Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 11 March 13 >

March 12

[edit]

Template:DualLicenseWithCC-ByND-3.0

[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 March 21. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 21 March 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:Htxt

[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 Wrong venue Template redirects are nominated at WP:RFD (non-admin closure) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New redirect to Template:Hidden text used on two pages. This name doesn't communicate template purpose and could mean many things like harvtxt, help text, hypertext, etc. We want hidden text in articles to be obvious, not having an obscure abbreviation, because otherwise vandalism can more easily go unnoticed. Hidden text is sometimes used by search engines and screen readers. Daask (talk) 20:03, 12 March 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:Daniel Evans

[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) 00:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One album and an appearance on a charity single does not warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:59, 12 March 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:Marcus Collins

[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) 00:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One album and a couple of cover versions are not sufficient for a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:41, 12 March 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:Pokeinfoboxsmall

[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 March 21. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 21 March 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:Match of the Day

[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 March 21. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 21 March 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:List of publications intro

[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 March 21. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:59, 21 March 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:Argentina squad 2011 Copa América

[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) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:TCREEP and recent consensus that these templates are not needed and are waste of space. Störm (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - continental and world tournaments (which the Copa America is part of) are major events in football and for the individuals who partake in them, if this was something such as the 2005 Caribbean Cup then I obviously wouldn't vote Keep, but as the Copa America is a major tournament in football I can only have one opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting as well... Taking a second and third look at Störm's reasoning I can't help but to find the nominator's rational a bit odd and concerning. Störm points to this tfd as proof of a clear consensus on the topic, yet going to the discussion in question I don't see any discussion or dialog on why templates like these should be kept or deleted. In fact out of the 8 participants in said discussion, two voted "keep" (a disapproval rating of 25%). Also the template which had been nominated was concerning cricket, which is a completely different sport with different coverage and organization than football. So to say that the past tfd now results in a widespread consensus that should be the norm for all sports to me seems very iffy. Sorry for being long-winded Inter&anthro (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pinging to people who participated in recent consensus. @Frietjes:, @Dissident93:, @Mamyles:, @Steven (Editor):, @Plastikspork:, @Ajf773:. Störm (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These templates only have value if users are likely to want to navigate directly from one year's squad member's page to another. My intuition is that few users visit these players' articles solely because they were in one particular year's tournament, and if users are interested in a list of squad members they would be better served by visiting 2011 Copa América squads. I could not find any consensus or guidelines on WP:FOOTY to indicate that these detailed templates are necessary, but if there is consensus I'd defer to the wikiproject's perceived needs. Mamyles (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Copa América is a top-level international tournament. These types of templates have their value. Sepguilherme (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't matter how high profile a tournament/league is, we don't need navboxes for every squad that participated, outside of its winner. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-championship-winning squad navboxes. This is just contributing to bloat at the foot of articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep have no idea how a single TfD for cricket is supposed to establish a consensus that overrides the long established practice of maintaining squad templates for major football tournaments for every team participating. No compelling reason to delete these templates other than "they're not the championship team" which is hardly the point. While WP:TCREEP might be a legitimate concern, deletion is not cleanup, even for templates. Jay eyem (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Top level tournament from South America, so it warrants a template. Kante4 (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus. Top level (not youth) Continental tournament (not sub-association such as East Asian Football Federation). Matthew_hk tc 16:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inclusion in the squad for a top-level tournament is a notable part of players' careers. Number 57 18:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Joseph2302. We don't need player squads templates for every single team in every single tournament. Ajf773 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773: There is a consensus already to filter out youth and sub-regional tournament as well as friendly tournament, not as you claim, every single tournament. Matthew_hk tc 12:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per long-standing consensus on WP:FOOTY to include squad templates for the World Cup and continental championships. The Copa América is a top level continental championship, a major event in world football. Being in the tournament squad is notable in the career of a player, and these navboxes are particularly useful for readers given the popularity of such tournaments. The prior cricket TFD is irrelevant here. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 08:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That's not a lot of players these templates are used on, if fact I was say it's a drop in the ocean, but for any reader on any of the players page will be able to see the players that player played with in that tournament. This is providing a simple easy solution to ease of information to any reader. I completely disagree with Störms rational, these templates don't creep or mess up anything. They are fairly tidy and don't any harm to an article. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TEMPLATECREEP. We do not need to have navboxes for every squad that played in a tournament. It seems unlikely these are used for navigation. --woodensuperman 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - many of the above !delete voters cite template overcrowding as a concern, but personally I think it is a non-issue. There exists mechanisms such as Navboxes that can help condense and hide templates in case there are too many. And secondly most footballers (aside from top players of the national team such as Didier Drogba, Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, etc) do not usually play in that great deal of tournaments, usually only one to two, three if they are lucky, in their careers. I do not see WP:TEMPLATECREEP as an issue. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, creates excessive article cross-linking and (even if collapsed) excessive bloat at the foot of the article. if anyone wants to know the squad membership, it's listed in the associated squads article. Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Copa America is a major soccer tournament. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whats this? Störm (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Störm: I don't understand the question. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:44, 21 March 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:!Cite

[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 redirect to Template:Full citation needed. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{full citation needed}} and other, more specific templates in Category:Inline citation cleanup templates {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.  samee  talk 07:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template belongs to an era where Wikipedia had a surplus of editor power. If the number of incomplete citations are less than three, then one should complete them instead of tagging them. (A bot is never eligible for doing this.) If it is more than three, the inline tag shouldn't be used. In this era of community decline, if the editor who sees the problem cannot fix it without contacting the original contributor, no one can. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 08:29, 12 March 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:Country data Iroquois Confederacy

