Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 7 September 9 >

September 8 edit


Template:Match in progress 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Match in progress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This issue has raised its head again in various discussions recently hence this nomination. Wikipedia is not a live scoring site or a breaking news site and the existence of this template creates the impression to its user of legitimacy. There have been edit wars with inexperienced users who believe the practice of adding live scores is ok. However if the practice is condoned then there is no need for us to provide the template and help legitimise its use. Current consensus within the relative wiki project is that live scoring is not allowed so having a template that allows it to be done is not best practice. I fully understand why it was created but feel that it makes the problem worse not better. Blethering Scot 18:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagre with the deletion of this template. I am not an inexperienced user and as I see it there has been editwars fought by the persons that want to end live updating on wikipedia. This has been done in many sports. I myself have been part of it at the last summer olympic, the last FIFA world cup and at many local danish event when I was living there. It has long been the tradition to have live updates and this template have been of good use in this. I have no where seen a clear and solid new consensus about live updating, but I recognice the strong oppinions that many have. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has always been that live scoring is not allowed this is not new at all. This template was not created to condone its use or approve it but to show that a score is not final in case a user does not fully update which happens more often than not. It should be noted i wasnt just refering to you with the new editor description but your clear edit warring shows you certainly need to reacquaint yourself with several policies.Blethering Scot 18:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this template should be deleting as it is making users update live scores which is not acceptable on wikipedia. I vote for the deletion of this template. Skyblueshaun (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a rolling news service, it is an encyclopedia. We should not be encouraging editors to 'update' scores of matches that are in progress, and that is something that this template does. Imagine this scenario - a team scores to make the real-life score 1-0. A good faith editor edits the score to show it is 1-0. 20 seconds later, another good faith editor hears that one of the teams has scored, does not realize that it has already been updated, and adds another goal to show 2-0, which is clearly wrong. It happens more often than you think, and needs to be stamped out. GiantSnowman 19:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I agree that real-time match updates are not really what this site is about. However there are sports with overnight breaks in play, such as test cricket or the Tour de France, where the encyclopedia might appropriately cover what has already occurred but before the match ends. This template might find a use for those kinds of sports. Reyk YO! 02:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed to {{current-sport-inline}} ; though this does seem to be covered by the banner {{current sport}}... do we need an inline version? And if we do, can it be merged to current sport (like how the section version is already merged) ? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per GiantSnoman. Wikipedia isn't meant to be realtime. Template:Current is fine for multi-day events. -- Netoholic @ 05:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - needs to be completely changed to something that explicitly says that the event is in progress and should not be updated until the end. We are not a play by play service. --Khajidha (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, Wikipedia is not meant to be updated in real time. As a side note, what about the idea of edit protecting pages to which live/intermediate sports results are expected to be added?--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand this mentality. Yes, wiki is not meant to be updated in real time, but WHEN people are willing to update in real time, I see no damage in having this option. Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's not used unilaterally, it's used infrequently. Therefore it's dangerous because we have to assume any score on Wikipedia is still unresolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is fine to update results in competitions like Premiership or Eurobasket after a matchday has been played. It is fine to update a game result after that game has been played. This aspect makes a difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias: Wikipedia is a "live" encyclopedia, it is immediately updated to reflect current events in politics, sports and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tykyheg (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Getting rid of this unnecessary limits Wikipedia pbp 22:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnoman. Wikipedia is not a live newspaper. Stigni (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - leave the live scores to television, radio, other websites and twitter. --MicroX (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply because wikipedia is unable to achieve live update. I've seen many instances (eg. the qualifying phases of the UEFA Europa League) where the "in progress" label still stood several hours after the match ended, with a different score-line from the final score. FootballStatWhore (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS.. WP is not a live score site and it's my belief that this template encourages users to make edits that may be different from the official post-match report, which should be used rather than edits on the fly. JMHamo (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOTNEWS says As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage. Bobby (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nergaal, Tykyheg, and Purplebackpack89. 71.146.9.251 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the wishes of delete voters, the practice of updating Wikipedia in real time to reflect the score of a match does occur, and as long as this practice is occurring, this template has a very important use - to identify that the score shown is not the final score of the match. Discussion about the merits of real-time updates needs to occur elsewhere, not in this discussion. