Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 20

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2014 January 3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2014 January 3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It can be replaced by {{Old peer review}}. Scientific peer review is inactive. Magioladitis (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. I was involved with the scientific peer review scheme, but it has been dead in the water for years. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The "scientific peer reviews" are archived in a different location from regular peer reviews. The {{Old peer review}} template will need to be updated to handle this. So a straight delete/replace wouldn't work, but a merge would. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after merging any needed features. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Part of assignment that finished 5 years ago Magioladitis (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As with similar templates, it's kept as a record. See its use at, say, Talk:Mario_Vargas_Llosa. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, redundant to {{course assignment}}. was only used on about eight talk pages before I replaced it. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't replace these templates before this discussion is over. Again, see its use at, say, Talk:Mario_Vargas_Llosa, where it is clear that it's not simply redundant, as it provides much more information, plus a link to the project page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no information missing or reduction in links in this version. Frietjes (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to the more general {{course assignment}} template. --RL0919 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States judicial salaries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Each (active) link redirects to the same article. Potential for abuse: e.g., would we next include state courts, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, provides no useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Frietjes....William 11:23, 20 December 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danish Culture Canon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is way too vast to be a useful navigational aid, and is better left as an article, which does already exist. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As OP says, too vast. In fact, the article says there are 108 works, but the template has 158 listings. – S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, too large to be useful. Frietjes (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.