Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 7

July 7

Template:Infobox college sports rivalry

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox college sports rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox sports rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox college sports rivalry with Template:Infobox sports rivalry.
Overlapping infoboxes. {{Infobox sports rivalry}} hasn't got "sport", "current_unbeaten_streak", and "trophy", as well as separate parameters for the first and last meeting's dates and results. I've set up a side-by-side comparison of the two here. Alakzi (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Merge seems sensible. The -college version looks better than the +college to me. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• merge, see no problem with merging them. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I have not had the time to discuss the design of the proposed merged template yet with the nominator, Alakzi, but the present graphic design of the new merged template (right side of the side-by-side comparison) is not an improvement over the existing college rivalry template (left side of the side-by-side comparison). The design issues need to be addressed before I will support the proposed and before I will recommend that the college sports WikiProjects endorse the merge. And, yes, the design does matter, very much so, to the users of the template. I will make further comments regarding the design on the talk page of the template and link them here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments regarding design issues to be addressed here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Moving to support per resolution of design issues and related concerns on the template talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Bikeshedding can take place subsequently, on the resultant template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Merge per resolution of design issues and related concerns on template talk page. I thank nominator Alakzi for his willingness to address the issues of the college sports WikiProjects raised in previous TfD and related discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mayhem Festival

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep on the provision that all of the band links are removed. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Mayhem Festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for a separate navigation template here that doubles much of the info already in the article and/or related articles. The Banner talk 12:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• keep, but severely cut down the number of links to say

or, cut the battle of the bands winners as well. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Mayhem Festival has over half a dozen related articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Captain Planet

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Captain Planet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Nearly all of the links redirect to the Captain Planet and the Planeteers, negating any real navigational benefit. The Captain Planet article is currently up for deletion/redirect. I'd predict that it will indeed be redirected the series article, that leaves only Gaia (mythology), List of Captain Planet episodes, and the series creator Ted Turner links directing outside the "main" article. It's only present on two pages in the article namespace, the series article and the episode list article, which already adequately lead to each other.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Although there seem to be many links, they all link to one of two pages, one of which is at AfD. Too few pages and unnecessary as a navigation aid. Darx9url (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• delete, doesn't really link anything. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Another example of navbox template created by someone who doesn't understand the fundamental purpose of a navbox: facilitating reader navigation among existing, stand-alone Wikipedia articles on related subjects. This navbox is a collection of redirects to section-specific links within the same parent article. To quote Frietjes above, this navbox "doesn't really link anything." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I have tried cleaning up this template a bit. Let me know if it looks adequate. Fangusu (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • great, thank you, now it's clear that it can be deleted due to vary small number of links. the articles are already very well connected through the prose, see also sections, etc.. Frietjes (talk)
    • Restored to previous version, better to not almost blank it during the discussion.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - To put it bluntly this template serves no purpose other than to question your sanity with the constant redirecting back to the page you just thought you left!, The cast section in the article does the job well so thus this crap is now just redundant. –Davey2010^Talk 01:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.