Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 15

[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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn as per request at my user talk. Listifying can be done by any interested editor when template deletion isn't bundled together with it. ~ Rob13Talk 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Listify. Of the 20 quarterbacks listed in this navbox, only six have articles; the rest aren't even redlinked (probably because they will never meet WP:NCOLLATH). If you think about it, this makes sense, since no college program in its history is going to have all (or even a majority) of its quarterbacks be notable enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Per WP:NAV, unlinked entries should be avoided in navboxes; a proliferation of redlinks is also discouraged. I think this is a perfect example of where a list would be much more appropriate than a navbox. In a list article there is no issue with having redlinked and unlinked names. In fact, we already have Category:Lists of college football quarterbacks which has far fewer articles than we have navboxes in Category:American college football quarterback navigational boxes. Note that no List of Appalachian State Mountaineers starting quarterbacks existed as of the posting of this TfD, and the title link for the navbox was to Appalachian State Mountaineers football. Grondemar 15:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, keep, and remove the unlinked names from the template. As per my earlier comment here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 22:06, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 withdrawn as per request at my user talk. Listifying can be done by any interested editor when template deletion isn't bundled together with it. ~ Rob13Talk 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Listify. Of the 16 quarterbacks listed in this navbox, only four have articles; the rest aren't even redlinked (probably because they will never meet WP:NCOLLATH). If you think about it, this makes sense, since no college program in its history is going to have all (or even a majority) of its quarterbacks be notable enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Per WP:NAV, unlinked entries should be avoided in navboxes; a proliferation of redlinks is also discouraged. I think this is a perfect example of where a list would be much more appropriate than a navbox. In a list article there is no issue with having redlinked and unlinked names. In fact, we already have Category:Lists of college football quarterbacks which has far fewer articles than we have navboxes in Category:American college football quarterback navigational boxes. Note that no List of Akron Zips starting quarterbacks existed as of the posting of this TfD, and the title link for the navbox was to Akron Zips football. Grondemar 03:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, keep, and remove the unlinked names from the template. As per my earlier comment here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 22:06, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 withdrawn as per request at my user talk. Listifying can be done by any interested editor when template deletion isn't bundled together with it. ~ Rob13Talk 23:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Listify. Of the 25 quarterbacks listed in this navbox, only four have articles; the rest aren't even redlinked (probably because they will never meet WP:NCOLLATH). If you think about it, this makes sense, since no college program in its history is going to have all (or even a majority) of its quarterbacks be notable enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Per WP:NAV, unlinked entries should be avoided in navboxes; a proliferation of redlinks is also discouraged. I think this is a perfect example of where a list would be much more appropriate than a navbox. In a list article there is no issue with having redlinked and unlinked names. In fact, we already have Category:Lists of college football quarterbacks which has far fewer articles than we have navboxes in Category:American college football quarterback navigational boxes. Note that no List of Air Force Falcons starting quarterbacks existed as of the posting of this TfD, and the title link for the navbox was to Air Force Falcons football. Grondemar 03:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, keep, and remove the unlinked names from the template. As per my earlier comment here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 22:06, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 withdrawn as per request at my user talk. Listifying can be done by any interested editor when template deletion isn't bundled together with it. ~ Rob13Talk 23:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Listify. Of the 14 quarterbacks listed in this navbox, only four have articles; the rest aren't even redlinked (probably because they will never meet WP:NCOLLATH). If you think about it, this makes sense, since no college program in its history is going to have all (or even a majority) of its quarterbacks be notable enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Per WP:NAV, unlinked entries should be avoided in navboxes; a proliferation of redlinks is also discouraged. I think this is a perfect example of where a list would be much more appropriate than a navbox. In a list article there is no issue with having redlinked and unlinked names. In fact, we already have Category:Lists of college football quarterbacks which has far fewer articles than we have navboxes in Category:American college football quarterback navigational boxes. Note that no List of Connecticut Huskies starting quarterbacks existed as of the posting of this TfD, and the title link for the navbox was to Connecticut Huskies football. Grondemar 03:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, keep, and remove the unlinked names from the template. As per my earlier comment here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 22:06, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 ~ Rob13Talk 01:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an infobox... Not really sure what the point of it is. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:06, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 01:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

single-use template, can be merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates {{Visitor attractions in São Paulo}} Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not used. Drdpw (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be replaced with just {{Infobox football club}}. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:04, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 Relisted on 2016 December 23 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 23 December 2016 (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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:03, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anything this should be a navbox... Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:00, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains one entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2016 (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).
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 Relisted on 2016 December 23 (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2016 (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).