Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

June 17 edit

Template:Do for every South Holland municipality code 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 as unused and unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 17:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Do for every South Holland municipality code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Conditional table row Dutch municipality without province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

extremely complex and unused in articles. if this sort of thing is needed, we should rewrite it in lua. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 17 June 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:Current NFL long snappers 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) 11:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current NFL long snappers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This isn't a useful criteria for a navbox. While starting quarterbacks may justify a navbox, long snappers certainly don't. This takes editor time to maintain and provides no real benefit to our readers. ~ Rob^Talk 03:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't imagine a scenario where a user would want to navigate between every long snapper in the NFL. Lizard (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't care if it is deleted, as it's not as important as other similar ones, but I really don't see the harm in keeping it either. It also doesn't require much maintaining, since how often are long snappers replaced? Last season you had a couple new ones for week 1, had one get injured mid season, and another in week 16. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more the precedent, from my point of view. Imagine the navbox cruft that would result if people started creating {{Current NFL wide receivers}} and similar. ~ Rob^Talk 04:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rob, this template is used for "starting" long snappers only. Not every, single on in the league. CrashUnderride 06:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Along the lines of Dissident, but if we delete this, I propose we delete the templates for starting QBs and all other ones, should there be any other. They serve the, little purpose. CrashUnderride 06:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on the QB ones, but I think the punter, placekicker, and this one should go. I don't think "it does no harm" is a valid reason for keeping anything. If it's not helpful, it shouldn't exist. Lizard (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that my opinion is exactly Lizard's. Neutral on QBs and support deleting all others. I'll probably mass-nominate all but the starting quarterbacks once this is closed as delete. ~ Rob^Talk 01:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it's not helpful at all, but it should probably be deleted because no main article exists for it (isn't that a requirement for navboxes?) The starting QB navbox has one, and should stay, but that's another topic. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, navbox creep. Frietjes (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that this one, the punter and the placekicker should go. We have article on List of starting quarterbacks in the National Football League, QB is such an important position these days and there seems to be some discussion and interest in starting QBs as a group from reliable sources, soI think that one should stay. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:44, 19 June 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).