Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22 edit

Sort mode templates 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 2016 October 5 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2016 (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:Nobite2 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused "joke"; created by someone who has not edited here for five years Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • An odd harmless bit of wikipedia humour. Given that it doesn't serve any purpose at present, I recommend moving to the userspace of the creator, without leaving behind a redirect. Deleting it would really be a matter for MfD. Uanfala (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, the ceartor "has not edited here for five years". And as this is a template, we can delete it after discussion at Templates for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if we wanted to be so precise, this "template" is for all practical purposes a userbox, so the proper place to discuss it would be MfD. Uanfala (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, brings a bit of humor to the page. Kingstevenrules (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2016 (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:Best Motoring 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No cast and crew in navboxes. See WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2016 (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:Florida Sports Hall of Fame 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 per the cogent arguments presented. The "keep" !votes mainly consisted of ILIKEIT. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX. Is this really useful as a navigation aid? Are readers really going to need to navigate between Hulk Hogan and Nancy Hogshead? Better off left to categories and lists. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, better to use a category and the list article. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep of interest to people interested in Florida sports.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's the Florida Sport Hall of Fame, which is important enough to have a template. The list of names really needs to be broken down into sections though, (Baseball, Football, etc.), but just to up and delete it, this is what occurs here, on this page, every day? Deleting good material? Day after day? I came to this page to try to save dozens of journalism-history templates nominated by the same editor, and people are already lining up to endorse getting rid of those dozens of good templates using the reasoning that on-air journalists are simply entertainers, and if that reasoning prevails then dozens of historically important templates will go poof, gone. This Florida Sports Hall of Fame template has solid material, links which thousands of people probably have an interest in. This stuff seems to be an everyday occurrence, and such deletions happen regularly in such an out-of-the-way corner of Wikipedia might be, I personally believe, one of the project's identifiable weaknesses. Randy Kryn 1:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete; to address Randy Kryn's arguments above, yes, the Florida Sports Hall of Fame is notable, and the article contains good material worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. But for the template, we need a higher standard of notability and relevance. The question to ask here is, "Is induction into the Florida Sports Hall of Fame so defining to its inductees that it warrants navigation between inductees on that dimension?" I think the answer to the question is no. Jweiss11 (talk)
  • Comment: please also see this similar AfD discussion from July for navboxes related to the Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, induction into a state sports hall of fame is unlikely to be mentioned in a subject's lead, so it's hardly career-defining. In fact, I'd be surprised if half the articles linked even mention their membership in the Florida Sports HOF at all. Lizard (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others reasoning.--Yankees10 19:09, 2 October 2016 (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:Philadelphia Phillies Radio and TV Network 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 2016 October 5 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2016 (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:Penn State Athletics Radio Affiliates 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 ~ Rob13Talk 08:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuitable navbox topic. Seems to be (although there is no article to back it up) a list of radio stations that broadcast Penn State Athletics content. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:15, 2 October 2016 (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:Philadelphia Eagles Radio Network 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. This navbox may be REFUNDable if an article on the Radio Network is created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuitable navbox topic. Seems to be (although there is no article to back it up) a list of radio stations that broadcast Philadelphia Eagles content. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2016 (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).

News anchors and similar 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 2016 October 1 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2016 (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:Barker's Beauties 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No cast and crew in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2016 (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:D1 Grand Prix 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 keep; seems that removing the personnel makes it palatable, which has been done. Further discussion can take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this template? It's the worst one I've come across - very close to 50% of its contents don't have articles. It hasn't been well maintained and I feel it's ripe for deletion. Rayman60 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How about if the "Personnel" section is removed? Other than that it seems to provide valid navigation between the seasons. And maybe lose the magazines but keep the video games? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove personnel section as per the above. This seems similar to "cast and crew" in a sense, which we don't put in entertainment infoboxes. The navigation between seasons is useful, though. ~ Rob13Talk 08:58, 3 October 2016 (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:Taxonomy/†Progymnospermopsida 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Taxonomy/Progymnospermopsida}}, which is correctly named. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, clearly created by mistake. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2016 (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).

Multiple countries at the Olympics 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created templates that are redundant to Template:Infobox Olympics Australia (and equivalents). These are non-standard template and all countries (with and without these templates) have the Infobox templates. The infobox has more information than this template. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These are standard navigation boxes used in many articles throughout Wikipedia. Per WP:NAV "A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." and that is precisely the function of these templates in these articles. They are fully compliant and located where the reader would be expected to be looking for them. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates multiple linkage systems are encouraged. These templates are created after the example of {{United States at the Olympics}}, which was kept after a TfD in 2012, so that template should be included in this Tfd. --Wolbo (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, seems fine, connecting a sequence of articles. Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NAVBOX Really useful for maintenance on the articles, but useful for readers as well, who are highly likely to want to look through more than one. I don't expect or like to perform navigation through an infobox, and it should probably be removed from there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep; I think that this is beneficial to the users as a navigation tool, thus, I believe that we should keep this template. Kingstevenrules (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2016 (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/2016_September_22&oldid=1138532613"