Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 1 April 3 >

April 2

[edit]

Template:Euskadi–Murias riders

[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 Soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. See here. Craig(talk) 20:11, 2 April 2020 (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:NRLGameHeader

[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer actively used. The standard for rugby articles is to use {{rugbybox}} or {{rugbybox collapsible}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:04, 2 April 2020 (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:USCG decorations

[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:USCG decorations with Template:US interservice decorations.
If template such as Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom can do it, surely this scope can as well? Merged template: Template:Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces. PPEMES (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose such a merge will create a template that's about the size of an A4 piece of paper. How is that a useful navigational aid?! Templates have well defined scopes as is and am not seeing the benefits of a super merge. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Many orders and decorations are exceptionaly large. Doesn't that makes sense exceptionately for this topic? PPEMES (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Do you know of any other country's armed forces distinctions templates which are separated into branches? Because I don't. PPEMES (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen enough of the combined ones to know we don't want to create any more like that. What a mess. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2020 (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:Maury family tree

[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 2020 April 11. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:20, 11 April 2020 (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:German law section

[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) 18:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complex external links template, supporting twenty jurisdictions, but with only five transclusions in all. Documentation is in German. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was discussed at TfD back in 2016 (strange to see a nomination with the exact same wording four years later). Pinging participants in the previous discussion: SMcCandlish, Matthiaspaul. – Uanfala (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did not remember that I participated in the old discussion, but rereading what was written back then, I come to exactly the same conclusion, only to make it a firm Keep this time. The template is heavily used in the German WP and is also implemented in a number of other Wikipedias, indicating that there is some general use and need for it internationally, and also potentially more use for it in the English WP. However, it could certainly benefit from being updated / synchronized with the version in the German WP, and the documentation should be translated so that it becomes more useful for people over here (and thereby will be used by more people). Its defecits are not a reason for deletion. It's not blocking development of other templates, so deletion would be just wasting previous efforts to implement it.
    In general, it is very good idea to formalize/symbolize as many references to resources of some kind through templates as possible. This improves machine readability and metadata generation, ensures consistent formatting, eases central maintenance (for example, when one of the links changes, or the output format needs to be adjusted somewhen in the future), and it aids reverse lookup for further topic research. For the same reason, we have citation templates, catalog lookup link templates, templates to frame dates and times, values, currencies, and many other things.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. I don't think my view has changed since last time. I don't dispute the claim that this could be used more than it is, but it hasn't been in the interim. I can also see that source portability across sites can be helpful; the existence of templates like this may make it easier to translate articles from German Wikipedia. However, without English documentation, it won't serve that purpose, nor will it if the code of the template itself is not regularly synched. And I think my observation last time is still correct: it's less challenging on en.WP to just copy the plain-language citation and reformat it into our own citation templates than it is to learn a bunch of fiddly parameters that only pertain to a particular legal system. In the end, I'm not sure I see a proper deletion rationale here, but I think the utility of the template is a bit iffy. But I also don't work on articles about German law, so I would defer to the judgement of those who do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not clear why you feel that "Complex external links template, supporting twenty jurisdictions, but with only five transclusions in all. Documentation is in German." is not a proper deletion rationale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, most of that's extraneous. Lots of templates are complex. We have quite a variety of external-links templates. Lots of templates support multiple "target" categorizations of whatever they are about (and we tend to merge similar ones so that one template handles more cases; cf. Template:Single chart, etc.). Documentation being in German is obviously a problem, but is WP:FIXABLE. So, that leaves nothing but low number of transclusions. As has been pointed out before, that number could go up. Yet it hasn't since last time, and that is enough to shift me from what would have been "keep" to "neutral", maybe even leaning "delete".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator, this simply does not have enough uses to be worth keeping, and its clear that no more uses are coming given that nothing has changes in four years. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:48, 5 April 2020 (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:Clist mergers

[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 2020 April 11. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:21, 11 April 2020 (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:Year in Wales by century catnav

[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created by me in 2010. Now unused, since today I replaced all uses with {{Navseasoncats}}, in these edits[1]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 2 April 2020 (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).

