Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 18

< July 17	July 19 >

July 18

Template:Conflicting image use

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) Omni Flames (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conflicting image use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't appear to have been in use since 2012, when the category was renamed. No-one ever noticed that this template wasn't populating an existing category since then, so it's clear this isn't in modern use. It's not clear what the template is meant to accomplish, either, since a file being used to illustrate different things in different articles isn't an issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it talking about conflicting descriptions, such as saying a picture was taken at different times or places in different articles? —PC-XT+ 07:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but even if it is meant to say that, it hasn't been in use for years and the whole thing seems to be a bit confused. The category it fed into was deleted, but it contained misleading information like suggesting this was a CSD template in it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too confusing. If we need something like this, it should probably be started from scratch to avoid this confusing past. —PC-XT+ 20:19, 23 July 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).

Template:Yeshivas in New Jersey

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. On the issue of redundancy, it's worth noting that WP:NOTDUP states "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic." Redundancy can be an assurance that losing a template/category/list will be no great loss given that there's something else problematic about the template/category/list, but that by itself is not a reason for deletion as per our existing guidelines. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yeshivas in New Jersey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

1. Stated incomplete. 2. Redundant to Category:Orthodox yeshivas in New Jersey, where all but one of the articles (apparently not Orthodox) are already present. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, the purpose of lists, categories and templates is to work in synergistic fashion; there is no "redundancy" and we are not forced to choose only one or the other. If we depended on all of Wikipedia being complete, we'd have nothing. Alansohn (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in a related discussion, that guideline says clearly that redundancy between templates and categories is used as a deletion argument, and I have seen it countless times here at Tfd and Cfd. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template seems to provide an element of navigation presently not redundant to the category, which is that it intersects the categories 'X things in county Y' and 'Yeshivas in NJ'. A navbox does not need to be complete, and in fact I have just now removed the red links. --Izno (talk) 16:48, 19 July 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).

Template:Last Comic Standing 1

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 no consensus. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Last Comic Standing 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Last Comic Standing 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Last Comic Standing 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Last Comic Standing 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also nominating Template:Last Comic Standing 2, Template:Last Comic Standing 4 and Template:Last Comic Standing 5: Not everything needs a navbox, and these certainly don't. Laun chba ller 17:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sitting here feeling a little puzzled about the nomination rationale here. Why do you think these don't need a navbox? --Izno (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, there's been an error in this nomination for two weeks now. The purpose of a navbox, to my mind, is to identify and link to the main topics of an article; listing all the participants in that series is too specific for this purpose. Template:The Voice UK provides a good balance: List the winners, and then a row for "other notable contestants".--Laun chba ller 11:29, 24 July 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).

Template:Wolf-Williams Racing

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 here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wolf-Williams Racing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unnecessary template begun by an editor known to the F1 project who persists in attempting to create pages etc. for Wolf-Williams, despite consensus to the contrary. This team is not a separate entity to Frank Williams Racing Cars; it is not treated as such by the sport's governing body and is covered by the FWRC Wiki page. This has been communicated to the creator of the page on several occasions, but to no avail. Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not seeing a reason for deletion in your comment. If it's part of that team, why are the links in the template proposed for deletion not in the navbox for FWRC, which is {{Frank Williams Racing Cars}}? --Izno (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which links you mean exactly, as a number of them are included in both templates. In terms of personnel, those who were involved, for a very short time, with the temporarily re-named team (W-W) would not necessarily be considered notable by F1 Proj. convention in the context of FWRC. However, there are one or two drivers who could be included at FWRC, but the majority at the W-W template do not have a strong case for inclusion. Just by way of background the history of FWRC around this time was rather complicated with multiple driver, sponsor etc. changes. A driver who took part in just one practice session (Kuwashima) for W-W, for example, has no basis for inclusion in either template. The convention is to include, at the most, drivers who at least achieved a points finish. No driver did so for W-W, so would not be included at FWRC. Eagleash (talk) 04:30, 26 July 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).

Template:Konami Rebirth series

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Konami Rebirth series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox for three video game articles, the ReBirth games. Gradius ReBirth is part of the Gradius series, Contra ReBirth is part of the Contra series and Castlevania: The Adventure ReBirth is part of the Castlevania series. What these three games have in common is that they were developed by M2 and that they were released through the Wii Shop Channel. There is no article on the ReBirth games, they're not connected through their respective intellectual properties, and there is no "single, coherent subject" (see WP:NAVBOX). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the soft threshold for WP:NENAN. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 19 July 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).

Template:WikiProject Vespidae

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Vespidae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WikiProject Vespidae has been rolled into WikiProject Insects/Hymenoptera task force. This template is no longer required. M. A. Broussard (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if/when its use is deprecated as appropriate. --Izno (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only pages currently linking to this template are those discussing its deletion and transclusions thereof. It is no longer in use. M. A. Broussard (talk) 01:53, 22 July 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).

Template:Chester and Holyhead Railway RDT

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chester and Holyhead Railway RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that essentially duplicates Template:North Wales Coast Line RDT. Useddenim (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template that differed was the one more appertaining to the Chester and Holyhead Railway, which was incorrectly headed "North Wales Coast Line" instead of "Chester and Holyhead Railway". A contributor recently added the first station sites of both Prestatyn and Llandudno Junction to the RDT and these were removed, even though both of these exceed the half-mile different site requirements that are said to be the rule.

By all means, keep a separate one for the North Wales Coast Line, but just keep that as reflecting matters at they stand in 2016, similar to those lines in the West Yorkshire Metro area.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 18:13, 24 July 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).