The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparent test page, no other use Auric talk 23:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2016 August 14. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result of the discussion was merge if possible. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:No redirect with
Template:No redirect conditional.
IMO, there shouldn't be any case where we want a link with an unnecessarily complex target (with "&redirect=no" being appended), if a regular one would suffice. This is also about not giving viewers an incorrect hint about the target being a redirect. I therefore propose merging the code of {{
no redirect conditional}}
into {{
no redirect}}
, falling back to its original behavior only if subst'd. Note that I couldn't properly tag the former, as it's fully protected.
PanchoS (
talk)
09:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted here. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
not much in the KHL team template that's not already in the generic hockey team template. so, no real reason for keeping a second infobox template. just merge them. Frietjes ( talk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted here. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to give this another try, because nothing has changed since the previous nomination. You might wonder at this nomination, because it seems at first to be an entirely reasonable topic. However, if you dig a little deeper, you find that a) the main article covers little or none of the subjects in the template, b) the list of scandals and involved individuals is incredibly arbitrary and ad hoc, with no systematic inclusion criteria, and c) the creator and the other major editor have both been indeffed for socking, which strongly suggests that maintaining NPOV was not the highest priority of the folks who created this. Also see WP:TNT; this might be a legitimate topic, but if we need a navbox about it, we need to start over. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 14:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This template seems quite silly given that it's just a link to the fact that the team made it to the finals one year and then another match. Both are these are covered in the more useful template Template:Portugal national football team results. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Not enough links to navigate. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion 4. There's no article on the template's subject. Sixth o f March 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparent test page, no other use Auric talk 23:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2016 August 14. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result of the discussion was merge if possible. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:No redirect with
Template:No redirect conditional.
IMO, there shouldn't be any case where we want a link with an unnecessarily complex target (with "&redirect=no" being appended), if a regular one would suffice. This is also about not giving viewers an incorrect hint about the target being a redirect. I therefore propose merging the code of {{
no redirect conditional}}
into {{
no redirect}}
, falling back to its original behavior only if subst'd. Note that I couldn't properly tag the former, as it's fully protected.
PanchoS (
talk)
09:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted here. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
not much in the KHL team template that's not already in the generic hockey team template. so, no real reason for keeping a second infobox template. just merge them. Frietjes ( talk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted here. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to give this another try, because nothing has changed since the previous nomination. You might wonder at this nomination, because it seems at first to be an entirely reasonable topic. However, if you dig a little deeper, you find that a) the main article covers little or none of the subjects in the template, b) the list of scandals and involved individuals is incredibly arbitrary and ad hoc, with no systematic inclusion criteria, and c) the creator and the other major editor have both been indeffed for socking, which strongly suggests that maintaining NPOV was not the highest priority of the folks who created this. Also see WP:TNT; this might be a legitimate topic, but if we need a navbox about it, we need to start over. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 14:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This template seems quite silly given that it's just a link to the fact that the team made it to the finals one year and then another match. Both are these are covered in the more useful template Template:Portugal national football team results. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Not enough links to navigate. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion 4. There's no article on the template's subject. Sixth o f March 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)