Warsaw

[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 2020 April 11. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:21, 11 April 2020 (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:Mayors of Gdańsk

[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 2020 April 11. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:21, 11 April 2020 (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:Brandy Clark

[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 2020 April 11. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:22, 11 April 2020 (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:NFL predraft

[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at WT:NFL, the template is just a collection of numbers that are not notable unless it's record-breaking, and even then that sort of info is better served through prose. WP:FANCRUFT. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The template provides no encyclopedic value and is often added lazily without any context or explanation whatsoever, just a random box with numbers. If a player has a notable performance it can written about about in the prose of the article itself. Additionally they sometimes throw off the formatting of the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, you might as well delete player career statistics as well.--WuTang94 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a WP:POINTY, WP:ALLORNOTHING argument.—Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How valuable and relevant are they to a reader of an encyclopedia? Nowadays many players don't even participate in all of the drills and the actual value of combine performances has been debated for years now. And if the the values are notable for a specific player why can't they just be described in the prose of the article (i.e.: write ups such as "Although initially projected to be a mid-round pick, Nate Herbig's draft stock fell significantly after a poor performance at the NFL Scouting Combine that included a 40-yard dash time of 5.41 seconds, the slowest run of all 260 participants.")? GPL93 (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the vast majority of draft-eligible players still participate at the combine. Also, why not provide other statistics? If the table gets too clunky, we could simply maintain it and keep the most important stats. There's a reason why tables exist: to provide a visually easier structure to display numbers and statistics rather than lengthily describing them in long sentences--WuTang94 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A large number of people follow the NFL Scouting Combine in addition to scouts and statisticians. In addition, in the case of Tom Brady (who had an infamously unspectacular performance), keeping his combine results provides a stark contrast to how he has performed on-the-field and supports the narrative that he was an underlooked prospect. Also, if we delete the template, some users would wind up creating their own table sometime down the road anyways.--WuTang94 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I reference this all the time when looking up players. All these stats matter, but yet don't, and that is why it is great to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.135.220.18 (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Combine numbers will reflect on later careers for pro football players and how it impacts them in the long run. Also agreeing with WuTang94, people do follow the Scouting Combine and newer users will just make a new Combine table anyways. So there isn't really a reason for the template to be deleted for any reason. Swagging (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These numbers are valuable and add depth to the players profile. The 40 times are especially important and have been known to change when a player is drafted. Also various media outlets such as ESPN Radio and Fox Sports Radio have discussed the NFL Combine growing in popularity, so these numbers reflect something that people are increasingly interested in.Spatms (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For everybody voting keep, you realize these same numbers can just belong in prose and don't need a table, right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did. I feel these stats should be in a table just like their career stats. Using a table seems more user friendly for the reader and enables a continuous format throughout.Spatms (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Like I mentioned before, tables can be easier to read than prose.--WuTang94 (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The template displays NFL combine information in a short and easy way, with several links to pages explaining the vast majority of its information. Furthermore, the NFL Draft averaged 6.1 million viewers in 2019, this is a considerably large number of people for a "niche", and considering that combine statistics are often mentioned several times throughout the broadcasted draft, not to mention third party coverage; I think it's quite clear that the information, is likely used a realistic amount for the continuation of the template's existence. Hitpoint0213 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The template displays NFL combine statistics in a clean and quick format. Having the information listed in paragraph form would add extra clutter and would make it difficult to seek. This template has been the format for years and is widely used on the majority of pages. There's no true argument for removal that improves the article for readers. If a user wants to compare combine performances they can easily go to the player's Wikipedia page, find the template in seconds, and compare. Without the template, they would have to seek the numbers on other sites which are more difficult. NFL.com requires you to search the players name and does not give all combine stats. Toeknee44 (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WuTang94. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I understand it can be put in the prose, it’s similar to stat tables. Sure you can read the article to get the information, but I feel there are some readers that just want to be able to view that same information at a glance, without having to sift through the article to find the information.--Rockchalk717 02:06, 9 April 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_2&oldid=951769343"