[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. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template is interchangeable with Template:Country data Iroquois SpanishSnake (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 08:27, 12 March 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:Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Talk Series

[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. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough entries to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: 1) Isn't that a problem that will correct itself naturally over time, since this is an annual award and the list will gradually expand? 2) Isn't there some value in having similar templates for all categories of Emmy Awards? 3) How much would be enough? —BarrelProof (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) Per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't know if these awards will continue. If they do, the navbox can be created then. 2) What is this value? I don't see any. 3) WP:NENAN recommends a "rule of five". --woodensuperman 16:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is a minor point, but within one year we will know whether there has been a 2018 award or not, and within two years we seem likely to meet the "rule of five" criterion (which is "not set-in-stone" anyhow). I don't have much experience with template deletion discussions, and don't have a very strong opinion about this – I just wanted to provide the thoughts that came to me upon seeing the submission. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 08:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a distinct, notable award category. I reasonably see how users could expect to navigate by a footer template like this, though I agree that the number of entries is lower than average. Mamyles (talk) 21:47, 13 March 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:USL Premier Development League Southwest Division stadiums

[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. I will note that the merged template {{Premier Development League stadiums}} is outside the scope of this discussion, and there is no prejudice against nominating it for deletion. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unnecessary template, we don't maintain stadium templates for semi-pro leagues. Jay eyem (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC) I would like to change my nomination to merge. There is no need to maintain a template for each individual division, but there could be usefulness for a template for the entire league. I have already asked the admin that closed the other stadium template to userfy it to assist with merging. Jay eyem (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 15:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, so far, all of delete comments are WP:JNN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, which should carry zero weight, because they do not show any effort in justifying deleting the template. The stadiums and teams meet WP:GNG and it is a notable term to know where PDL teams play, and the PDL teams in general are a noteworthy GNG item. The idea that the PDL is not fully professional carries a WP:DIDNOTWIN feel. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I found the template useful, enough that I marked it to watch. Unfortunately, by design, it is more difficult to watch templates, requiring going through multiple pages. I don't mark them enough because of that and templates often get deleted in secrecy. Templates are navigational tools. I used these to navigate to a bunch of stadiums I have related other content to. So they are useful and thus needed. The above people's delete votes simply show their ignorance of the usefulness of the templates and cannot be a definitive statement of these not being needed. Instead, they impose their value judgement on the league these stadiums are associated with and in the intent of diminishing (or ultimately deleting) its presence on wikipedia, wish to delete the supplemental content created by the editors who have contributed to that league. Trackinfo (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok 1. Dial back the accusatory tone. 2. You need to recognize that these templates are primarily related to WP:FOOTY and that determination is the primary one used for keeping and maintaining these templates 3. There is already a precedent for deleting these exact kinds of templates. I have proposed merging them as an alternative because I believe that it could potentially be useful as a single template but not as they are now. Jay eyem (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not stand on a precedent established by a severe minority of three people. The same three people who are placing delete ivotes on this page. Finally you have some pushback for an ill advised prior deletion which should get replace. Trackinfo (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was closed by an admin unaffiliated with the project. Take it up with them, not me. And again, watch your tone, please. Jay eyem (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just as a quick aside, if you look at Category:Association football venue navigational boxes on the whole you won't find football templates for semi-pro leagues other than in the United States. No National League, no Regionalliga, no Championnat National, etc. I think merging is the minimum of what must be done, but I still don't see how this is useful for WP:FOOTY to maintain. Jay eyem (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that the nominator has suggested a merge, a decision which was made after the votes and relisting. Relisting once more for opinions on that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment I am actually now finally getting around to the process of creating a new template for the venues (most of the current ones are out of date), I'll probably repost in this discussion once I have done so. Jay eyem (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the merge of the various templates. I'm glad it does not delete the content which is what the original discussion started as. I'm just not sure what great deed this merge accomplishes, and more importantly why we had to go through this discussion about deletion first. Trackinfo (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally, I wouldn't relist a third time, but I would like more comments on the switch to merge.

Pinging Frietjes, GiantSnowman, Hhhhhkohhhhh, Quidster4040, Trackinfo, and Mamyles for further comment. Nihlus 07:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 07:53, 12 March 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).

Romania city or town transport 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) 00:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romania city or town transport templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Templates below created after nomination opened

Wildy premature and overstuffed navboxes, linking a) town-specific content which doesn't exist and b) broad scope articles which have minimal connection to the town. In most cases even the head article Transport in Foo is a red-link.
See e.g. {{Transport in Alexandria}}, which has precisely zero blue links to any topics specific to Alexandria, Romania. The headline links to a mis-titled page Transport in Alexandria (Alexandria is in Egypt) which doesn't exist, and nor does Transport in Alexandria, Romania ... but the navbox is transcluded in Alexandria, Romania, even tho it doesn't link there.
Or see {{Transport in Sibiu}}, which has 3 blue links to Sibiu-specific topics, plus 5 blue links to airlines and 4 blue links to roads; one of those roads, the DN7, is apparently starting to sprout a "Transport in Foo" navbox for every town on its route, which is very cluttersome.
{{Transport in Timișoara}} looks a little more promising, but the 3 blue links in the "Mass transit" group all link to sections of the head article Transport in Timișoara.
These templates were all created by @Laurentiu Popa, who has obviously put a lot of v careful work into this series of standardised navboxes ... but it's just not how navboxes are used on en.wp. AFAICS, they fail each of the five tests in WP:NAVBOX. They are more like mini-portals to redlinked topics. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sadly, @Laurentiu Popa has taken this deletion discussion very personally[2], and decided to quit editing.[3]
I will post some words of encouragement, but maybe others could do so too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 13 March 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_March_12&oldid=832883110"