Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

Template:Infobox league commissioner

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge with {{Infobox officeholder}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox league commissioner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created as a derivation of Template:Infobox officeholder to be used in articles about baseball officials, but I think the standard Template:infobox person already includes all the necessary parameters, see this diff to see how a replacement would look in mainspace. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a "derivation" of officeholder (how can it be if it was made with the infobox template, while officeholder isn't?), was created with consensus reasoning (seen here), and isn't meant for baseball officials. As the name suggests, it is meant to be used for any sports league commissioner (past and present) such as those of the MLS, NBA, NFL, MLB, college leagues such as the Southeastern Conference, Pac 12, etc. It is in the process of being refined into something (through consensus discussion) that is much more custom in information to this particular position. The officeholder and person infoboxes were deemed inadequate as discussed above. Brian Reading (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't seem to be any discussion of {{Infobox person}} in that section. Please can you explain why it is not thought adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into Template:Infobox officeholder. I don't see what needed parameters require a different template for the position of Commissioner, which is an "office" one "holds". It's not an elected office in the normal sense, but still. The officeholder template allows for "preceded", "succeeded", "term start", "term end", "deputy", "occupation", and other parameters that should suffice in describing a league commissioner within an infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Template Infobox officeholder appears to be a general template used to implement many different infoboxes all for political offices, and so I believe it is inappropriate for a non-political office—it may emit metadata or categories that aren't relevant to league commissioners. I don't have much issue with using Infobox person, though I don't find the logic of the nomination compelling: even if infobox official post (recently introduced in the Commissioner of Baseball article, also I believe in error), for example, had no new fields compared with infobox person, it could generate different classification info that cannot easily be done within infobox person. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Infobox officeholder}} emits no metadata or categories which would preclude its use. Indeed, infoboxes generally do not emit categories (other than for tracking technically the usage of certain parameters) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator and Muboshgu. If I'd noticed the discussion on the Baseball wikiproject I would have counseled against creating this in the first place. Unless there are sports-specific fields which can't be met by existing templates there's no reason to create a fork and it'll just create more overhead going forward. People need to stop having hang-ups about what a template is called and focus on what a template actually does. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes it harder for editors to maintain the infobox officeholder template if it is used for multiple purposes: political officeholders, and baseball commissioners. They may make formatting or other decisions that are appropriate for one scenario but not the other. Thus I do not believe a merge to infobox officeholder is a good idea. isaacl (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — If there are formatting or other concerns, they can be brought up when they appear. By merging, the template serves more varying needs, and that should be taken into account when changes are made. This has worked well for most past template merges. —PC-XT 01:35, 18 February 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox judoka

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox judoka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox created three days ago and currently counting four transclusions. Biographies of judokas (of which there are thousands) have always used Template:Infobox martial artist or Template:Infobox sportsperson. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom after replacement —PC-XT 01:01, 16 February 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Greenville County Major Highways

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greenville County Major Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past precedents (by-county templates for Michigan [Dec. 2011], Washington [July 2012], Georgia [May 2013], Texas [Oct. 2013], Hawaii [Dec. 2013]), these sorts of templates have been considered redundant to the county transportation category. Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedent. T C N7JM 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per past discussions. Dough 48 72 05:09, 17 February 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Roads in Palm Beach County, Florida

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roads in Palm Beach County, Florida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past precedents (by-county templates for Michigan [Dec. 2011], Washington [July 2012], Georgia [May 2013], Texas [Oct. 2013], Hawaii [Dec. 2013]), these sorts of templates have been considered redundant to the county transportation category Imzadi 1979 → 19:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – redundant, past precedent. T C N7JM 04:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serves to clog up the article bottoms and little more. --NE2 14:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unneeded. Dough 48 72 20:29, 15 February 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox presenter

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, any discussion on rewriting it can continue on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox presenter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox person}}. Either the required parameters should be included in that template (preferred), or this template should be recast as a module for it. (This template has 495 transclusions) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the option of recasting it as a module. I'm not really a fan of modules in general, but I can't see much use for parameters such as timeslot2 in other biographic articles. (By the way, does the list of infoboxes work well for you now?)--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rewrite as a wrapper for {{infobox person}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:User warning-mentalhealth

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2014 February 23 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:13, 23 February 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:National members of the International Federation for Equestrian Sports

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, and reformatting discussion can continue on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National members of the International Federation for Equestrian Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As the events and disciplines should not be linked in the template as it is supposed to be about the members (and per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL), the benefits of a navigation box with only 5 active links and about 50 dead links (also see WP:NOTRED) are dubious. How do we know that this is a full set, or even that it is notable when this information isn't even mentioned in the article (which would be a much more appropriate place for this kind of table anyway)? However, it could be cleaned up to show only the appropriate and active links like this. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reformat as suggested, to remove the red links. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a clear WP:DONOTDEMOLISH situation and a bleedover from a rather heated discussion about several navboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture#Breed navboxes. The nav box is to links for national governing organizations for equestrian sport. It is a set and WP:NOTRED clearly allows an exception for sets and series of articles. The article not having a complete list is not a RS for notability; see official source). This is not an appropriate topic for TfD. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is irrational. Thincat (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, and apply a trout for an inappropriate and POINTy nomination - "deletion is not cleanup". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not pointy, inappropriate or irrational at all. The events and disciplines links do not belong due to them not being covered by the subject of the navbox, and not following WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Once you've removed them, all you have left are the various groups and countries, of which 5 out of approximately 100 have articles. This sea of redlinks is not a useful navigational aid to find five live links, and the five links barely meets the bright line of WP:NENAN. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bright line is just that; and even just five clearly satisfies it. You should drop the stick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, happy to drop it if we reduce to my suggested compromise. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's too many red links for now just delink a few of them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So you'd be okay with this version? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —PC-XT 01:09, 16 February 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Defunct USL Pro squad templates

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antigua Barracuda squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:VSI Tampa Bay FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both teams folded after the 2013 season. – Michael (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - if both teams have folded then there is no need for 'current squad' templates - as there are no current squads! Giant Snowman 12:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per GS, no longer required. Fenix down (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.