Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 26 May 28 >

May 27 edit

Direct destinations by Dutch railway station navboxes 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 unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 17:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion of both. Templates bring articles together under a defining or otherwise important characteristic. Direct destinations from Ede-Wageningen and Lelystad (not the most important stations in the Netherlands) are NOT defining or important characteristics of the other stations. This can be a table or list in the article that is currently in the title of the navbox. With templates it will get totally out of hand!!! gidonb (talk) 21:59, 27 May 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:WikiProject New England Patriots 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 merge. Only opposition was based on the incorrect assertion that this was still a separate WikiProject; it is not. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 16:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is basically duplicative now that Template:WikiProject National Football League now allows for a patriots parameter that goes to the same WikiProject link. This template only puts the articles into Category:WikiProject New England Patriots articles while the NFL template puts them into Category:New England Patriots articles by quality. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I guess I'm asking for it to be merged into Template:WikiProject National Football League with "patriots=yes". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:WikiProject New England Patriots exists as a separate wikiproject, so it should have its own WikiProject banner available. If you were to merge the WikiProject away into becoming a taskforce of the NFL project, then we could eliminate the banner, but as it is a separate project, it should have a banner available. And I don't think that every Patriots topic necessarily needs to be considered part of the NFL project unless the two projects are merged -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The projects are merged. Template:WikiProject National Football League links directly to the same separate WikiProject. There's no separate subgroup anywhere. Ok, it should be a replace the separate template with instances of the NFL template with the patriots parameter since every Patriots page will necessarily include the NFL structure within it. There's no independent importance category or anything that requires a separate template so the old template only exists if you want to put a page in the Patriots category without it being the NFL category and there's literally no reason to do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The projects have already been merged, so this is really just routine cleanup work. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 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).

Minor League Baseball roster navboxes 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) 00:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, being on a minor league roster is not a defining characteristic that requires a navbox. Those nominated here are largely out of date, unused, and contain lots of redlinks & non-links. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per NatureBoyMD.--Yankees10 16:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I'd miss these templates, but nowhere in WP:TG does it say anything about "defining characteristics". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominatior. These things are a pain to maintain and have often been created by one or more editors and then forgotten and left to get out of date. Players move up and down within a minor league system rather often during a season and players seldom remain on a AAA roster after the conclusion of a season, so there is no practical need to see the connections between members of the Norfolk Tides. Spanneraol (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need them. Frietjes (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would not miss these. Change frequently. Labor intensive to maintain. Questionable utility. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The navboxes are not particularly harder to maintain than the normal minor league roster templates. If you make a change to the roster template, echo it to the navbox. At least, that's how I do it. The real issue is putting the navboxes in the player pages. If a navbox is to be deleted, all those player pages should be updated as well.Cpfan776 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I might have started this trend with the Mud Hens navbox (sorry). I don't have a problem with deletion; minor league rosters are so fluid that maintenance can be a real problem. Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 1 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:Fearscape 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 speedy delete.

Band article deleted. Albums not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 27 May 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:Saint-Saëns concertos 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 merge. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Saint-Saëns concertos with Template:Camille Saint-Saëns.
I noticed that the {{Saint-Saëns concertos}} template is almost entirely duplicated inside of the {{Camille Saint-Saëns}} template, not counting a few differences in organization. All pages in Category:Concertos by Camille Saint-Saëns include both templates already. A similar situation exists with other Concertos by composer templates or Works by composer templates, such as {{Brahms concertos}}, {{Liszt piano concertos}}, {{Rachmaninoff piano concertos}}, etc., but I have not nominated those for discussion (yet). I propose to either (a) merge the two templates, or (b) include only one of the two templates on a page. Thanks. Hftf (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete already covered in the main template. gidonb (talk) 01:41, 6 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_27&oldid=955552553"