Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14

edit

Module:Countdownalt

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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, misnamed sandbox of Module:Countdown. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2018 (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).

Module:Commons category

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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Wikidata lua module; Commons category (P373) can be passed as a parameter to Module:Wd, Module:Wikidata, or Module:WikidataIB to get the commons category of a page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2018 (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:Senior Open Championship

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 2018 May 22. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 22 May 2018 (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:A-League Ladder2

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) ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; probably replaced by Module:Sports table Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2018 (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:NZFC 2009-10 Position Ladder

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) ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; probably replaced by Module:Sports table. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2018 (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).

Module:Asbox/testedit

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 Userfy. To Module:Sandbox/CodeHydro/Asbox/testedit (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, plus could be easily implemented in Wikitext {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can move this module to my userspace if you'd like. This module was convenient when Asbox was being developed as I needed to generate a lot of very similar links. It currently isn't used because Asbox is currently stable and the generated links have been replaced with hardcoded versions. It might be useful again if Asbox were ever updated and new testcases were created. —CodeHydro 11:49, 19 May 2018 (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).

Module:Airport destinations

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) 02:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Only used on 2 non-articles (b) Not in english (c) Wikipedia has rejected generating this kind of table from Wikidata {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2018 (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).

Module:Available

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 2018 May 22. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:08, 22 May 2018 (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).

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a useful navigation tool, mostly due to their sheer size (among other factors), and as a list of appearances in magazines, it probably fails WP:PERFNAV. Best suited to a list (or category, although that may fail WP:PERFCAT). --woodensuperman 15:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The templates link people who have similar encyclopedic appeal to readers making it easy for them to get from one article to to another article that likely appeals to readers for similar reasons. I.e., it links articles of people who are associated in a way that makes linkages logical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you really envisage a situation where a reader will find this a useful navigation tool and wouldn't be better served by an article? Will readers really be using this to navigate between one model to another without context? It's just unnecessary clutter really and fails the spirit of WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 10:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is the topic even notable? I note that List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue models does not exist, and if it was to be created, it may even be deleted per WP:LISTCRUFT, so these navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX anyway. --woodensuperman 10:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there aren't articles or categories for this, so you wouldn't have been able to. But that would be a better way of presenting this information, provided that the topic is even notable. However as a navbox is unsourced, we cannot judge notability, which is why there should be an article on the subject of a navbox before a navbox is created. At worst, this is WP:LISTCRUFT, at best it should be listified, either way, there should not be a navbox for it. --woodensuperman 15:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't have used the categories or list page had they existed, and usually don't use them for navigation when they do exist. I prefer to use navboxes for navigation, not categories, or list pages. (Actually, I don't use categories at all, and list pages rarely.) As to sources, the sources are the issues themselves, and are what would be cited in a list page anyway. I've no issue with a list page being created, but you've already made it clear it probably shouldn't exist, so why bother as long as we have the navboxes.
I don't know if there is a way to track usage of navboxes, but I'd love to see the traffic numbers if there is. - BilCat (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the list shouldn't exist, then the navbox definitely shouldn't as that would imply the topic isn't notable. --woodensuperman 08:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your opinion on the others? --woodensuperman 13:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the others are that useful. Being a model in the issue that isn't the cover isn't a big deal. There were some issues in which regular athletes or sports personalities wore swimsuits in the issue. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2018 (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:1964–1969 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit

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. If anyone wants to expand the 1970-79 template to include these years, they can discuss it on that template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only links two articles. Nothing to navigate. Best dealt with by a list. See also #Sports Illustrated Swimsuit navboxes. --woodensuperman 15:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: since this template is one in a series, and many of the models are known by name, "maybe" it could/should be kept, and "maybe" articles on the red-link models could be written. Independently of this discussion, maybe the models (all of them, from all years) should be categorized. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2018 (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/2018_May_14&oldid=1145691507"