Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 6

< October 5	October 7 >

October 6 edit

Template:WVUConsensusAll-Americans 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WVUConsensusAll-Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - This is information not necessary for a navbox. The list of players would be much better served in a West Virginia Mountaineers football subsection called "Consensus All-Americans". With the recent discussions about the uses and proliferation of navboxes, I think this is a clear choice candidate for what shouldn't be a navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, this appears to be the only navbox of its type (i.e. All-Americans by team). Until we have some firmer guidelines for navboxes, I say nip this in the bud right here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into {{West Virginia Mountaineer football season navbox}}, which should be renamed for general purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if there were firmer guidelines for navboxes I would say this goes too far. There is already a navbox present for each AA team so the honor is denoted. Unnecessary and I'm not sure consensus AAs should even be on the school sports navbox. Rikster2 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe in a sports almanac wiki, but that's a little too much clutter here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2011 (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:Rghts of older persons in India 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was has been speedily delete (closing per NAC) 198.102.153.2 (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rghts of older persons in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as Template:Rights of older persons in India. Article content in Template page. — Abhishek ^Talk 14:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly meant to be an article. Not useful as a template. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (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:Rights of older persons in India 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was has been speedily delete (closing per NAC) 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rights of older persons in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content in Template page. — Abhishek ^Talk 14:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly meant to be an article. Not useful as a template. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either move to articlespace or delete. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as test (G2). Same user created just about the same, as an article minutes later. See: Rights of older persons in India - Nabla (talk)

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Halloweentown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN. Only contains four links. -happy 5214 04:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only four articles make up the entire navbox. Can easily be handled with links in the article body rather than adding navbox clutter. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2011 (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:2011 MLB Playoffs bracket 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 MLB Playoffs bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on a single article. A template actually holding article content, makes editing unnecessarily hard. Subst and delete. Nabla (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move I agree, move this to the actual article. --LAA Fan 05:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The MLB playoff brackets were put on templates so they could be transcluded on both the MLB season articles and the years in baseball articles. For example, last year's bracket, {{2010 MLB Playoffs bracket}} is included on both 2010 Major League Baseball season and 2010 in baseball pages. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support keeping this template as per above statement. 71.146.8.5 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The template is simply uses template:Baseballplayoffsbracket. Move them into the article. It's not hard to copy that into the relevant articles. Once the playoffs are over, that information won't change so having it directly in multiple articles doesn't save anything on editting. Why is haviing it in a template for transclusion necessary? -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same reason that {{2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage bracket}} is trancluded on both 2010 FIFA World Cup and 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. The same reason that {{2010–11 NFL playoffs}} is trancluded on both 2010–11 NFL playoffs and 2010 NFL season. And the same reason that {{2011 NBA Playoffs}} is trancluded on both 2010–11 NBA season and 2011 NBA Playoffs. Per WP:TMP, "Templates duplicate the same content across more than one page. You can change a template in one place and it will immediately propagate to the pages that use it." Please note that is specifically says "more than one page", not "more than two pages". A number of other sports WikiProjects are also using these methods regarding the bracket templates as a matter of convenience. Don't immediately assume "that information won't change" after each postseason or tournament ends because there still might be minor tweaks, enhancements, or other maintenance issues made later on, where each season has to be individually checked (such as new consensus that all overtime games should be marked with an "†" instead of an "*"). You cannot make every such modification directly on {{Baseballplayoffsbracket}} or other generic bracket template since many sports leagues and organizations have used different playoff or tournament systems throughout the years. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the existence of other similar cases as a (faint but) valid argument. The remainder is simply the statement of technical facts about templates, which apply indiscriminately to both good and bad templates. Those can not be reasons to keep nor delete this one - Nabla (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this used in all season articles. –BuickCentury Driver 04:36, 7 October 2011 (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.