Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 2

< June 1	June 3 >

June 2 edit

Template:New York Knicks depth chart 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) 03:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New York Knicks depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Unused template. Was probably an experiment by the creator then left out to dry. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:02, 2 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.

College men's soccer seasons by year 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) 03:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 Atlantic Coast Conference men's soccer navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2013 Atlantic Coast Conference men's soccer navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2014 Atlantic Coast Conference men's soccer navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete all. Consensus by participants in the College Football discussion on these exact sorts of navboxes (see previous TfD here) concluded that these are unnecessary. Articles on individual school's team seasons should be placed in applicable categories (e.g. "Category: 2014 Atlantic Coast Conference men's soccer season"), as footer navboxes are redundant and unnecessary. I propose these be speedy-deleted per previous college sports consensus. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:33, 2 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:Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Soccer Freshman of the Year navbox 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) 03:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Soccer Freshman of the Year navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. The award is non-notable. If it were the ACC's (overall) Player of the Year, that's an achievement that probably passes GNG. But, being the Freshman of the Year (1) is not a notable award per GNG, (2) doesn't have a main article about the award (a pretty significant criterion for navboxes), and (3) this is navbox cruft. It's an achievement much better suited for these players' articles' prose and/or infobox than a navbox junking up the base of the page. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a notable award. Quidster4040 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not per GNG. You can't just claim it's a "notable award" without providing links to back up that claim. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, the info wouldbe better suited on the players own pages. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Conference awards are not notable. – Michael (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:00, 7 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:Infobox CF rank 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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CF rank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox official post (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox CF rank with Template:Infobox official post.
The Canadian box is redundant to the more general one; and has only six transclusions. The more general one is already used for equivalent articles for most other countries (Chief of the Army Staff (India); Chief of the Romanian General Staff; Chief of Staff of the United States Army; Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom); Chief of Army Staff (Pakistan); Chief of Air Force (Australia); Chief of the Defence Staff (France); Chief of General Staff (Israel); Chief of Defence (Netherlands) ; Chief of Defence (Norway); Chief of Defence Force (Singapore); Chief of the Defence Staff (Spain); Chief of the Defence Staff (United Kingdom); Chief of Navy (Australia); Chief of Staff of the French Navy; First Sea Lord. That's sixteen examples; many more than the number of transclusions the nominated, redundant template has.). Most of the Canadian template parameters already have direct equivalents in the more general box. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge: That said, down the road, if there isn't something like infobox military officer, that might be useful. "Official post" is pretty comprehensive... but for now, merge is the way to go. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you noinclude this merger-discussion's notice at infobox official post? It isn't necessary for it to show up in so many articles when all that is being done is a minor template is being merged into it.—indopug (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge: The info box's are practically the same. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - No real difference Snappy (talk) 20:33, 7 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.