Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 25

< October 24	October 26 >

October 25

"Japanese Supercars" template deletion proposal

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 Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Supercars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

* Template:Japanese Supercars, 1957–present (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (redirected as duplicate)

The reason for nomination is that the term "supercar" is very highly subjective and whether the cars listed really are is highly debatable regardless that there is one or two that is considered to be a legitimate example. Also, this topic of subjectivity have been discussed to death everywhere on Wikipedia; so I think its best that this template is best gone. Donnie Park (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one. I can understand your concerns, but you must consider that the list is based on diverse Japanese resources and not on any opinion. This research has been combined into one list, so that a Non-Japanese can easily recognize the Japanese Supercar and understand the difference between Japanese Sportscar and Japanese Supercar. Also the Japanese article of Supercar, etc. confirms the list. So in my opinion, the list have to be keep especially for Non-Japanese population, which have no access to the Japanese resources. Rrp13121989 (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't see how the many motoring presses who misuse the term (as they always do) make it a valid template as I find the term supercar, extremely debatable and most of all, are you trying to point out that because the motoring press will throw the supercar tag to anything that retail at $100,000, a template of debatable so-called "supercars" should exists, right? Also see the links below for the points that have been raised previously in case you've not been aware and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 9#Category:Super cars. Donnie Park (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I am not agree with you. According to you, nobody can clearly say what is a supercar, isn't it? Can you than answer me, why the Wikipedia article of supercar is listing supercars? And I mean not only the English one. In every language of that article you will find a list of supercars. Than why is only this template wrong, which conclude the same cars? So I am still for Keeping one. Rrp13121989 (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Rrp13121989: So your point is because you think other language’s Wikipedia article have a listing means it should exists here as well. What “listing supercars” because there ain’t any and if there is any, they will be purged instantly; also, don’t expect any editors like myself to speak personally for the other languages Wiki page neither the English language version of the supercar article as well as it has nothing to do with me nor what I have been working on. If you want to dispute this argument further, you should bring this up with WP:CARS, they’ll be happy to support your argument but in my case, I stand by my ground to delete as this will lead to other templates such as German, Italian, American and British “supercars” consisting of mid-price ($200k above) or less sportscars that are really not just like your’s and subsequently lots of edit warring as it had happened before. Don’t forget to let me know if supercar is an internationally recognized class by car classification organizations like NCAP. Donnie Park (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. As per the nominator, the scope of these templates is too subjective and vague. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used to "confirm" the content of this template. --DAJF (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. As per the nominator, the scope of these templates is too subjective and vague. OSX (talk • contributions) 20:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one. If the list is not influent by any opinions and is based on resources, which can be trusted, so there is no point to delete the list. And it is not a bad idea to bring the Japanese supercars together to one list. EmblemSaga 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two templates are identical, so I redirected the longer name to the shorter name. The question still stands about whether to keep or delete this template. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Supercar is a WP:CONCEPTDAB / WP:SETINDEX page on the term, which applies to at least four completely unrelated things: 1) 'limited-production specials from an "elite" automaker', 2) 'standard-looking cars modified for power and performance', 3) 'models that appeal to enthusiasts, from smaller manufacturers', and 4) 'one-of-a-kind "showcase" project vehicles built by custom car retrofitters'. This is barely distinct from a WP:Disambiguation page, and is not the proper subject of a navigation template. Especially a pointlessly enormous timeline one, with only 5 entries which should simply be integrated into the text of the article (and probably already are). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMcCandlish. Navboxes should comprise either all items from a defined list (e.g. all US Senators from Nebraska or all kings of Nepal) or should be a selection of articles that are related to a certain topic (see {{Cheese}}). Here, we have a navbox that links pages sharing nothing but their names, linking items that really aren't related at all. It's already really short, and trimming all the extraneous stuff will make it too tiny for usefulness. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2015 (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).

