Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 24

< August 23	August 25 >

August 24 edit

London mayoral elections 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) 23:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2000 mayoral election, London (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2004 mayoral election, London (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 mayoral election, London (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:London mayoral election, 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:London mayoral election, 2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates contain only a list of the candidates who stood for election as Mayor of London, and a link to the election pages. With no other articles on the London elections bar the main page, and all the candidates who have articles already having adequate links to the election, these navboxes have very little navigational value. A case of WP:NENAN. QueenCake (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to just link through the articles and not use a navbox or you end up with way too many navboxes at the foot of the articles. Frietjes (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see the need for this. Number 5 7 11:33, 25 August 2016 (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:What We Live For tracks 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) 23:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:What We Live For tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains one link to an article and is transcluded only in that same article thus providing no navigational benefit, plus it is already included in the {{American Authors}} navbox. For the full track listing of the album, better served to simply link to the album article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2016 (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:Anápolis weatherbox 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) 23:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anápolis weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chiang Mai weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chiang Rai weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Funchal weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Harbin climate chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ko Samui weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Leeds weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Muscat weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nakhon Ratchasima weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nakhon Sawan weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pula weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rentachintala weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Reykjavík weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (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:People's Liberation Army Divisions 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 to delete, but there is some consensus to split or reduce the number of redlinks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:People's Liberation Army Divisions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As suggested by admin GB Fan and as my thought says this template is a complete mess! It contains more than 200 red links! Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 17:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Navboxes typically include one of two groups of links: either they link to the elements of a topic that already have their own articles (e.g. the original edition of {{Lincoln County, Wyoming}} included only bluelinks), or you include those links plus redlinks to the names of articles that should be created because the subjects are notable and would likely have articles if someone compiled a comprehensive treatment of the subject area. The latter situation is clearly the case here. Major army units are often notable, especially in major armies such as the People's Liberation Army, so it's quite reasonable to include redlinks to these not-yet-created division articles. And finally, even if there's some reason to exclude the links to the nonexistent articles, the solution is removing them from the template and reducing it to navigating among the existing articles. Deletion isn't the right option in either of those cases. Nyttend (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template was created on Aug 16 and in that time the creator has been creating articles on the units, as recently as today when a good 6-7 were made. If this had been stagnating for a while I might think it was unneeded but as it stands we have an editor diligently working to fill it. Look at a redlink as an opportunity to create rather than a reason to delete! Crow^Caw 17:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I did not suggest this be brought to TFD. I told VarunFEB2003 that if they felt the template should be deleted to follow the directions at WP:TFD. I personally do not see a problem with this template. -- GB fan 17:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Of course it contains more than 200 red links!Because there are over 600 divisions through out the history of People's Liberation Army, and how many entries there are NOW on Wikipedia? Deleting the template will not just erase the existence of those divisions. Regards, Nikolai Ezhov 00:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 尼古拉叶若夫 (talk • contribs)
Keep As useful and increasingly so. WP:TROUT for the nominator who has misattributed opinions to experienced users and seems to have slightly misunderstood this process. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy – a mass of those red links. 333 -blue 09:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way to large for a navbox. Pppery (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguably this was created a little too early (a navbox that size with that many redlinks is not ideal), but the creator is diligently creating articles and slowly filling out the redlinks, so this template will become more useful in time. I might suggest though that a small redesign for usability should be considered, perhaps by moving out the Air Force/Naval/Paramilitary units to their own navboxes, once the articles are created. QueenCake (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, it has been edited to default to Collapsed, so anyone who sees it full-size is doing so intentionally. Crow^Caw 16:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per QueenCake; splitting may be preferrable to just collapsing, at least for some users... —PC-XT+ 03:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP/SPLIT - compare Template: Soviet Army divisions which the Military History project editors are also slowly filling out. This kind of work is very labour intensive to create and verify all the data required, and takes much time (six plus years so far, in the case of the Red Army/Soviet Ground Forces divisions.) Buckshot06 (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the template is still swelling as I'm finding more divisions, and I see it very hard to split since divisions of different branches, even military services are often interacting. Nikolai Ezhov 09:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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:Stephen Eckelberry 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) 23:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stephen Eckelberry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was a navbox linking two articles, now links one. (May link zero in about a week.) David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, standard linking works here. Frietjes (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2016 (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:Fueled by Ramen 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) 04:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fueled by Ramen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:CREEP. Navboxes for record labels are generally frowned upon, if I recall correctly. In this case, no-one is going to want to navigate between, say, Fall Out Boy and Panic! at the Disco on the basis that one of them is signed to this record label and the other is a former band from this label. No useful navigation between the band articles. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to just use a category and/or list in the parent article for this sort of thing. Frietjes (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the noms' spelled out ratoinale, though the WP:CREEP reference has nothing to do with this (it's about not adding rules we don't need). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:17, 28 August 2016 (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:Lang-zh 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 2016 August 31. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-zh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Zh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).