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of real-time updates has occured (see archives of WT:FOOTY; conclusion is that it's bad) and by !voting 'keep' you are merely enabling this practice to continue. GiantSnowman 10:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is an useful templates. Score live update is necessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is often the first to cover important news events, and sporting matches are among them. I categorically reject the notion that Wikipedia is "not in the business of" reporting scores in real time. We are an encyclopedia, and have a commitment to provide the most current and accurate information. This template furthers the goal of providing such information. Let's note with pride the willingness of some editors to take time out of their day (and perhaps monitor the Wikipedia page while watching the game), just so others can receive better information. It's a virtuous act that we should reward. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This isn't a policy or a consensus discussion. There is clear consensus among the relevant project at WP:Footy that live scoring is not to happen on this site. That consensus has been strong for some time and other projects have similar consensus. Wikipedia is not a live news site and nor should we be trying to be so thats written in policy. GS point is an excellent one and ill repeat it. Imagine this scenario - a team scores to make the real-life score 1-0. A good faith editor edits the score to show it is 1-0. 20 seconds later, another good faith editor hears that one of the teams has scored, does not realize that it has already been updated, and adds another goal to show 2-0, which is clearly wrong. It happens more often than you think, and needs to be stamped out. I would also add games have been abandoned on several occasions and weve been left with incorrect info for a game that you guessed it sources long term will not confirm even happened. This template is causing edit warring because people believe that by its existent live scoring is allowed, and that is not the case. So really it comes down to this as the consensus is against live scores and live scores will be reverted and by having this all we are doing is causing confusion and agro for editors old and new. So CaseyPenk & Banhtrung1 ill repeat Live scoring updates are not allowed on this site both per clear consensus and policy and scores should not be added until match is complete and score can be accurately sourced to a complete match report. Blethering Scot 17:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that live scoring is illegitimate is akin to saying we shouldn't have created the iPhone 5c or iPhone 5s immediately after those articles were announced yesterday; there is an inevitability to them being created, just as there's an inevitability for the scores of games to be updated. Similar, we didn't hold back on creating the 2020 Summer Olympics article just because some of the information isn't known yet. Sure, there are plenty of gaps, but we'll at least report on what we have so far. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I remain unconvinced that deleting this template will prevent or even discourage editors from updating scores while matches are in progress. Deleting this template would have a very unfortunate side-effect: people will still update scores, but readers would not be warned. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason to treat an encyclopedia as a news service. Wait until the game is over, the players and their contributions known and edit then. As I have said elsewhere on wiki, a match is known to be 90 (ish) mins and at the end we know the score. That will not change. There may always be new additions to articles such as iPhone 5c or the 2020 Olympics. At the end of a game of football the score will never change. Let's wait for the ref to blow.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Being almost always updated is one of the quality's of wikipedia, I actually come here to check the scores of UEFA competitions, just go watchlist and check the edit's. This template is helpful, plus deleting it will not stop users updating games as they progressed.--Threeohsix (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a news ticker, this just encourages racing to be the first to edit a score update. Where does it stop? Do we update league tables while matches are in progress too? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as instigator of template. We have been here twice before: June 2010 and July 2011. As with so many other templates, ideally it wouldn't have to exist, but wikipedia is not edited exclusively by people who edit ideally. WT:FOOTY might be determinedly against in match updates, but a tiny proportion of the people who read football related articles know or care about that. We have enthusiastic editors who are unable or unwilling to restrain their misguided instinct to tell us everything they know as soon as they know it. It is unrealistic to think we can ban the in-match updates, so let's allow the readers to be clear that it is an in-match update, not a result. Kevin McE (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is, people don't use this template, so we have the worst of both worlds: a mixture of scorelines littered around Wikipedia which one can no longer be sure is in progress. And encouraging the scorelines to be updated mid-match is a slippery slope, what next, we update league tables mid-match? Do we have a template for that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia reflects current events in politics and sports. NickSt (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it reflects notable events using verifiable reliable sources and is not a news ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Finally, someone has created this discussion. Honestly, in my opinion, this template is a complete farce. The amount of times I have seen "joke edits" or the wrong scorelines (as GS pointed out) is to damn high. And I completely agree with the notion that we are an encyclopedia, not a footballing stat website which provides real time scores and stat updates. Our job is to provide the best quality information on a topic, not to provide the answer to who scored the 3rd fastest goal of the season! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per users This that and the other, Bobby and Threeohsix. Template's deletion could not stop the practice of "live update", IMHO. Usage of this template could be useful to individuate and check/patrol their edits easier. