work more diligently to complete them now that I've been prompted. --HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge contents with Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board and then delete. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 20:07, 20 October 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one transclusion in user space. It can be converted and then deleted Magioladitis (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that only directs to another link and nothing else. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template and it also isn't working when I tested it in my sandbox. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a duplicate of Template:This is a new user. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and I don't think this template will be used in the future. Also, I have recently tested this template and it doesn't work very well. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although Rockefeller's philanthropy should be the topic of articles, since it effected modern American philanthropy, the idea of "Rockefeller Universities" is an artificial concept that will tend to mislead about some organizational form, when there is in fact no connection between these universities. ( Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (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).
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 2017 October 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:53, 28 October 2017 (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).
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 withdrawnIanblair23 (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No attempt has been made to maintain or update this rather poor template which adds no value to the cricket project, especially as the bulky "international seasons" section is meaningless because it effectively duplicates the incomplete first-class seasons section from 1990. Frankly, a waste of space. Jack | talk page 12:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin. Please terminate this TfD entry. I've realised that the template DID have value when it was first created (by ME!!!) over a decade ago but it has been ruined by irresponsible editing thereafter which has introduced a mass of erroneous and misleading non-links. I've decided a better option is to restore an earlier version and then update it to the present season. Sorry for inconvenience. Thanks. Jack | talk page 20:53, 20 October 2017 (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).
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 as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused malformed template (except that it's currently transcluding itself). Might have been meant as a user template as the title is the same as the username of the user who created the template. Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Magioladitis (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one transclusion. It can be converted and deleted Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2017 (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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one transclusion. It can be converted and deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2017 (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).