Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 25

[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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005–2006}}. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2018 (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) 18:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not being used or ever likely to be used; poorly implemented (only handles a particular range of inputs); and duplicates more general functionality. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:03, 25 January 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

connects only two articles Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2018 (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) 18:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

should be added to an article or deleted Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to the NRL article.Fleets (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this because the template was added to the template and then subsequently removed by the TFD nominator and replaced with a different map. Thus, there is currently a map on the NRL page but it is not this template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2018 (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) 18:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; only entry in Category:United States flag template shorthands Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused & unneeded templates with no meaningful description.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WT:COMICS has been notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:48, 25 January 2018 (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 no consensus. The template was changed during the discussion. Please feel free to renominate it if you would still like to see it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and would only connect two articles if it were used (2010s and 2000s) Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the title of this template is misleading and incorrect anyway... the articles mentioned above that would fit into this template are NOT the overall number-one songs each week in Venezuela, but the number-one songs on the chart specifically for English-language songs – at the time the chart was known as "Pop Rock General", but there are now three charts, "Pop General", "Rock General" (both for Spanish-language acts) and "Anglo", which is the natural continuation of the former "Pop Rock General" chart. For genuine Venezuela number-one songs, the articles that should be connected via this template are List of number-one singles of 2014 (Venezuela) and List of number-one singles of 2015 (Venezuela), although you can see that the latter is incomplete. Richard3120 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated it to include the current existing articles/lists appropriate to the template. As author of the template, I'm neutral on whether to keep/delete. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more, with feeling?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2018 (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 no consensus. The template was changed during the discussion. Please feel free to renominate it if you would still like to see it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

provides no navigation Frietjes (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2018 (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) 04:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A list of guest musicians is not a suitable topic for a WP:NAVBOX. Articles are not closely connected to one another and navigation between them seems unlikely. Transclusion of the navbox on the articles of the individuals involved puts WP:UNDUE weight on the loose association. Best left for List of Ayreon guest musicians. --woodensuperman 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2018 (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) 18:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only two EPs have articles. Not needed for navigation. --woodensuperman 11:58, 25 January 2018 (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) 18:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the links is an actual bus station, the rest link to articles of geographical areas (localities) where a bus station is located. Ajf773 (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2018 (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 after merging with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used in only one page. Should be substed and deleted. Izno (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2018 (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. No prejudice against recreation if and when a significant number of the redlinks turn blue. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful navigation box since all the links take you to category space, instead of to the corresponding articles Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 11:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navbox links categories, not articles, and as such, should not be used in article space as no reader would expect to end up at a category when clicking on a link here (see WP:EGG and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). As it isn't employed elsewhere, this should be deleted. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia" --woodensuperman 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I see this has been updated (correctly) to link to the year articles and is now a sea of redlinks. Note that per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, navbox should only be transcluded on the articles contained in the navbox. So, navbox is still pretty pointless with only a couple of active links. --woodensuperman 09:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking comments on updates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:44, 25 January 2018 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; duplicates navigation provided by Template:Year in Chad Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose (see above), and possibly discuss the usages of the two "Year in countries" template branches? - See above for my comments on the matter of the "Year in countries" project. However, the differences between and differing usages of the two branches of "Year in countries" templates (the ones with "Years" and the ones with "Year") should probably be discussed further, in order to help better the parts of the Wiki focusing on various nations. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 11:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking comments on updates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:44, 25 January 2018 (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).
[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 relisted on 2018 February 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 6 February 2018 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; links zero articles (all are category links which are already covered by the category tree) Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose (hear me out?) - While the "Years in countries" categories, pages, and templates are definitely something to be improved upon; these templates, in my honest opinion, would provide helpful navigation between topics in the yearly history of various countries. These templates, while not perfect and currently relatively unused, would provide a structured, helpful way to easily find any page or category on any year in any given country. I've been trying to help organize the mess of pages and categories that exist in this mini-WikiProject of articles, but it's far too soon to make a bold move like deleting it. Hopefully, instead of deleting these works in progress, they can be improved upon by helping manage and create the pages and categories involved. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 11:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navbox links categories, not articles, and as such, should not be used in article space as no reader would expect to end up at a category when clicking on a link here (see WP:EGG and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). As it isn't employed elsewhere, this should be deleted. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia" --woodensuperman 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I see these have (correctly) been updated to link to the year articles and is now a sea of redlinks. Note that per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, navbox should only be transcluded on the articles contained in the navbox. So, navbox is still pretty pointless with only a couple of active links. --woodensuperman 09:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking comments on updates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:39, 25 January 2018 (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 no consensus. Many participants believe that there is room for improvement, so I suggest a discussion take place on how to either reduce the excess listings with a more defined inclusion criteria or split it up into separate navboxes. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

looks like WP:OR with an arbitrary cut-off for inclusion Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Undefined inclusion criteria. Not really useful as a navigational aid as the articles are not interconnected. --woodensuperman 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The methodology is probably the most confusing thing I've ever seen on a template. And the size is ridiculous, mostly caused by the term "major" being entirely subjective... and based in some strange arbitrary function. Simply not useful to our readers anymore than a category page would be like this. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for the reasons expressed by Wisamzaqoot. — Fajr18 (Talk) 07:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for it has good methodology although some might not find it familiar due to its asian customisation. The need is there to inform people of its existence. I personally found it useful. EROS message 08:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split or keep if splitting not possible I see both sides and believe the template does serve a purpose as I've used it in the pass. However, I also do believe that it has gotten big and unwieldy at this point. I'm not sure how one could objectively tighten it methodology (i'm not sure what discussion even went into its current methodology). In an ideal situation, I think it should be split into multiple templates for each industry, however, seeing as how I tried and failed to create a separate template for video games, this may be easier said than done. As it does function for its purposes as it is now, I recommend keeping if all else fails.Rogue Commander (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:26, 25 January 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the team is dissolved Joeykai (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox links categories, not articles, and as such, should not be used in article space as no reader would expect to end up at a category when clicking on a link here (see WP:EGG). As it isn't employed elsewhere, this should be deleted. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia". --woodensuperman 09:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The navbox aids navigation through the city's history, year by year, and its presence on various article pages helps contextualize each article within the larger sweep of time. Each year link leads to a lot of useful information about the city. -- M2545 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what a navbox is for. It should link related articles. See WP:NAVBOX. And it should only be transcluded on those articles that are mentioned in the navbox. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --woodensuperman 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NAVBOX. if this were being used exclusively in category-space, I could see keeping it. but it's not, so it's really not that helpful. if you really need a link to category space, you can accomplish the same thing with a single link to Category:Years in New York City, which doesn't need to be updated every year. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:23, 25 January 2018 (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) 04:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary to maintain squad templates for amateur teams. Jay eyem (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2018 (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).