Template:Proposed articles

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 Delete. Can be userfied if desired. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Proposed articles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Not really sure what the purpose of the template is. Mar4d (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is being used, in a handful of tables. See e.g. Portal:Khowar/Projects. I have disabled the TfD notice as that was breaking it; it should be clearer now how it works. It does not conform with our guidelines for colour, but that is easily fixed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the deletion template, Portal:Khowar/Projects is used in Portal:Khowar I have fixed the problem. -- Thanks Raki 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notice has been disabled so it no longer affects the pages. It will be removed after the discussion is concluded, normally after seven days.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userspace it; it is used by only one editor, for a single, short, and all-completed to-do list (that they're transcluding to a couple of other pages). Honestly, it's much more efficient to use a list for this purpose, and we have a wide range of resolution-status icon templates you can use to indicate progress on things; see Template:Done/See also for most of them. It's extremely unlikely that other editors are going to adopt a table-row-insertion system of to-do tracking, when we already have {{Todo}} and other easy, intuitive, readable templates for to-do lists (entries in which are compatible with the aforementioned inline resolution templates). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMcCandlish; confusing as not usable by the WP:Requested articles process -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2015 (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).

Template:Hybridization

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 Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently pointless navbox with a confusing, ambiguous, and grammatically incomplete title ("Hybridization & Nucleic"). Four of the five links are red; the one that is blue is for a topic that does not appear to have anything much to do with hybridization (it is about a test for detecting and identifying specific proteins). I can't see how this template would assist any Wikipedia reader in finding anything relevant to them. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serves no navigational purpose, is confusing, and it's main link, Hybridization, just goes to a disambiguation page. "Hybridization" by itself means a lot of unrelated things in different contexts, and I did not see anything in this redlink forest that I expected. After a bunch of these articles exist, it might make sense to create a Template:Hybridization in chemistry. If it's kept for someone reason, it should be moved to that name, without redirect. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:24, 26 October 2015 (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).

Template:San Jose State Spartans women's basketball coach navbox

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 keep, more articles were created. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Jose State Spartans women's basketball coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Relisted after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 20. The reason given for the first TfD was:

WP:EXISTING -- It is unused and the links listed do not have an article. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template"

but see discussion there. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a procedural nomination: I express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - When the coaches articles actually exist, then the template may be justified. I'm okay with the fact there is no article specifically on San Jose State Spartans women's basketball coaches in a WP:IAR way. -- Whpq (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep now that the cart is no longer before the horse. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have never required a list article for coaches, provided there is an existing article for the team with a list of coaches included. Please see San Jose State Spartans women's basketball. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – recreate template when more than half of the articles are created and it is actually navigating through more than two articles. Corkythehornetfan 00:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that there are enough articles to actually navigate. Corkythehornetfan 17:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EXISTING, with majority of links here being red. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4, which is often indicative that the subject fails WP:LISTN, and probably not worthy of a navbox. Concern is that women's basketball at a smaller university such as SJ St. is not presumed to get a lot of coverage, let alone specifically on the history of its coaches.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to see any of these navbox/succession boxes deleted for Division I programs, for which most of the coaches should be notable per GNG. The underlying article is San Jose State Spartans women's basketball, so I don't see a problem there (and it does include a list of head coaches). I am concerned, however, about only having two linked coaches in the navbox, given that navboxes exist to navigate among existing articles. I have suggested to the template creator that he should gin up a couple of additional stubs for a couple of the longer tenured SJSU Spartans coaches to alleviate this issue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stub about Pam DeCosta is now live. Arbor to SJ (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article about coach Sharon Chatman has been created, too, for a total of four linked articles about coaches in the SJSU succession, plus the link to the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCD, Whpq, Corkythehornetfan, WilliamJE, and Bagumba: Please reconsider your delete !votes in light of recent article creations. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See note which I have added below my nomination. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are now four linked articles in the navbox, plus the fifth link to parent article, San Jose State Spartans women's basketball. That is usually sufficient to satisfy the minimum number of links required for a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - listing a series, and there are now sufficient blue links anyway. --NSH002 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2015 (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).

Template:PD-Pre1978

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 Merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Pre1978 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PD-US-no notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:PD-Pre1978 with Template:PD-US-no notice.
These two templates appear to cover the same case. {{PD-US-no notice}} is what the equivalent template is called at Commons. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The templates are indeed duplicates of each other. {{PD-US-no notice}} has more information, so I suggest that we keep that version of the template. That is also a better template name as the same name is in use on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per rationale given by Stefan2. Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We have enough licensing templates already, and everyone familiar with the project knows that each template (generally) is used for a different situation. Because we have two templates covering the same ground as Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice, rather than just one, it looks like they're not quite the same. I've definitely confused myself with should-be-seen-as-redundant templates in the past. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2015 (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).