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:08, 16 September 2013 (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:FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih squad 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) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Impuls FC Dilijan squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Etar squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dalian Shide F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:APOP Kinyras FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kolding FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vejle Boldklub Kolding squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AGOVV Apeldoorn squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SC Veendam squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:C.D. Necaxa squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hong Kong Sapling squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pailan Arrows squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:GKP Gorzów Wielkopolski squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Odra Wodzisław squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Polonia Warsaw squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ŁKS Łódź squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Puerto Rico Islanders squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Argeş Piteşti squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ASU Politehnica Timişoara squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Victoria Brăneşti squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:C.D. Atlético Balboa squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bay United F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:San Juan Jabloteh squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Llanelli A.F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Neath F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This clubs were dissolved or declared bankruptcy and playing in the amateur competitions. Alex (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no 'current squad' as the team is no longer in existence, therefore the template is obsolete. GiantSnowman 19:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some more templates to this nomination. Alex (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nominator and Giantsnowman. Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pailan Arrows and the rest are now disbanded and are not playing anymore. Therefore none of these players are with the clubs anymore. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (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 television channel 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 merge, but possibly some consensus to rename. Feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television channel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox broadcast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox television channel with Template:Infobox broadcast.
I personally think there's some overlap between these two templates; while Infobox Broadcast seems to only be for OTA channels, the use of Infobox TV channel seems to depend (i.e. OTA channels outside of NTSC/ATSC regions seem to use Infobox television channel more)

I like the style and layout of the TV channel infobox better, so personally, I think we should make a backwards compatible superset of these two templates. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing, Template:Infobox broadcasting network and Template:Infobox broadcast, ViperSnake151? And should be asking to merge Template:Infobox broadcasting network and Template:Infobox television channel? Spshu (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic, however some TV networks only get a channel via the TV station. Also, their has been some discussion (when needing Disambig.) what to disambig. cable broadcasts by channel or network, as they are definitely a TV channel(s) whether they are networks is dependant on additional factor. Spshu (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the root problem was a poorly written Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting) which didn't help distinguish the difference between radio/tv networks, channels, and stations. I've taken a stab at improving that page, and if there is consensus we can eventually rename & migrate the infobox templates that are used to be more consistent and clear. -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 10 September 2013 (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:EventsAt2020SummerOlympics 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) 03:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EventsAt2020SummerOlympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:TOOSOON. Of no use whatsoever right now, as there is no navigation within this template. Even if all the redlinks were redirected to the 2020 Summer Olympics article, this would still be pointless. Recreate once the qualifying process for each sport has begun (IE x country can send y athletes in z sport), which I guess will be some time after 2016. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Userfy. With no articles to navigate, this is a useless template. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With apologies to User:Ha98574 (I know how time consuming creating templates can be), I do think this need to be deleted. Many ISFs have yet to decide how their quota will be used, several venues can be moved, plus many other issues are reasons why this template is premature.--MorrisIV (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve in some fashion (perhaps refrain from using it) until it can be of better use. Once we get started with the sports-specific articles this will have enormous value, and it seems silly to just delete this when we're going to recreate it in a few months. If this were a speculative template, that would be a different story, but we can say with almost 100% certainty that the 2020 Olympics will occur and will have sports similar to the ones listed in the template. That's not WP:CRYSTALBALL -- it's common sense. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few months? It will be at least 3 years before anything is known. And it will only take about a minute to recreate (copy the last one, do a find-and-replace from 2016 to 2010). BAM. This currently serves no purpose at all. I notice since the nomination was listed WP:POINTY redirects have been created that add no value too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, can be trivially recreated in the future. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too soon to create this with any confidence. This is only 2013!!