Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13 edit

Template:Infobox nutritional value 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 keep. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox nutritional value (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not sure we should have a template like this. Should we really be listing nutritional info on food products? This doesn't seem like something encyclopedias should do. Also to be deleted would be Template:Infobox nutrition facts which merely links here. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The information is valuable to Wikipedia users looking for nutrient content of a particular edible plant food. The USDA tables are generated over years/decades of research and testing, and are considered the most complete available. Where else could one derive actual nutrient data for foods of interest, which actually attract many users to seek the information in Wikipedia? On product labels in the US and Canada are Nutrition Facts statements which supply nutrient content information per serving of the food product. But I have not seen this format used in Wikipedia, while the USDA tables are easy to find, comprehensive and provide data not available anywhere else. I would like to see this information stay. --Zefr (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Nominator does not state any arguments nor refers to any policies why this data is nonencyclopedic; to me it is analogous to listing material properties on pages on chemical compounds. Disclosure: I created the template, years ago. Han-Kwang (t) 17:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the information is sourced, which it seems to be per USDA, then the nutritional information is notable and it should be possible to include it via a Template. - FakirNL (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wholly agree with the points in the commentators above. Plus this, nutrition is a big topic in many Western nations, with obesity being a source of major concerns. Much of this information is mandated in the US, Australia, Europe and other nations. This infobox can be used as a standard formatted section that supports article sections regarding nutrition of the subject which is being covered. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article on a kind of food would be incomplete without a discussion of its nutritional value. While we don't want tables for the sake of tables, this table is a useful way to present reliably sourced nutritional information. --110.20.243.197 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – agree with keep arguments above, informational, completing, factual. Not as if it's a list in the body of the article. The information is an eye-opener and useful for nutrition or macrobiotics awareness. Compare a template with ingredients in processed foods, not quite the same thing. Manytexts (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree w/ above; no compelling arguments for removal, information is useful/accurate, and in many cases complements the actual text of the article. Proposal for deletion would either involve moving information from infobox to the main article, which seems unnecessary, or remove the information entirely, which makes little sense to me. Beige.librarian (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree w/ above; The putative observation that similar information is often omitted from bound paper encyclopaedias is irrelevant, since commercial works are far more constrained by costs. There is no possible narrative equivalent which would be nearly as useful as a standardised presentation, which is what templates are for. 15:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Lee-Anne (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with keep arguments above. JackHoang (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree w/ "keep" arguments above. If the template was deleted then I suspect that the nutritional information would just be placed somewhere else in the article, rather than be deleted, and probably lacking the standardization that the template provides. Strangejames (talk) 04:29, 21 June 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:Mexico Squad 2000 U.S Cup 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) 23:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mexico Squad 2000 U.S Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a notable tournament. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 05:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is minor, regional. No need for this. Sawol (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This is an anonymous tournament. This tournament is friendly, not a major tournament. JackHoang (talk) 03:14, 21 June 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.