Template:Infobox Star Wars character

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 Delete. There does not appear to be a need for this template. TAnthony, feel free to redo all of the undos you experienced. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Star Wars character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant of, and contains less functionality than, {{Infobox character}}. Despite any previous protestations that this template is "needed" (or will be when the new film is out), it has only a single unique parameter |planet= that is easily accommodated with a custom field. All other Star Wars-specific in-universe fields like "weapons" or affiliation-specific colors were excised years ago.

To prove that this template is unnecessary, I have boldly converted its 39 article transclusions to the generic {{Infobox character}}. As I noted, only one existing parameter |planet= had to be substituted with |lbl21= and |data21=. I changed some parameter names to their equivalents in the generic infobox, like |voiceactor= to |voice= and |position= to |occupation=. I also actually added helpful real-world context parameters to the articles, like |series=, |first= and |last=. Finally, articles like Princess Leia were using parameters like |children= that don't even exist in the Star Wars template, but do in the generic {{Infobox character}}, so that information is now visible.— TAnthony^Talk 05:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone all edits (where later edits didn't make this impracticable) by this user where he removed this template from articles with the edit summary "Boldly convert to more functional {{Infobox character}}", per standing policy. After this discussion is closed, and if the result will be to delete this template, these edits can be repeated. I have no opinion as to the desirableness of this proposal itself. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was aware my actions might be a bit controversial, but based on past discussions of this and similar templates I knew it was essential to show in no uncertain terms that the templates could be replaced in every transcluded article with no detrimental effects. I'm obviously fine with leaving the articles you've reverted until the discussion is over. I suggest interested editors check out the before and after of Chewbacca to see how the infoboxe is visually unchanged, and Mara Jade to see how the spouse/children parameters would be available/visible. — TAnthony^Talk 20:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plip!

Procedural comment: IMNERHO, it was both procedurally wrong, from a WP:FAITACCOMPLI standpoint, to gut the usage of the template then list it for deletion, and procedurally wrong, from WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR standpoints, to revert all those changes, since they did in fact improve the encyclopedia, and undoing them made it worse again. So, you both get minnowed. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. {{Infobox character}} has extensible parameters for a reason. That said, I'm not sure we should be cataloguing in-universe trivia like fictional home planets in our infoboxes anyway. This is not Wookiepedia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought there was already substantial consensus to do away with all of these book-specific or movie-specific character infoboxes . . . if I'm wrong about this, can someone please provide a link to any previous TfD discussion(s) where we have kept a book-specific or movie-specific character infobox? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In looking through what remains at Category:Fictional character infobox templates, most of the existing franchise-specific infoboxes seem to have survived TfDs by "no consensus". But you can see at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 29#Characters templates that many have been deleted. {{Infobox James Bond character}} is not unique at all, but others like {{Infobox Highlander character}}, {{Infobox Doctor Who character}} and {{Infobox Jane Austen character}} (yes, I'm serious) have in-universe information that editors have argued is important in making sense of the characters. Obviously we can accommodate anything with {{Infobox character}}, but the issue really is, as SMcCandlish touches on above, which in-universe information we consider appropriate for an infobox. It would be great to gather up the remaining templates and have a reasonable collective discussion for those which we feel should be eliminated. I'm willing to do the research.— TAnthony^Talk 19:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plastikspork has initiated and guided many of these deletions in the past, he might have some valid input.— TAnthony^Talk 21:50, 28 October 2015 (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).

Template:TransAdelaide Stations

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 Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TransAdelaide Stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

TransAdelaide is defunct, and separate navboxes for all of the lines exist. Two transclusions. Alakzi (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 04:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 27 October 2015 (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).

