Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8 edit

Template:Middle-earth Labelled Map 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) 22:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Middle-earth Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; creates a labeled map using an image that was deleted two years ago. — Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - ʈucoxn\^talk 12:01, 16 February 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:Citroën DS range 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) 22:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citroën DS range (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is of little use, duplicating information already in the Template:Citroën timeline 1980 to date. Warren (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 00:42, 9 February 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:WWE Legends 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) 22:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWE Legends (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per discussion here. "WWE Legends" is entirely the point-of-view and opinion of the person who made the template. While there is indeed a "Legends contract" that alumni can sign, not everyone on this template (such as the deceased wrestlers) have signed it. We have List of WWE alumni for former wrestlers; this template is outright original research and point-of-view. – Richard BB 12:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, and possibly speedy delete given the last comments by the author in that thread. Frietjes (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I'm not mistaken, there are deceased wrestlers under WWE Legends contracts, as WWE can sign them with an executor of an estate. Echo my previous comments in WT:PW that this constitutes a random grouping of names with no particular rhyme or reason. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 00:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this was just a template of people who have signed Legends contracts with WWE, I could see the merit of it. But it just seems to be an opinion piece of who someone considers legends. TJ Spyke 23:02, 12 February 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:NFL / NFC Champion coaches 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) 22:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFL / NFC Champion coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AFL / AFC Champion coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN, I'm failing to see how being the winning coach of an NFC champion is worthy of its navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no precedent for a Wikipedia navbox for championship coaches in either professional or college football. Jrcla is right: not everything needs a navbox. We have lists and navboxes for championship teams, not individuals, in college and professional football. Detailed biographies of those coaches (and players) of those championship teams is never more than a mouse click away from the existing Wikipedia lists and articles regarding NFL championships. Likewise, we do not need navboxes for NFL (or NFC or AFC) championship quarterbacks, running backs, tight ends, defensive coordinators or punters. Football is a team sport; it does not have individual champions.

With regard to applicable Wikipedia policy, this navbox appears to fails at least three of the guidelines of WP:NAVBOX:

"All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.

"The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

"There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."

This navbox mixes NFL (league-wide) championships with NFC (sub-league/conference) championships; therefore, there is not "a single, coherent subject." There are virtually no cross-references among these articles. And there is no stand-alone article or list on the subject of the navbox. Wikipedia articles regarding NFL coaches do not suffer from a lack of inter-wiki links via navboxes; quite the contrary, in fact. We do not need another poorly-thought-out NFL navbox that contributes to the existing fancruft. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Dirtlayer that it doesnt meet Wikipedia:NAVBOX. There is a reason there will never be a standalone article on the subject: fails WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should Template:AFL / AFC Champion coaches have been nominated also here? Seems these two should be assessed together. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. I have added it, and we should probably extend the time for discussion for another week as a result. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PC-XT (talk) 01:32, 12 February 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.

The Beach Boys albums footers 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Beach Boys albums footer 1962-1965 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Beach Boys albums footer 1966-1977 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Beach Boys albums footer 1978-2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates within a template, not used in any article that already doesn't have the main {{The Beach Boys}} navbox with links to all their albums, not spread out over three subtemplates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, it would be better to have a single template footer here, if one is necessary at all. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, a single template footer for the albums would create readability issues given the magnitude of the band's catalogue. These templates on the other hand are not obtrusive and are neat. As it stands, the Beach Boys' catalogue is often described as being split into three distinct stylistic periods, the early years, the psychedelic years and the decent into nostalgia. These templates link those common threads together while improving navigability, therefore I firmly believe they should remain. Jamekae (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a need for a footer at all. It will duplicate the main template, which isn't obtrusive at all in my eye and I have no difficulty navigating from one album to the next using it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 20:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the choice is being able to navigate to any album from the main navbox or a handful of albums and links to 2 other templates (not articles) to get to a different set of albums? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:55, 10 February 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:Pondicherry District 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pondicherry District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Highly confusing template with only four real links. For example Ozhukarai is a taluk (but mentioned as subtaluk), a city (but not mentioned as such) and a municipality. If this confusion can be solved, great, otherwise: bin. The Banner talk 00:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its now confusing as sufficient information hasn't been added to the district page. This ref shows that Ozhukarai is a Taluk, but its totally urban, and has no rural area under it. BTW, the 5 links of communes do exist. At this point I am not sure about the sub-taluks, looking for a ref.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tend to agree with The Banner. There may well be a case for such a template, but this one isn't it, and it appears to be somewhat premature. It would be useful to have the articles before making up a template to group them. It would probably be more appropriate and helpful to substitute Template:Puducherry for this at the present time. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Check it again. Other than sub-taluks all pages are created. Sufficient information from reliable sources available on these. Similar templates exist for districts of say West Bengal.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: information on taluks, sub-taluks, blocks, commune panchayats have been all added to the page on Pondicherry district now.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reformat to just list the taluks, blocks and communes, which will reduce the redundant information. Frietjes (talk) 00:43, 9 February 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.