Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 1

[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too little content. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 16:52, 1 April 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).

Merged football league table templates

[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. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merged with article with attribution per this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: why have you done this again? I have asked you at a previous discussion not to. GiantSnowman 14:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
this discussion is really for all of them, and the list will grow as I find more. I have marked each one that was added after the 2nd. I will strike your !vote again since you apparently want to examine each one. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you struck my !vote? I simply wanted you to clarify why you have added extra templates to a discussion after the discussion has begun. Do I need to raise your conduct at ANI? I am deeply concerned. GiantSnowman 12:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per nom. (do not ping me to revote if Frietjes added more templates after my vote because I will still vote delete for more templates if I revote) Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 3 April 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).

2012 AFC Champions League group tables

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folk of Template:2012 AFC Champions League group tables and these templates uses non-standard format Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:46, 1 April 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).
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:08, 1 April 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).
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. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template. Seems to be a way to prep a page? No changes since 2011. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:42, 1 April 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).
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) 19:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused series navbox. Redundant to Template:Malaysia topics Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Template is used (if only once) - relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:37, 1 April 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).
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. To Module:List and Module:String as appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on several unused templates, redundant to Module:String {{#invoke:Listify|input|x|yyxyxyy}} -> <ul>{{#invoke:String|replace|yyxxyy|x|<li>%1</li>|plain=false}}</ul>. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:56, 1 April 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).

April Fools' Day nominations

[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 speedy keep. Joke is over (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT[April Fools!] InvalidOStalk 00:25, 1 April 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).