Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 24

< May 23	May 25 >

May 24 edit

Template:Types of cooperatives 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) 01:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Types of cooperatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 24 May 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:FA Cup Winners 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) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FA Cup Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used anywhere in the mainspace that I can tell, only covers a few of the winners (up to the end of the 1910s...). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and un-useful. – Pee Jay 23:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed. Giant Snowman 13:16, 28 May 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:Fb bg blank 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) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb bg blank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not needed. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 24 May 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:2002–03 Honduran Liga Nacional squads 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) 01:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2002–03 Honduran Liga Nacional squads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally unclear what is the meaning of this template. The clubs should have their own team templates, so this should fork with them. Even then this template is hopelessly incomplete. The Banner talk 13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seen anything like this in my 7+ years of editing football here, and with good reason - pointless and not needed. Giant Snowman 13:17, 28 May 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:David Jason 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) 01:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Jason (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per consensus, actors and acting roles are not included in navboxes. As this navbox cannot be reduced (as they are all acting or similar roles) it should be deleted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the previous consensus. I shudder to think of the navbox bloat that would ensue on various film and TV articles if every actor had their own. A few mouse clicks to get to filmographies is not a burden for readers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, navigate by director, not by actor. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 28 May 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:The Amenta 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) 01:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Amenta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two directly related links. Just because a band member played in other bands, doesn't mean each band needs to link to one another. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The five articles in the navbox do not all link to one another without the navbox. Per the article, Dave Haley was in fact a former of The Amenta. Need I explain in detail which articles do not link to one another? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Standard reply: use normal wikilinking in the articles to solve that. The Banner talk 22:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - There is no logical place in some of the passages to wikilink some of the articles involved. In this case, The Banner (not I) has the burden of proof. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ever heard of a "See also"-section? And no, I am not going to do your work. The Banner talk 09:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - "See Also" sections are more difficult to maintain than navboxes. Also, the navboxes for Sonny Throckmorton and WFAHM were kept with four links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 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) 01:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, as it does connect about four or five directly related articles, and the band is still active. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 28 May 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:Jerry Jeff Walker 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) 01:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jerry Jeff Walker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, "related articles" don't count towards WP:NENAN's rule of 5. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The album and the three song articles do not all link to one another without the navbox. Walker is the only notable member of Circus Maximus (American band), and Django Walker is Walker's son, who has few to no articles related to him, and it is reasonable to assume that people may want to navigate to Django's article. Walker also has four Top 20 albums. Stoneback collaborated with Walker. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have said that many times before: you can solve that with normal wikilinking in the articles. The Banner talk 09:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - As I have stated many times before, some of the articles listed in the navbox are so long that a navbox assists with navigation. If "Circus Maximus" and "Django Walker" count (which I believe they do), then this navbox meets the rule of five. Just because you say that "you can solve that with normal wikilinking in the articles" does not make it so, and you still (as far as I know) haven't shown me how to wikilink the articles. Besides, this navbox meets the 5 tenets of WP:NAVBOX. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - A long article is not an excuse for proper wikilinking. The Banner talk 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - What a long article does, is makes it more difficult to find links within it (especially if there is no navbox within the article). A navbox makes the links much more conspicuous. If wikilinking is the solution, then why do we have navboxes at all? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, seems to have enough links (no thank you spam please). Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 23 May 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) 00:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is one of those borderline cases that Jax has become so good at. I tried to compare this to such navboxes for {{David Lee Roth}} and {{Lionel Richie}}, which are not included in the articles for Van Halen and Commodores, respectively. The difference is that those bands have their own navboxes while Circus Maximus doesn't (nor does it need one). For related articles and the rule of five, I usually ask myself "Would readers benefit from this navbox being included in the related article?", as opposed to just saying they don't count. Of course, Jax would say the answer is "yes" for every case; but while I don't see any need to include it in Django Walker or H.R. Stoneback, I think it would be reasonable based on the content to include it in the Circus Maximus article. This doesn't mean the other two articles should be removed from the template, just that I wouldn't add it to those articles. I hope that's not too confusing. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on this one. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 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.