Template:Pace web

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 keep after reformatting. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pace web (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this template a little under eight years ago. It creates a formatted link to an external web address for bus routes operated by Pace, a bus operator in the Chicago. The individual routes are not notable and don't have articles; the template is used on train station articles such as Joliet Union Station. This information is transient and probably not notable; Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The external link to the Metra site at the bottom of every article contains the same information. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're proposing to remove all the bus connection sections, essentially? Alakzi (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a separate conversation. Even if those sections are retained, this template really goes against our external link policies. Mackensen (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if we're keeping the sections, we'd want to reference them somehow, in which case the template could be converted for use in footnotes. Alakzi (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 04:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a properly formatted single-source citation template that correctly uses {{Cite web}}, so it can be used for referencing purposes, per Alakzi. The nom is correct that we should not be using something like this inline in article prose, per WP:EL, but it would be useful if coded and used properly as a cite shortcut. I've already done the work, at Template:Pace web/sandbox; just copy-paste the sandbox code over the extant template (and uncomment the CS1 category at the bottom of the /doc). Oh, and I also wrote documentation. The only fallout after the change is that some pages were using it in "External links" without a preceding * because the extant version of the template has provided one automatically, for some of its lifespan. That said, plenty of cases do precede it with * already, as at Linden (CTA station), and I think we basically WP:DGAF anyway; a few EL entries without list bullets until someone notices and fixes them aren't going to do any harm. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen, is that OK with you? Alakzi (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable solution; I have no objections. Mackensen (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2015 (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).

Template:Sporting Club sections

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 Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sporting Club sections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not in use. Elisfkc (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to relist unused templates for further discussion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one place this was used, it was removed as inappropriate and factually misleading; see Talk:Sporting Kansas City/Archive 1#Sporting Club Sections Template. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:51, 26 October 2015 (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).

Template:2016 WTA Tour

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 keep. The original template being nominated only contained the content of {{coming navbox}}. It has since been replaced and should be re-nominated if desired. However, there seems to be a consensus that PrimeHunter should avoid creating templates in the template space until they actually contain content. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2016 WTA Tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Some of the articles use this template, it will be enconvenient if use keep this. 333 -blue 05:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand what you say so I'm not sure what to argue against. Anyone is welcome to create a navbox there and overwrite the existing content. That's the whole idea. It's just a place holder until a navbox is made. If it's deleted then we get four red template links in the articles at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:2016 WTA Tour. Template links aren't supposed to be red so the template should be removed from the pages and then readded later when a navbox is created, which is certain to happen within two months. Let's not waste time on deleting the template now. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete creating a template simply for the sake of having a template seems like a very bad idea. What happens if that template never gets made? Then it's simply taking up space. Templates should be made when they're needed, not for the eventual possibility that they might be. Primefac (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template is based off {{coming navbox}}, for those interested, so it's not just stored text. Primefac (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ and move on. This is not worth arguing about; there is no substance and we don't need placeholders. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Switched to "userfy" per my comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and take {{Coming navbox}} with it, or we'll have a never-ending stream of these things. I've tagged that template as part of this discussion, and notified its author. 23:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)
- Comment I don't think {{Coming navbox}} should be part of this discussion which started 9 days earlier about another template which just happened to use {{Coming navbox}} at the time. It's a year old and currently has a single use, on {{2010 ITF Women's Circuit}} (2011–2015 have navboxes). All other previous uses have already become navboxes so I don't see "a never-ending stream of these things". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now turned {{2016 WTA Tour}} into the expected navbox. It is no longer a place holder. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to PrimeHunter's sand box or other identified user space. I appreciate PH's having filled out the 2016 box with event links, but it is 100% red links at this point, and 100% red link navboxes should not exist in mainspace. That said, userfy it per PH's instructions, so there is no need to completely recreate this animal in 10 weeks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually has 18 blue links including headings, redirects and working links in white. It's already used in five articles where it adds relevant navigation and information. These templates are always created before the year starts and gradually become more blue during the year. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2015 (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).

Template:Oporto Open tournaments

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 delete. Alakzi (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oporto Open tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There isn't much point in having a navbox with only three links in it. The tournament is relegated to the annals of history so there is nothing more to be added, and thus no reason to keep it around. Primefac (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A three-link navbox is a waste of space. There are already templates for navigating between instances in a series of events (or anything else in succession); see Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization for detailia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's really just one-link navbox: one to tournaments in the series, with one link to the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category:ATP Tour tournaments navigational boxes and Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes are full of templates with the same design (but usually more years). It allows tennis readers to see in a uniform way which years a tournament was played, and find the years with articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One-link navbox serves no valid navigational purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2015 (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).