Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 24 October 26 >

October 25 edit

Template:Related recipients of the Knight's Cross 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 listify. Page has been moved to User:Primefac/Related recipients of the Knight's Cross for notability/acceptability assessment. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After discussion on the talk page, it was determined that the list was not notable and has been deleted. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template appears to be an unnecessary cross-categorisation and / or indiscriminate collection of information. The article one would expect to accompany such a template ("Related recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross") does not exist, and I don't believe that the topic of the KC related recipients has been the subject of inquiry in secondary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I am sure the author made it in good faith, but with that said, there are relevancy issues. And notability is not inherited. Kierzek (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only once captured as a list. It's not cross-categorisation nor is it indiscriminate, but it isn't suitable for a template and should be a list under e.g. the main article on Knight's Cross recipients or added to the remarks in the existing lists. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Bermicourt. Question K.e.coffman's remark implies that there are people on the list just because they are related to Ritterkreuzträger and have an Wiki article of their own. If this is an accurate reading of KE's remarks, I think the list should be limited to relatives who have both won the KC. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Lineagegeek's question, both members of the pairs are KC recipients, but generally one tends to me more notable than the other, as in Erich von Manstein (Oak Leaves & Swords) and Edel-Heinrich Zachariae-Lingenthal: the former is a field marshal and the latter is a major. Some of the sub-categories are also a bit odd, as in "Father and son-in-law" or "Father and step-son". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 26 October 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:R scouting from merge 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless topic-specific version of {{R from merge}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, POV much? --evrik (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Paine Ellsworth. – Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep far from useless, this is a well-used redirect. --evrik (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no POV, I just think that the regular R from merge template should be used for scouting. The holding cell will probably have to be used, though. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like it's used in a couple hundred articles, and topic-specific because it helps Scouting WikiProject track the history of their relevant articles. Note that Scouting is always capitalized in this sense in English, per Scouting WPMOS, so if this survives, needs to be re-capped.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic-specific rcats are created by project members for tracking purposes as noted above and should only be deleted by project members who know the rcats are no longer needed.  Paine  u/c 06:04, 26 October 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:Endemic 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 November 3 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:54, 3 November 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:HOL Liberal Democrat 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; deleted as G7 by GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template not in current use. Farolif (talk) 17:08, 25 October 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:Monclova TV 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) 00:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one local station here — not an aid to navigation. Raymie (t • c) 16:42, 25 October 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:Union Pearson Express 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) 00:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 25 October 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:PD-USGov-Atlas 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 November 3 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:49, 3 November 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:Frost Like Ashes 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) 22:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the artists have articles and the albums were not notable or redlinks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. All the albums, etc are redirects. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 27 October 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).

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've had your say by your choice of wording for rationale. Do not counter-argue other's comments and reasons to keep something. This is not a battleground. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is "Templates for discussion. It isn't a discussion if one is limited to making one statement and then not allowed to respond to commentary made. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency with all countries competing in this competition. --SuperJew (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to keep a useless navigation template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No useful navigation due to less than four links. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to blindly create navigation templates that provide no function. ~ Rob13Talk 16:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: during the relist process I removed nearly-identical duplicate nomination comments, this revision has them intact. This is for proper sorting/indexing by the bots that patrol this page (seems to be throwing things off having the comments in between the TFD links)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is insufficient navigation to justify these particular nav boxes. No prejudice to recreation if and when sufficient articles appear to navigate between. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, each of these links at most 2 articles, so we really don't need a navbox. linking through the parent article works fine here. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 2 November 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:Albania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There was enough articles before you removed them. These are navboxes for a contest to which Albania participates in. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't remove any articles. They were all redirects to the same article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you have disrupted the format of a template that is no longer consistent with all of the other hundred or so. Congratulations on that brain fart. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency was a hindrance. You can now see all the articles without unnecessary clicking. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the consistent design of all of these navboxes is poorly thought out. Rather than having the collapsible subgroups, they should be a simple navbox, showing the fields [YEAR]: [Artist] - "[Song title]" or something similar... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That style of design you mention was discussed, but opposed as it was proven to look very messy and complicated to the unfamiliar reader. Especially is used in Eurovision versions for a contest that is going into its 62nd year. The current style was deemed the most simple and effective, hence its use. And I cannot understand why all of these have not been merged into one-single mass-nomination. That is the correct procedure, is it not? Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and WP:CIVIL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is a hindrance? How is that a rationale for deletion? Wikipedia advises on pro-consistency. And no incivility used. The term "brain fart" is a humorous definition. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say consistency was a reason for deletion, not enough articles to navigate between is the rationale for that. I said that consistency was a hindrance to navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you did say "consistency was a hindrance". If you implied something different, then please feel free to elaborate further on my talk page where it is more appropriate. And like I said, my message was not incivil. I always use the term brain fart. My dry sense of humour, sorry if you are not use to that sort of thing. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency with all countries competing in this competition. --SuperJew (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to keep a useless navigation template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No useful navigation, as per the above. @Wesley Mouse: Please be civil. It's hardly disruptive to remove redirect links. A navigational box is for navigation and redirect links serve no useful navigational purpose. ~ Rob13Talk 16:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: talk about a week too late with the "please be civil" remark. Rob and I have actually got along very well this last week, and have started to collaborate on improving the day-to-day running's of WikiProject Eurovision which is in one hell of a dire need to being brought to high standards in terms of how projects should be operating. Wes Mouse  T@lk 16:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse: I'm glad to hear that; I didn't check the timestamp before commenting, and I probably would have mentioned it even if I had without knowing the background of the past week. ~ Rob13Talk 16:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient links to need a navbox. -- Whpq (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, links 3 articles, so we really don't need a navbox. linking through the parent article works fine here. Frietjes (talk) 13:11, 2 November 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_October_25&oldid=1076705495"