Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 29 May 31 >

May 30 edit

Template:T10 League 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are redirects, better use 'see also' section when needed. Störm (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete. I cleaned up the redirects, but the articles are already fairly well connected through the infobox succession links. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2019 (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:2015–16 Liga I Regular Season table 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) 23:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per consensus at WT:FOOTY, the league tables should be housed in the main season articles, and transcluded directly from the season articles where needed. these have been merged with the parent articles (with attribution) so they are no longer needed in template space. Frietjes (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:47, 31 May 2019 (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:WPTC GAN 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused. The functionality this template provides is already provided by {{GA nominee}} and {{GANentry}}. It seems rare that one will need to link to a GA subpage independently of the provided links. Retro (talk | contribs) 22:50, 30 May 2019 (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:1995–96 Divizia A table 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not needed (table is already in 1995–96 Divizia A) Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, I made templates for most seasons of the Romanian First League and none of them were marked for deletion, I just forgot to add this template to the article. This template will come in handy a bit later, when I will add season articles for the 1995-96 Divizia A teams and will need to link the table. mihai.zamfir30 21:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • per consensus at WT:FOOTY there is no need to move the tables to templates, and there is especially no reason to move them by cut-and-paste without attribution. I have reverted your changes to 1995–96 Divizia A until this discussion has concluded. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:47, 31 May 2019 (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:Gy 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as Template:Vgy.....The video games WikiProject does not link years to the "YYYY in video gaming" articles anymore. This is one of those archaic Wikipedia things that used to be done back in the mid-2000s, but overtime the practice has been abandoned. The template should be deleted to settle it permanently. TarkusABtalk 12:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Lordtobi (✉) 13:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template, even if there weren't consensus against that style of linking. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see my response on the VGY post. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same comment as on the other one. Not sure why these are separate noms, but the same rationale applies. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Vgr discussion, per nom, per Hellknowz. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my rationale on the Template: Vgy discussion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2019 (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:Vgy 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 2019 June 7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:59, 7 June 2019 (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:Asylum films 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not good practice for film studios to have a navbox of their entire filmography, as this is best left for category and/or list navigation. Imagine if we started creating navboxes for other, larger, film studios. --woodensuperman 11:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See previous similar discussions for Netflix and Hammer Film Productions. --woodensuperman 11:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral although may be useful if collapsed. And doesn't anyone read WP:CLN anymore? "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others." Editors and closers on these deletion requests should please stop using "should be a list" type of arguments which are strictly prohibited by guideline language (unless it's an ignore all rules stance). Please read the page, which says "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others" (boldface in the guideline). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That whole "synergistic" paragraph discusses categories and lists, with no mention of navboxes. "For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways", etc, etc. But you're cherrypicking anyway, as the guideline goes on to point out examples where a list is appropriate, but a category is not, etc, etc. This is not a suitable topic for a navbox, but could be suitable for both a category and a list. --woodensuperman 12:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, the paragraph starts right off saying all of these methods are synergistic. It then goes on to give an example between categories and lists. If this simple example is confusing people, and if you can use that obviously inclusive sentence as an example in a deletion discussion, then that should be changed to include navboxes. I'll get right to it. And on this deletion I tend to agree with you (if it was an older film company with a set-in-stone template then maybe keep is warranted, but this one could continue for centuries!). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, clearly we aren't going to have these for larger studios. this sort of thing is better covered by categories and list articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the distribution company is not generally a defining trait of a film, and even when it is, a list and category would do it better anyway. This template is a mess that doesn't even accomplish its main goal of providing navigation. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A few points here. As said above, the distributor is not a defining trait of a film (compared to the actual production company), that said, even if it were a defining trait, these sort of templates for production companies and TV networks are extremely large, making the use of them hard. Seeing as how WP:CLN was cited already, WP:NAVBOX says Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. (emphasis mine) - these are exactly the types of templates that really should not be created. --Gonnym (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2019 (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/2019_May_30&oldid=900829843"