Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5

Template:Lists of People's Artists and Meritorious Artists

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. I have implemented Bilorv's suggestion. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of People's Artists and Meritorious Artists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation between WP:EXISTING articles. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, basically all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unless a reasonable amount of the redlinks could be converted to blue links. Are these articles waiting to be made? If not really, then there's no use for this template. ~Mable (chat) 08:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sea of red with only three useful links. Unaesthetic and of little navigational value. The Azerbaijan page can be added as a "See also" link on the other two existent pages if necessary. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea^ ~Mable (chat) 19:41, 19 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:Open-source video games

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) BethNaught (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Open-source video games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subject is too broad for a navbox, making it unwieldy. Doesn't just list open-source video games, but also incorporates other open-source software like libraries, game engines, frameworks and software development kits. There's the article Open-source video game, List of open-source video games and Category:Open-source video games. See for instance TuxKart: offering a link to Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory or Newton Game Dynamics just because they're open-sourced is not necessary. Soetermans. T / C 12:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been watching this one get crufty and would tend to agree that it's inappropriate for a navbox. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wayyyy overscoped. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, categories work better in this situation. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that a category is a much better idea for this topic. Blah2 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One of the largest - and ugliest - navboxes I've ever seen too BTW. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that it is too broad. Articles are too tangentially related to one another. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a broad mess, better break out the WP:TNT for this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)
Comment, could some parts of this template be used as a seperate navbox? "Open-source simulators" or "Open-source chess video games" don't seem nearly as problematic and the articles could be much more related to one another. It's just an idea I wanted to pose because the current template seems surprisingly complete, and it would be a shame if someone would have to re-do the work. ~Mable (chat) 17:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be problematic, just unnecessary. Listing a video game genre that happens to be open-sourced doesn't meet WP:NAVBOX, IMHO, because I don't think that's a "single, coherent subject" or that the articles would refer to each other. --Soetermans. T / C 13:05, 8 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:Suspense-fiction Adventure by 5pb. and SDR Project/Division Zero

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) BethNaught (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suspense-fiction Adventure by 5pb. and SDR Project/Division Zero (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Series has two entries, but series itself does not have an article. Not needed in a navbox. Soetermans. T / C 10:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NAVBOX (and whatever that essay is which says <5 links should be deleted). --Izno (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wh-what is this even supposed to be? I'm genuinely shocked that there's even more than one link. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:20, 5 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:Game Jumps

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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Game Jumps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two redirects, one wiktionary link. Nothing that could be listed in a category or in main article trickjump. Soetermans. T / C 10:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm inclined to keep this. I don't know that it needs to be restricted to specialized movements in FPSs, but the navbox itself is sensible and connects otherwise disparate pages in a way that would otherwise be category overkill IMO. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 4 links is sufficient to justify needing a navbox. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept - "Game Jumps" is really a bad name for this NavBox... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's like Game Grumps, but more bouncy! :3 Axem Titanium (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - BUMP N' JUMP?? BUMP N' JUMP!! DON'T LEAVE ME!!!!!! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient links, IMO: has four plus to title link. BethNaught (talk) 07:11, 13 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:Dance games designed for children

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. unconnected games. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dance games designed for children (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX; articles listed might be "designed" for children, but do not refer to each other and if, needed, are better suited for a category. By same logic, we could have a "First-person shooters for women" or "Casual games for teenagers". Soetermans. T / C 10:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support but would consider migrating into a category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Tech Talk Time (talk • contribs)
I think that would be a trivial category intersection of Dance games + Children's games. I thus do not see a need for a category. --Izno (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The template's content may also be original search, and "for children" sounds blur. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete imprecise inclusion criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better to just use categories. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 5 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:JRPG franchises

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) BethNaught (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JRPG franchises (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX; what these franchises have in common is that they are Japanese role-playing games. It's also unnecessary: there's List of Japanese role-playing game franchises and Category:Japanese role-playing games. Soetermans. T / C 10:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. The list alone is sufficient. A category might be appropriate for this. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and above. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the list does it better. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:29, 5 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).