Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 22

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

February 22 edit

Template:StarStruck 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⚡ 03:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused AussieLegend (✉) 22:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see that this has been depopulated. Can I know why? –HTD 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was explained in this edit summary a lot of the entries were removed per WP:PERFNAV. Others were removed because there should only be one link to each article and one was text with no link, which serves no purpose in a box meant to enable navigation between related articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERFNAV doesn't mean much to me as that page is rather long. This navbox previously had plenty of links, and just like the pages were it is linked today, is now practically decimated. The season articles don't even use this navbox. What gives? Can't the season articles use this navbox any more? How about previous finalists' articles? What makes this different, than say, {{American Idol}}? –HTD 12:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERFNAV, which is only 68 words long, essentially says not to include the names of actors/actresses, comedians, television/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc in navboxes. What makes this template different to the American Idol navbox is that this template complies with WP:PERFNAV, while {{American Idol}} does not. It needs to be pruned. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:36, 23 February 2018 (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:Airline codes page/top 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. after merging with the main list as suggested Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for this text to be stored in a template instead of directly in List of airline codes, where the other articles can transclude it with {{#section-h:List of airline codes}}. The {{Airline codes page/bottom}} template has no direct #section-h match, but still there no reason is should be stored in a template rather than transcluded using WP:LST from the main article. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2018 (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).

NFL All-Pro Team navboxes 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) 00:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These annual navboxes for All-Pro picks cause clutter and are WP:TCREEP. See examples like Ray Lewis or Peyton Manning. It becomes unwieldy when accomplished players start accumulating them each year. We already have enough navboxes from annual Super Bowl champs (Category:Super Bowl navigational boxes) and annual league award winners (Category:National Football League award navigational boxes). While it's notable how many times a player has been named All-Pro in their career, it's not notable enough for a navbox to call out the other honorees that year. Also, we don't currently limit All-Pro's listed in infoboxes to the Associated Press (AP) selector, but these navboxes only list the AP selections. Let's not invite navboxes for other All-Pro selectors or the annual Pro Bowl too.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jerry Rice would have 10 of these navboxes. Ten. Lizard (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There are already multiple navboxes on most players' pages and we certainly do not need more of them due to WP:TCREEP. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yearly award navboxes for professionals are overkill as there is no limit to how many times a person can win an award. Rikster2 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody else.--Yankees10 17:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even though I put all the time and effort into half of them, I understand how they aren’t really needed and cause clutter to players like Peyton Manning. They need to go RoyalsLife 04:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information is already in the All-Pro Team articles. As mentioned, putting it at the bottom of every participants article is not ideal. Mamyles (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2018 (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:Infobox lunar eclipse 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 2018 March 3. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:58, 3 March 2018 (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:2018 UPSL Southeast standings 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. The main article was undeleted mid-discussion, so it is hard to tell if there is consensus for merging the templates with the main article. Please feel free to renominate if you would still like to see it deleted, or have the standings merged with the main article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season. So no need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That article is currently undergoing a deletion review. This template should not be deleted until the DRV is complete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the article, and delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note - the page has been undeleted, and thus we've effectively restarted the discussion. I have also merged all of the discussions together because the original listings had literally the same votes in the same order by the same people.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (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:Use Jamaican English 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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Use Jamaican English with Template:Use British English.
Jamaican English is a continuum between Jamaican Standard English (which uses British spelling and grammar, but different pronunciation) and Jamaican Patois (which is rarely written and not appropriate for a work intended to be understandable by most English readers). Articles related to Jamaica should use Jamaican Standard English/British English spelling. Since they are the same thing (as far as spelling), and this template is about which type of spelling should be used, the {{Use Jamaican English}} template should be merged into the {{Use British English}} template. Kaldari (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while Jamaican English spellings and grammar may be identical to UK, there remains an issue of vocabulary and wording choices (see potential examples in Jamaican English#Vocabulary). If the overall vocabulary differences are trivial, merging the template would seem warranted. Otherwise, it may indicate that certain UK wording choices are not necessarily appropriate. Dl2000 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DL2k - Although Jamaican is similar to English in terms of spelling etc it's still a different language and so IMHO it deserves its own entity. –Davey2010Talk 22:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have an article specifically for Jamaican English, which suggests that it is distinct enough for a separate info template. Mamyles (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2018 (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).

Timeline of Microsoft Office 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 2018 March 3. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 3 March 2018 (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:Mexican brands 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) 20:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass WP:LISTN, vague scope is rife for promotional misuse. 1292simon (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (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:NSWMPs 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) 23:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; most likely replaced by other succession templates Frietjes (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Confirmed that this is unused. Mamyles (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2018 (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:Wenshan Line (Taipei Metro) RDT 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) 23:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; probably because it duplicates the map in Template:Wenhu Line (Taipei Metro) RDT Frietjes (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template is a duplicate of a better-looking template, as mentioned by nom. Mamyles (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2018 (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/2018_February_22&oldid=1079966009"