--Egghead06 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list of olympic sports has been validated and frozen by the IOC for 2020 so there is no chance it changes in the next few years. Hektor (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite simply WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:03, 15 September 2013 (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:Dodge in NASCAR 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) 02:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dodge in NASCAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After the end of the 2012 season, Dodge left the sport; therefore there is no longer a 'Dodge in NASCAR' (there are a few privateers running year-old cars - the only two of which listed here are the redlinks). Only contents are redlinks and pages that don't use the template anymore due to manufacturer switches (CFK) or being defunct (RGM), so it's an orphaned template with no need for retention. The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 8 September 2013 (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:Red Eagle 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; deleted as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Red Eagle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created in 2012 but doesn't appear to have ever been used and its broken. Kumioko (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2013 (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:New York Nemesis roster 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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New York Nemesis roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Created in 2010 and doesn't appear to have ever been used. Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2013 (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:Mississippi Tennessee Railroad 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 Kept. Template title has been corrected and is now in use. The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mississippi Tennessee Railroad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created back in 2011 and hasn't been used since. Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Not quite true to say that it hasn't been used since. It was still in use in 2012, see this version of the railroad article. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have retitled the diagram Ripley and New Albany Railroad and placed in this article as that is the new name of this railway. I suspect the article was removed as someone did not realise that it is the same railway. Maybe a move of the diagram's article title is needed. Britmax (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved the template title and would ask for its removal from this list as it is now in use at the article about the railway. Britmax (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; now in use. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2013 (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:Out of Ashes track listing 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) 00:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Out of Ashes track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pretty unnecessary here as album has only two songs with articles and both are already linkable to and from each other in the singles chronology of the infobox as well as the {{Dead by Sunrise}} navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even albums with all pages linked to an article of some sort don't need this; in general they would have the tracklisting with links to the other songs appended to the infobox. LazyBastardGuy 04:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there does seem to be a lot of similar templates in use. violet/riga [talk] 09:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I know what you're talking about. In general, though, I've only seen a handful of those, and I've always seen them to be more legitimate as navboxes than the nommed template. (For example, I think a few Beatles articles have them.) LazyBastardGuy 00:15, 9 September 2013 (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:GCC 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, but I will rename the template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about this one... — This, that and the other (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not certain about this one. The organization so far involves only countries of the Persian Gulf and could perhaps only rate a mention in a geographic template covering the area. But the article mentions that the organization has invited Jordan and Morocco to join them, indicating that its scope is expanding. Dimadick (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed to {{Gulf Cooperation Council}} -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is not a template of country links, it contains other articles as well. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, 3 links are too few to necessitate a navbox. — Lfdder (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't know what you're counting, but there are five articles that are not countries currently on the template. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4 actually, the title doesn't count. Still too few I think. — Lfdder (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where did you read that? Other TfDs have counted all the links. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has a bit more than 10 links; transcluded on 10 pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, I've made up my mind. With country links removed this amounts to only 4 or 5 articles (depending on who you ask), and the "Gulf Cup of Nations" is only tangentially related. So delete this navbox. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valuable way to navigate between different articles that are included in this topic. Utility is currently clear and sufficient for the template to be kept. If someone thinks the GCC is not notable enough to have an article, they should nominate the article for deletion first, and then this template would follow suit. But me thinks the GCC is notable, and this template helps navigate between related articles. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not really a relevant point here. No-one is arguing that GCC is not notable; navboxes operate to a different standard, arguably higher than the notability standard (i.e. without an article on a topic, there could be no navbox). 07:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
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/2013_September_8&oldid=1136430196"