Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 21

< June 20	June 22 >

June 21

Template:Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones

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) 22:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems unnecessary. Almost every year we have C4 Severe Tropical Cyclones, and there is nothing special to have a template for them, compared with C5 Severe TC. Also, we don't have similar templates for South Pacific cyclones B dash (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@B dash: The reasoning in the deletion nomination is faulty and I oppose the deletion nomination. These are templates, not articles. The template is not an article titled List:Category 4 Australian region tropical cyclones, and no extraordinary notability is claimed (besides, such an article could be warranted anyway). Furthermore, your comment regarding there not being similar templates for the South Pacific is missing the point. The reason such templates do not exist is because no editor has yet decided spend the hours of tedious, repetitive editing that it takes to make these templates, choosing to rather edit and improve articles instead. Additionally, the fact that no such similar template exists for another topic is irrelevant, and does not preclude there being such a template made for the Australian region. These templates serve as a useful navigation tool for readers and editors to find similar cyclones, and provide a complete, compact list of all these systems. Nominating these for deletion is simply causing unnecessary trouble, and no one would benefit from the deletion. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@B dash and ChocolateTrain: We have a template for Category 4 Pacific hurricanes. Why should we delete templates that will be collapsed at the bottom and eventually direct users to a list of storms at that intensity? It seems counterproductive to the project to move forward with this deletion. The excuse that we don't have similar templates in another basin is a poor one at that. If that's the case, why try anything new? Why create yearly tropical cyclone articles? Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Yeah Cat 5s are rare, but that doesn't mean we should immediately discount storms of a lower intensity. Look at Idai, it is one of the most destructive cyclones in the South-west Indian Ocean and it wasn't a very intense tropical cyclone. I am therefore inclined to oppose all three nominations. Good day. Noah^Talk 14:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Category 2 Australian region tropical cyclones}}, {{Category 3 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} and {{Category 5 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} to Template:Australian region severe tropical cyclones. These templates are created without care to guidelines and proper nav template useage. Looking at WP:NAVBOX, these templates fail point #4 as there isn't an article about Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones, but more importantly, they also fail the basic principle which is repeated over and over in the guideline, to link to articles, as almost all of the links are redirects to "year Australian region cyclone season" (example: 1979–80 Australian region cyclone season). This means that the templates is just WP:OVERLINKING to the same article multiple times per usage. This would have been a bigger issue if per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL these templates were actually used on the pages they were linking to, as the links would then be meaningless to the reader, which wouldn't understand why some links points to new places, while others lead them to the same page they were viewing. --Gonnym (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per my comments above.Jason Rees (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2019 (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:Category 3 Australian region severe tropical cyclones

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) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category 3 Australian region severe tropical cyclones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems unnecessary. Almost every year we have C3 Severe Tropical Cyclones, and there is nothing special to have a template for them, compared with C5 Severe TC. Also, we don't have similar templates for South Pacific cyclones B dash (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my reasoning above. Noah^Talk 14:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Category 2 Australian region tropical cyclones}}, {{Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} and {{Category 5 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} to Template:Australian region severe tropical cyclones. These templates are created without care to guidelines and proper nav template useage. Looking at WP:NAVBOX, these templates fail point #4 as there isn't an article about Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones, but more importantly, they also fail the basic principle which is repeated over and over in the guideline, to link to articles, as almost all of the links are redirects to "year Australian region cyclone season" (example: 1979–80 Australian region cyclone season). This means that the templates is just WP:OVERLINKING to the same article multiple times per usage. This would have been a bigger issue if per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL these templates were actually used on the pages they were linking to, as the links would then be meaningless to the reader, which wouldn't understand why some links points to new places, while others lead them to the same page they were viewing. --Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Basically, you are saying to merge until such articles exist (ie List of Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones)? Noah^Talk 15:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main points to my argument - 1) there is no main article, which sometimes isn't an issue if links exists to actual articles, but then the question arises, why isn't there an article if this group is notable? and 2) most of the links are not to unique articles, but to the same article, over and over. Redirects don't have a place in navigation templates, as they don't navigate between articles. You could edit out the redirect links and leave only the yearly link, but then the 5 templates will duplicate 50~ links, which is why I proposed to merge them. --Gonnym (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: There are no redirect links being used here. Tropical cyclones are given their own sections within tropical cyclone season articles, which is why there are section hashes (#) used in the links to the season articles from the navbox. Regarding the point made above on bidirectionality, the tropical cyclones which do have individual articles all have these templates transcluded onto them, so the condition is satisfied in that regard. It would be unnecessary to have all of these templates on a season article. Also, I don't think the notability thing is really relevant here. The purpose of the template is a navigational aid for readers if they wish to find cyclones of similar strength. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have been working on creating lists for Cat 1 - 5 SPAC and Aus in userspace and can move these into the mainspace at the drop of a hat.Jason Rees (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for using the wrong term, the issue is usually templates with redirects which was why I wrote that, but section links are the same exact issue (and if to stray a bit off-topic here, redirects should be used instead of pipped links, see WP:R). If you create the lists, the section links or redirects still have no place in a navigation template, as again, they offer no navigation at all between articles. You can, and should, link to the relevant list article and to any cyclone that has its own article. --Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While they may not link to full blown articles about the system, I personally feel that its useful to link to the seasonal article section since they are mini-articles about the storms. But maybe @ChocolateTrain: its a case of us having to think about these templates and redesign them.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should also make the point that if these templates are deleted, it will be an example of fruit of the poisonous tree. According to the evidence provided by B dash, there was no justification to nominate these templates for deletion originally. All deliberation since then would not have occurred if the templates had not been improperly nominated without cause in the first place, so any potential deletion is tainted by misconduct. ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per my comments above.Jason Rees (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2019 (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:Category 2 Australian region tropical cyclones

