Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3 edit

Template:Editnotices/Page/Praxis intervention edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. The two that don't use parenthetical referencing currently. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Vahurzpu with the reason "Outdated; article no longer uses parenthetical referencing" FASTILY 22:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also add (same rationale):

Vahurzpu (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • imo editnotices like this should just be speedied. They can be blanked as outdated anyway, and blanked editnotices are eligible for G6 per consensus. Don’t really think something as uncontroversial as this is worth a TfD, there’s nothing really disputable about removing an editnotice for a page which states the page uses paren referencing when it doesn’t anymore. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 3, per above. Nigej (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:46, 6 February 2021 (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).

Arena Football League team season templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion on the grounds that these templates are redundant. Each individual team template (e.g. Template:Philadelphia Soul, Template:Denver Dynamite, etc.) already has a list of seasons with links at the bottom of the template, whether visible by default (as with the Soul template), or collapsed by default (as with the Dynamite template). These season lists are present on every team template, as far as I am aware, which renders these above listed templates, whose only purpose is to list that team's seasons, unneeded. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The seasons, I have just checked were Indiana, Florida, and Oklahoma City, and none of these franchise's templates have links to the individual season articles. @PCN02WPS: Your mass nomination was not done with proper checks were done before hand. I suggest you withdraw it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WilliamJE, I checked {{Indiana Firebirds}}, {{Florida Bobcats}}, and {{Oklahoma City Yard Dawgz}}, and all have season links listed in the collapsed section on the bottom of each respective template. Am I misunderstanding your comment? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't link to individual season articles for those teams. They link to yearly AF2 season articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And San Jose and Orlando fail too for the same reason. That makes five bad nominations of the six templates I checked. Withdraw this TFD. @Jweiss11: who may want to reconsider their vote above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And New Jersey and Arizona fail too for the same reason. That makes seven bad nominations of the eight I checked. Withdraw this nomination....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: on Template:San Jose SaberCats, I see links to team season articles in the collapsed seasons section. There are links to the league season articles in groups above. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WilliamJE, I think you may be looking at the "playoff appearances" section - the collapsed "Seasons" section has links to individual team seasons. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked each template at Category:Arena Football League team navigational boxes for a third time, and indeed all do have links for individual team seasons either as a nested navbox at the bottom of the template or as one of the rows in the navbox. Either Jweiss and I are grossly misunderstanding your concern, or you did not read my nomination rationale carefully enough. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Duplication like this often causes problems in the long run. See eg {{Arizona Rattlers}} when the (doubly) collapsed "Seasons (26)" section ends with 2018, while {{Arizona Rattlers seasons}} continues with 2019, etc. Deleting these templates seems the simplest solution. Nigej (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilliamJE: do you want to reconsider your keep vote above given that it seems you misread the content of the navboxes in question? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2021 (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:Euro T20 Slam edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. No prejudice against recreation (or refunds) if the status changes. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template that is not useful, as no editions of this tournament have yet happened. Almost all links redirect back to parent page (except for a couple that redirect to incorrect pages), and no evidence this tournament will ever happen Joseph2302 (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Utterly useless. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2021 (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).

Templates Michelin stars edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 to Template:Michelin stars in Groningen, Friesland and Flevoland, Netherlands. Izno (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michelin stars in Groningen, Netherlands

Template with just 4 primary links The Banner talk 11:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michelin stars in Friesland, Netherlands

Template with just 4 primary links The Banner talk 11:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michelin stars in Flevoland, Netherlands

Template with just one primary link The Banner talk 11:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three templates with less then the common 5 primary links. Restoration of the original Template:Michelin stars in Groningen, Friesland and Flevoland, Netherlands (now a redirect) is the better solution. The Banner talk 11:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Let's restore the old version. Lois12jd (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one template with 10-15 links makes more sense than 3 templates with fewer than 5 links. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2021 (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/2021_February_3&oldid=1006799360"