Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 14

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

August 14 edit

Champions League Twenty20 teams 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) 21:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Champions League Twenty20 teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009 Champions League Twenty20 teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 Champions League Twenty20 teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 Champions League Twenty20 teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Excessive and has potential for Template creep. Uncommon use of templates. Template:UEFA Champions League only contains information on the current season. SocietyBox (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't agree that it comes under WP:ATC. CLT20 is the biggest stage for cricket clubs, and being a part of one is a notable thing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What about the foreseeable problem of team articles perhaps having 10+ of these templates? SocietyBox (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There have been three played seasons so far, 1 cancelled one, and one in future. Also this is the only cricket league in which teams from other leagues compete. And in case a team has 100 of them, they can be capped using Template:Hidden. Hindustan Zinda bad 12:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unnecessary template that will eventually clog up team articles. As suggested, a template for the current tournament is sufficient, and possibly a seperate one for all the winners. No more than that is needed. Harrias talk 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (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:Brantley Gilbert 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) 21:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brantley Gilbert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:TOOSOON. Gilbert only has 3 singles so far, one of which was just released. Even including it would put him short of WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Brantley Gilbert has two albums, and three singles. ALL of them have charted.

- MDPS doesn't link three of the singles
- CMBCW doesn't link to DRA nor MDPS
- YDKHLID doesn't link to DRA nor MDPS
- DRA doesn't link to MDPS, CMBCW nor YDKHLID

This is now the THIRD time that it remains unproven that WP:NENAN requires five articles in addition to the parent article. BTW, is it really necessary for us to go through this TfD every 1-2 months? The last few TfD's that have been filed against my templates have been proven wrong within only a matter of days, due to a blatant lack of research in advance.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: rather than repeatedly creating minuscule navboxes which navigate only a handful of pages, why not just interlink your articles properly? (TPH probably knows best regarding exactly what NENAN requires, considering that he wrote NENAN.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. I should probably make it clearer that WP:NENAN does not count the parent article, nor any "see also" articles which should not have the template on it. (Also, what do you mean "Modern Day Prodigal Son" doesn't link the singles? It clearly does in the track list. "Country Must Be Country Wide" and "You Don't Know Her Like I Do" clearly link to the album via the navbox and intro. Your argument is very flawed.) "Dirt Road Anthem" I'll give a pass for the navbox since Brantley did record it, but that still puts him at only 4. (Finally, the only one that failed was Colt Ford, and that was only because his 4th album didn't have an article at the time, and I forgot he co-owns Average Joe's.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - To address Chris' concern, I have created navboxes with 5 links total for Colt Ford, Brady Seals and Brantley Gilbert. WP:NENAN says "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the rule of five". My four bullets indicate that Gilbert's articles do not link to each other without the template (this is the intent of a navbox), which was clearly the case with Seals' and Ford's templates from the very beginning. Proof that WP:NENAN requires five articles in addition to the parent article is not a matter of who wrote the article, or what the author intended to mean, but is a matter of what the article actually says. I have no doubt that TPH knows what he intended to mean, but what must be ruled on is what the article actually says. I will do my best in the future to make sure there are 5 articles related to the topic of the template.
TPH: I have thrice questioned the issue of whether the WP:NENAN rule of five includes the parent article, and only now is it being addressed. At this time, Modern Day Prodigal Son only links to "My Kinda Party", Halfway to Heaven and "Brantley Gilbert" (if I am mistaken please let me know). All four singles shown in the template were written, recorded and sung by Gilbert. Modern Day Prodigal Son has charted on 5 separate Billboard charts. IMO, this means there are 7 legitimate articles linked on the template. Both TfDs for Ford and Seals were withdrawn due to them compiling a sufficient number of articles. There were 5 articles for Ford when the template was created, and his main article indicated that his 2012 album was due out soon and that he founded Average Joe's Entertainment. The first and third albums did not link to one another without the template. A title, track listing and release date for the 2012 album were all widely publicized, yet the article was changed to a redirect while I was in the process of compiling the track listing.
Seals' template had 6 links when it was nominated.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Filibustering doesn't help your cause. There's no need to constantly fight tooth and nail over every template I nominate. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I am not filibustering, as my writing does not take time away from other people commenting. I am not fighting every template you nominate, I am debating ones that I create (and perhaps a few others on occasion). I am attempting to respond to all concerns presented before me, and commenting on the methodology used to send templates to TfD. If there is no contest to Gilbert having 7 articles, then this template should likely remain.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is the quantity of articles placeable in the Brantley Gilbert template still under debate? Why or why not?
I contend that there are 7 placeable articles including the artist, and that 5 (including the artist) is sufficient, as at least three of the articles do not link to ALL of the others. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is anyone else going to reply to this?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, does navigate between more than four articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - Any other points of debate requiring discussion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - "Kick It In The Sticks" is now the eighth link in the navbox aside from Average Joe's Entertainment. It has now been two weeks since this was nominated. Will this template be dispositioned soon?--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_14&oldid=1086338488"