Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 5 - Wikipedia

Article Images

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) 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tv.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, superceded by more specific templates. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it isn't supposed to be used, it provides instructions on which templates should be used just like Template:IMDb. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: So we're supposed to be keep a template that's not supposed to be used? That makes no sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- there are plenty of soft redirects and disambiguation pages. if you want to have all these deleted, nominate Template:IMDb and all the others. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The purpose of this template is to identify an error and direct editors to a list of the correct templates in the event that this one, which used to be the default, is used. Without it, editors have to go searching for the right one to use. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:25, 7 June 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, would fail WP:NENAN even if used. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four related articles (same developer), more projects in the works, and the two founders (or at least their lawsuit) are likely notable as well. The navbox lets readers easily reference other related titles, just as navboxes were designed to do. Not sure why they weren't in use, but they are now. czar 04:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I only see two projects. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? Respawn Entertainment, Titanfall, Titanfall 2, Titanfall: Frontline, plus the other potential articles I mentioned czar 04:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, now used. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was deleted by Kudpung per CSD G7. Frietjes (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Digimon Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused link to a fan wiki, not valid per WP:EL Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue to keep it, but there's no point when editors silently depopulate templates years ago. Why bother anymore? I kind of wish I didn't spend so much time doing that, or even defending this very template. People just come along and just flat out remove stuff. Then again, spending that much time on the topic of Digimon is pretty damn retarded. I don't blame this TfD, I'm just ranting because I was bored. Wait, was Digimon the one about the little blue village people? Oh god, has it really been 10 years since I was actually active here? They're still doing XfD's like this? What the hell happened? Where's all the flying cars? Delete -- Ned Scott 02:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the type of external link that should be added on a case-by-case basis, not automated. (Fan wikis are rarely good external resources,,nevertheless this Wikia in particular.) Not used, so no processing needed. czar 04:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]