Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 14
May 14
[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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to Template:Czech Seats with a few cities missing. - filelakeshoe 18:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:03, 18 May 2012 (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.
Doctor Who (season X)
[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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Doctor Who (season 1) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 3) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 4) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 5) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 6) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 7) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 8) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 9) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 10) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 11) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 12) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 13) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 14) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 15) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 16) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 17) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 18) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 19) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 20) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 21) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 22) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 23) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 24) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 25) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who (season 26) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Doctor Who/bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
replaced by {{Doctor Who episodes}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it not be easier to turn them into wrappers then they would also work in history-versions of articles? Agathoclea (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacy compatibility is only really necessary where not doing so would make previous revisions unreadable. Navboxes do not fall into that category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as unused hardcoded instances of a superior template with greater functionality. This is a perfect example of template cleanup and consolidation, and I commend those who originated and implemented the idea. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2012 (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. delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unused and better navigation served by {{Dire Straits}}. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Unused, redundant, useless. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (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. delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template with less than five blue links and is a for a team which isn't fully professional. Therefore all other players are not notable and the template is pretty much useless. Banana Fingers (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, this serves little purpose. GiantSnowman 11:12, 17 May 2012 (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. delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and apparently only half-finished fork of {{infobox SCOTUS case}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Someone asked me to create this, as I recall. It used to be transcluded in the article namespace, maybe. I think now most articles use Template:Infobox court case or something. Given that I'm the template's author, this may qualify for CSD G7. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2012 (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 no consensus to delete, but some consensus to merge this template with others. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boilerplate article generator: this isn't necessary and isn't used (while it's designed to be substituted, it transcludes {{SCOTUSCase}} which is itself unused). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- {{SCOTUSCase}} is most certainly used. There are a few of these outline templates. Not sure if anyone actually uses any of them. I'd be content with one good version of an outline template. Given the standardized format of U.S. Supreme Court articles, it can be helpful to have a starter template. Otherwise users end up simply copying and pasting an existing article (and that invariably leads to remnants and fragments being transferred). That said, this outline template isn't very good, so I have no objection to this one being deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, my bad: I thought {{SCOTUSCase}} redirected towards the (barely used and up for deletion) {{SCOTUS-case}}. If this is indeed in general use then it'd be okay to keep and improve it, though I generally don't think substituted templates are a good way of creating skeleton articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: Given the large number of SCOTUS cases and the fact that new ones are added every year (many of which are highly notable), use of a substituted template to create an article outline is the only way to ensure consistency across this set of articles. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not true. Consistency can be achieved at any point. The question is whether these templates are actively being used and whether the several versions of them can be (or should be) merged into a single outline template. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that all of these can indeed be merged into a single template. To the extent that differences are needed, those can be implemented with callable parameters. bd2412 T 03:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not true. Consistency can be achieved at any point. The question is whether these templates are actively being used and whether the several versions of them can be (or should be) merged into a single outline template. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: Given the large number of SCOTUS cases and the fact that new ones are added every year (many of which are highly notable), use of a substituted template to create an article outline is the only way to ensure consistency across this set of articles. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, my bad: I thought {{SCOTUSCase}} redirected towards the (barely used and up for deletion) {{SCOTUS-case}}. If this is indeed in general use then it'd be okay to keep and improve it, though I generally don't think substituted templates are a good way of creating skeleton articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just created an article using this template. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:55, 23 May 2012 (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. delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, will never been transcluded to more than one page —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unused. Would only be used on List of awards and nominations received by Lost and doesn't require a stand-alone template. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (but I love the name, so confusing!) Sven Manguard Wha? 19:56, 14 May 2012 (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. delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Major international professional sports leagues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Reluctantly, as this was created in good faith. But to quote the issues I raised on the talk page months ago:
"This template may be a good idea, but it needs clearer inclusion criteria as to what constitutes "major" in an international setting, else it become a constant battleground. If "major" is taken to mean the top leagues in the world then listing, say NPB as equivalent as MLB is questionable. And there are those who would argue that MLS is nowhere near a top league in the world scene. There are very few who would agree that MLS is the fifth-best league in the world, which is implied by its inclusion here as one of only five soccer leagues listed.
Also, I question the real navigation value that this adds. As it stands, some of these are very tenuously connected and these links are unlikely to be followed. There's very few who would actually use this navbox to go from the Major League Baseball article to the article on India's top cricket league. They are far more likely go to either another league that covers the same US-and-Canada territory (which is covered by Template:Major Leagues) or to another baseball league (which is covered by Template:Professional Baseball). So it seems to me that this template is a bit redundant to other templates with better relevance that have tighter inclusion criteria.
In general, I'm not sure if the use of such a North American model really translates into an international context. Subsequently, while I think the idea is well intentioned, actually deploying this navbox is a bit premature, at least until the inclusion criteria are made clearer."
The criteria haven't been made any clearer, and the fundamental issue of redundancy to more focused templates still is inherent in the navbox. oknazevad (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Random inclusion criteria: what does Brazilian volleyball have to do with Iranian futsal? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the rare cases where WP:NENAN applies to something which is too broad to really require an infobox rather than too narrow. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and split into sport-specific navboxes. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Such sport-specific navboxes already exist, as stated in the nomination. That this is redundant to them is part of the reason I nominated it. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the nominator makes a good point. My main concern is that the navbox is too broad and that it is inherently POV as what constitutes a "major professional league" will always be subjective. To me it seems like most groupings have just arbitrarily selected some leagues and there could never be reached agreement as to what should be included. Arsenikk (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant, indiscriminate and POV. Negligible navigational value. Resolute 20:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a list of all professional sports leagues would be far too big; this list of "major" is entirely WP:POV. Conclusion - not needed. GiantSnowman 17:51, 18 May 2012 (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.