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) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category 2 Australian region tropical cyclones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems unnecessary. Almost every year we have C2 Tropical Cyclones, and there is nothing special to have a template for them, compared with C5 Severe TC. Also, we don't have similar templates for South Pacific cyclones B dash (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my reasoning above. Noah^Talk 14:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Category 3 Australian region tropical cyclones}}, {{Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} and {{Category 5 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} to Template:Australian region severe tropical cyclones. These templates are created without care to guidelines and proper nav template useage. Looking at WP:NAVBOX, these templates fail point #4 as there isn't an article about Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones, but more importantly, they also fail the basic principle which is repeated over and over in the guideline, to link to articles, as almost all of the links are redirects to "year Australian region cyclone season" (example: 1979–80 Australian region cyclone season). This means that the templates is just WP:OVERLINKING to the same article multiple times per usage. This would have been a bigger issue if per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL these templates were actually used on the pages they were linking to, as the links would then be meaningless to the reader, which wouldn't understand why some links points to new places, while others lead them to the same page they were viewing. --Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per my comments above.Jason Rees (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2019 (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:Ridel High

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 2019 June 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Re-Volts

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 2019 June 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re-Volts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Peel

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) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The band's navigational template consists of two links: the band's article and a member's article that already link between themselves making this template unnecessary and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2019 (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:UCLA Bruins softball 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 delete. Duplicates coaches section of Template:UCLA Bruins softball navbox Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UCLA Bruins softball coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates another template. All of these coaches are listed in the template UCLA Bruins softball. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 21 June 2019 (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:National Council of Provinces seat determination, 2004

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) 22:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Council of Provinces seat determination, 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template - 2004 South African general election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2019 (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:NTFL Buf

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) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NTFL Buf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NTFL Ves (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NTFL Wan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NTFL War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:Northern Territory Football League templates

Unused football plain links. See recent discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 26#Russian futsal club templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Mass Fb team templates. Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2019 (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:Moldovan parliamentary seats, 2010

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) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moldovan parliamentary seats, 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template - 2010 Moldovan parliamentary election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2019 (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:Moldovan parliamentary seats, July 2009

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) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moldovan parliamentary seats, July 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template - July 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2019 (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:Moldovan parliamentary seats, April 2009

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) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moldovan parliamentary seats, April 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template - April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2019 (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:2017–18 Egyptian Second Division Group A table

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) 22:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017–18 Egyptian Second Division Group A table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2017–18 Egyptian Second Division Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2017–18 Egyptian Second Division Group C table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2018–19 Egyptian Second Division Group A table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2018–19 Egyptian Second Division Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2018–19 Egyptian Second Division Group C table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:Egyptian Second Division templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2016 Girabola table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2017 Girabola table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2018 Girabola table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2018–19 Girabola table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:Angola football standings templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2017–18 Libyan Premier League tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2018–19 Libyan Premier League tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 1) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 3) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 4) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 5) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 6) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 7) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 8) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 9) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 10) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 10 ACN) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 11) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (Group 12) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round (2nd place) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF Second Round) group talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are we going to do the same to all standing tables? For example, are we later going to merge Template:2018–19 Premier League table with its parent article and do the same as we did to 2018–19 Egyptian Second Division? Ben5218 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- the plan is to merge all that we can to avoid having a separate template for every table (which increases maintenance/watchlist complexity). Frietjes (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 08:13, 24 June 2019 (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).