Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 2

April 2

Template:Uw-crystal

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. Izkala (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Uw-crystal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think the gist of the template is already covered by the Uw-unsourced series of templates. Do we really need a single-issue notice for something that's already covered by another warning? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. This template is especially useful when people are adding rumors about celebrities, sports signings, etc. that are being reported by sources (possibly even reliable sources), but only as rumors. There is enough difference between this and the unsourced templates to make this very useful. ~ Rob^Talk 21:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, distinct and relevant. Listef (klat) 10:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I see nothing wrong with this template, at all Mlpearc (open channel) 15:51, 7 April 2016 (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).

Template:Scleroprotein disease

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. ~ Rob^Talk 00:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Scleroprotein disease (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I propose that this template is deleted because it adds to 'navbox clutter' on pages and does not help readers navigate between pages.

I propose that this template is instead converted to a table placed on the page Collagen disease, and links provided (if necessary) in the 'see also' sections. I just do not think this template helps readers, and hence am proposing this. I look forward to the opinions of other editors Tom (LT) (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This template wasn't marked as under discussion for deletion, so I've relisted and placed the appropriate notifications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 13:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep – Navbox clutter generally refers to situations large number of navboxes are placed on the same page (for an extreme example, see Michael Jordon#External links which transcludes 48 navboxes). In looking through the target articles in the {{Scleroprotein disease}} navbox, most articles have two navboxes which IMHO is not excessive. The larger a navbox becomes, the harder it becomes to use for navigation. This particular navbox, particularly the vertical height is becoming large, but IMHO, still manageable. Perhaps the layout could be improved to make more efficient use of space. Boghog (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you think this template helps readers navigate between articles? (the primary purpose of a navbox) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2016 (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).