Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 24 July 26 >

July 25

edit

Template:United States Collegiate Ski and Snowboard Association (USCSA)

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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overly large navbox that is more appropriate as a category. torri2(talk/contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Navbox links between universities and not the listed names of the sports teams. Links have nothing to do with skiing or snowboarding. The template is simply masquerading as a list in a navigational template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the links between universities only is a problem. Most of these schools have athletic programs that would be linked if set up that way like normal conferences navboxes. But with this being a single sport conference I have a few issues that I would like to be heard. I posted a notice on a couple of active college sports projects to hopefully get some enlightened views on this topic.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UCO2009bluejay: I saw this discussion several days ago, and was generally inclined to support the template's deletion, given that (a) the included links are to articles about universities, not college ski teams, (b) the non-existence of any individual ski team articles to which to link, and (c) the only articles on which this navbox is transcluded are university articles, not college sports team articles. Given those facts, this navbox seems highly inappropriate, and I'm not sure what navigation purpose it serves. But if you have some pro-keep counterpoints, I would love to hear them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirtlawyer1: I didn't necessarily have a reason to support or not support. Since this is a skiing specific conference then it would be appropriate to link it to the skiing programs such as football only conferences. But since there apparently aren't any then I don't have any reason to vote for keep, therefore I didn't. When I posted it on the CFB and College BB projects it was mearly a PSA. Such as those you often advocate.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Conceptually, this navbox is an incoherent mess: (1) the included links are to articles about universities, not college ski teams, (2) there are no college ski team articles to which to link, and (3) the only articles on which this navbox is transcluded are university articles, not college sports team articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After originally leaning on staying neutral, I have to believe deletion is the best option per nom and Dirtlawyer 1. I originally thought this was a conference but now I understand it is a league. I would support the navbox's re-creation if a) this navbox consisted of leagues conferences (when they all have articles). b) If these teams were to be linked to the ski teams of which Denver and NE are the only ones which exist. Also, c) any skiing conference navbox if created would have to link to the ski teams, and not to the universities.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2015 (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 NECBL All-Star Game

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 (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball game}}. Just 13 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 25 July 2015 (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 MLB All-Star Game

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. Discussions about refactoring as a wrapper can continue outside TfD and consensus is for this template to be retained at least in some form. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball game}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bagumba: Please take a look-see at Alakzi's handiwork. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't doubt that a wrapper can be done, and have complete confidence in Alakzi's skills. For WikiProject Baseball, I think anyone that wanted to merge and retain a template as a wrapper could just create some representative test cases with side-by-side comparison for quick evaluation. If no functionality was lost, it'd be approved w/o need for TfD bureaucracy.—Bagumba (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (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 Wild Card

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. Consensus herein is for the template to be retained. North America1000 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball game}}. Used on only 6 articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 25 July 2015 (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:Canadian politics/party colours/histogram

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 all subpages; histmerge original template. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored this to create the more generic {{Composition histogram}}. suggest history merging it with that template. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2015 (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:FIFA Confederations Cup finalists template

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. North America1000 21:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a template that links non-useful templates. not used on any article... Koppapa (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2015 (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:PlaneFreak Studios

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 subst and delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook WP:NENAN. Well, not so textbook. Only used in one user's userspace to navigate between WP:FAKEARTICLEs. —Keφr 08:50, 25 July 2015 (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.

EGAFD and BGAFD templates

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 all. Consensus is the templates are not redundant because of the speciality of content of the databases and that linking templates are still useful. Certainly no consensus for deletion. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The websites (http://www.egafd.com/) and http://www.bgafd.co.uk) haven't been accessible since June 1st and there functions are redundant as Template:Afdb name, Template:Afdb movie, Template:IAFD name and Template:IAFD movie serve the same purpose. WikiU2013 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends.
  • "Male name" could be deleted: not/seldom used, plus egafd/bgafd just have succinct info about males, by choice.
  • "Movie" templates seem not/seldom used. May be redundant with other templates.
  • For female templates, egafd/bgafd are NOT redundant with other sites. Being European-only, they often provide more complete info for European actresses/films, plus unique self-compiled photo galleries illustrating physical characteristics. The info presentation is very different than on iafd and afdb, and then there is/was the forum area and a more open and easy way of contributing and interacting with editors for anyone interested. It's a real shame the sites are down given the amount of unique info found there, especially for old/European titles. There's been a claim by the site owners (and great hope from users) that the sites will be up again in the future, but for now we have the not-quite-up-to-date-but-still-useful web archives.
It would be a shame to drop links to such a great database. A site being down is in itself not a good reason to drop its support entirely; references to archived versions can be useful too, and you can't simply drop links where they're used to source facts in articles. And, if we drop afdb too, we'll have to rely on imdb (very incomplete info for porn) and iafd (American releases only, and, by the way, a ridiculous practice of altering movie names (and so often their meaning, in French for instance) by always dropping the starting determinant -- a very bad thing to do for a reliable database).
To summarize my pov, keep only egafd_name and bgafd_name. They point to an information mine on European actresses not found elsewhere (i.e. American sites). -- 83.101.43.209 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2015 (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:Baby games

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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX 1,3,4.

None of the articles are strictly baby games. It currently holds 4 articles tenuously related to "baby game" whatever the definition. And lastly, and most importantly, we don't have an article "baby game" that can satisfy WP:NAVBOX 1 and WP:NAVBOX 3.68.148.186.93 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2015 (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:Nursery rhymes

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A category for nursery rhymes and list of nursery rhymes already exist. The navbox is redundant and useless since it is a duplicate of the list. Further subcategories such as the current "counting rhymes" are useless and pointless as nursery rhymes have too many overlapping characteristics. In addition, this does not aid in navigation and the nursery rhymes are unrelated except for the fact that they are nursery rhymes, hence the existence of list of nursery rhymes and the rightful deletion of this template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a reason to delete due to duplicity and redundancy. Additionally, the protocol that you request is the fact that it fails WP:NAVBOX 1.68.148.186.93 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's lazy editing what you're advocating. "Why fix it when I can just TfD it?" TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to fix? Its a hodgepodge of nursery rhymes where they have no connection with each other. This is strictly what we are not supposed to do per WP:CLN.68.148.186.93 (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, what I meant here is that you are claiming that the navbox should list a certain number of articles that are most important, but where is the evidence of those currently in the navbox are those which are most important?Curb Chain (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2015 (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/2015_July_25&oldid=1136066716"