Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/In closing

Shortcut
  • WP:CTFD


May 14

Template:PDreview

Looks like a template that never really took off in usage when it was made in 2010. At this point, such reviews are handled by WP:FFD, and the {{Oldffdfull}} template points readers in the direction of relevant discussions for files. (Also, if this template is deleted, Category:PD reviewed files should probably be deleted per {{Db-g8}} as dependent on the nominated template.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment NFCC/NFUR and PD discussions were merged into FFD, so this should be a remainder of a defunct process -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't used for either process though. It was a template that was created then never utilized. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Water polo men's national under-19 team

There are no under-19 team articles, nor do I suspect there will be any created in the near future (yes, it's a bit of CRYSTAL, but water polo isn't exactly a hugely popular sport). Thus, I see little to no reason to have these templates purely for the purposes of creating redlinks. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the 2024 Men's European U-19 Water Polo Championship, 2024 Women's European U-19 Water Polo Championship and 2024 Men's European U-19 Water Polo Championship Qualifiers articles that use the templates and will be used even more when both tournaments start. Thus ,they will obviously be used in the future and the men's U-19 template has been extensively used in the 2024 Men's European U-19 Water Polo Championship Qualifiers page. Get your facts right before you nominate stuff for deletion. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ILoveSport2006, you have misunderstood my nomination; ‹See Tfd› Hungary does not exist. Nor does any page for any country at the U19 level. Since this is unlikely to change in the near future, there is no reason to have custom linking templates for them. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I did misunderstand, what's the alternative? Having to write Hungary men's national under-19 water polo team every single time for each country when needed and adding a flag icon every time. The main benefit of this template and templates like it is the convenience. Also, these templates plus the European U-19 Championship articles will increase the chances of a potential article for a national team being created. There was no reason for the templates in the past because no articles were created for the U-19 age group in water polo, but now that I started the articles and have the ambition to create more articles for the U-19 World Championships and future European Championships in the age group, there will be more of a need for these templates in the future. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you would just write {{flag|Hungary}} →  Hungary because the point is to give a flag and a country name, not necessarily a redlink. I also am not saying that these templates can never be created or used, but currently there is zero point in having them. If you really want to link to the national team (which many I suspect will have an "Under-X" section) use the main {{wp}} or {{wpw}} templates. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There's a place for these templates like I said before.
    ILoveSport2006 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, most water polo national team wiki pages only talk about youth teams at a passing glance and use the same sentence. Nothing substantial. So the I suspect they include a "Under-X" section argument is wrong. Only the pages of Spain's men and women, plus Croatia's men, address the youth teams in any significant form. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electronic writing

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template:Electronic writing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pretty unacceptable in its current state in its purpose within Template:List of writing systems. Remsense诉 11:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Thom Park

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 Template does not exist. If the title linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template:Thom Park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Thom Park is relatively small (5 acres) and is one of many in Gresham (33 listed on the town website for a population of 110,000). There is nothing obviously notable about it. Newhaven lad (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cinéma pur

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template:Cinéma pur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in 3 articles despite the long list, and fails most of WP:NAVBOX's criteria for a good navbox. There's no article on the subject of the template (it's a subtopic of Non-narrative film). Most of the articles refer to their respective movements (e.g. Dadaism, Surrealism, New American Cinema) rather than cinéma pur. Without the navigation template, most of these articles wouldn't link to each other since they come from very different periods and movements within non-narrative or experimental film. hinnk (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, from what you say, it sounds like it should be deleted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can speed it along - CSD author, etc. let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is such a no-brainer, I blanked the template - leaving in the discussion part - and removed links to the template (see what links here).–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/In_closing&oldid=473446133"