Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3

[edit]

Template:CurrUSCong

[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template (the current US Congress is the 116th, not 113th) with no clear use. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to my edit history from that time, I created it to power Current United States Congress (which is apparently a thing). It looks like my change was reverted about a month later. I'll let someone else decide whether it's worth keeping. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not needed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I understand rightly, the point of this template is to enable a single template edit in place of a single redirect edit? It doesn't seem to save any labor, this isn't something requiring weird protection settings (e.g. so you could full-protect a redirect page while allowing template editors to modify it), and I don't envision it being needed on other pages. Obviously one needs to update data on the current Congress on various pages, but such pages almost always need other data updates too. You can't leave the page saying "In the {{CurrUSCong}} Congress, its representative is Soandso" because you need to go around and replace individuals who lost or didn't attempt re-election, died, resigned, etc. — if you did that two years ago at Indiana's 6th congressional district, you'd be wrong now because the representative elected two years ago didn't try for re-election this time. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2019 (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:Raycom

[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 redirect to Template:Gray TV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Television has completed its merger with Raycom Media. Most of the contents on the Raycom template is on Gray's template, which make the Raycom template useless since Raycom is now a defunct and Gray being the surviving entity. Csworldwide1 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete redirect, per nom and criteria T3 now met (most of the information now on the Gray template except for operations completely separated). Redirect to protect links. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. And how does this huge list of acronyms provide useful navigational value? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to {{Gray TV}}. What's wrong with this template name, and why break links in old revisions of articles? Given the developments you discuss, we obviously need no separate template, and it wouldn't be good to create a new redirect under this name if it didn't exist before, but a twelve-year-old template with lots of past use shouldn't be deleted merely because the subject's been merged into another subject and the template's content can appear somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I respectfully disagree with the keep and redirect. It is almost the equivalent to keeping the whole template as it is. As a commenter mentioned above, most of the info are now on the Gray template There's absolutely no significant value to preserve a now-outdated template of a now-defunct entity like Raycom, when you now have a template of the successor entity like Gray, in its place. Thus making the Raycom template redundant, useless and it should be deleted entirely, no matter how long the template lasted. And the info on the template is also listed on the main article as well. Csworldwide1 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but do not delete. Nyttend is right—there's no reason to break links in old revisions. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 January 2019 (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:Govia Routes

[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is unused and outdated. Govia used to own London Midland but now a different company owns London Northwestern Railway after the franchise has been handed over. We don't have route maps like this for any other railway franchise operators. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2019 (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:Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee

[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too narrow a subject to warrant a navbox. The article of the same name covers all the relevant information. The template is also plastered with party colors, and thus verges on promotionalism. For those less familiar with the topic; this is a navbox for the state-level committee of a political party. Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2019 (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:Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee

[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too narrow a subject to warrant a navbox. The article of the same name covers all the relevant information. The template is also plastered with party colors, and thus verges on promotionalism. For those less familiar with the topic; this is a navbox for the state-level committee of a political party. Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom's rationale. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Colors don't really matter, since one expects something dedicated to a political party to use that party's symbols. This is basically a boxed list with a few links (it doesn't navigate among most of the named individuals, even if they have articles) and thus not helpful. In multiparty countries, state party leaders simply aren't notable (per se) enough to get templates like this: either they're notable primarily for more important reasons (e.g. their party's been in government for many years, so the leaders have been chief ministers), or they're really not notable at all. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2019 (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:The Ascendents

[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't aid in navigation. None of the articles about the band in it actually exist, and I fail to see how Nirvana and Green Day are valid inclusions in the navbox cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 January 2019 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_3&oldid=877832111"