Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 11

< April 10	April 12 >

April 11 edit

Template:High Desert Mavericks roster navbox 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 12. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:High Desert Mavericks roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't feel it's appropriate to have a navbox for a Class A team. Most players in Class A are not notable. In this case, a few players have blurbs on Seattle Mariners minor league players, but are not considered notable based on WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Of the two players who have full pages, one is dubious and might fail at AfD if taken there (Mario Martínez (baseball)). There are too many red links on this template for it to truly be useful. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dwcu faculties 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dwcu faculties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after merging with Duta Wacana Christian University. Frietjes (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Animation studios 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete due to enormous scope. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Animation studios (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navigation template is over 12 kb of text alone. On top of that, it orders the content in essentially the same fashion as the category structure of Category:Animation studios (by location), something that should be avoided per WP:CLN.

I don't think there's any hope to save it, quite frankly. The content of each item is only loosely related to another item, which is another thing to avoid in navboxes per WP:CLN. Izno (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scope here is beyond that expected of a single navbox. If navigation templates are still desired here, they should be split on a continental basis (at the very least) and a master template used to navigate between continents. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template used to be good as it was at first, since then it has got out of hand with IPs adding to it constantly. Revert them all. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 10:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, the additions made by the IPs in question are all perfectly valid (in that they are indeed animation studios). What you're suggesting is that you'd rather have an incomplete template which is missing arbitrary entries. Can you explain why? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be a completely comprehensive list; just pick out the most notable for each section and remove the rest, which will still be in the category for them. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 12:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see value in either splitting it or in cherrypicking though. The items are still only the loosest of loose correlations beyond possibly implying language of the developers or animation style. There's nothing here in this template that either a) the list in the header of the navbox has in it, or b) the category has, and I don't think "reformation" by splitting it is a good choice. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to eliminating this entirely on scope grounds. If it is to be kept, however, I'd rather it were comprehensive and split for sanity than monolithic and useless due to cherry-picking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after making sure all applicable articles are in Category:Animation studios and List of animation studios, or else Trim down to only the most notable studios and display them all at once, similar to {{Music industry}}. A navbox with this many sub-boxes is far too overwhelming and the purpose is better served by a different system. I also agree with nominator that the relation is way too loose. It's analogous to having a navbox of every fashion designer or software publisher. --Atlantima (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Atlantima (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The scope is waaaaaay too wide. This is a category in template form. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template has three levels of nesting if it is hidden on article pages. Far too wide in scope to be useful for navigation. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.