Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13 edit

NandiAwardBestActor 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).

The result of the discussion was redirect to {{Nandi Award for Best Actor}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is sub template for {{Nandi Award for Best Actor}} and is redundant. The above template contains ALL awardees and has been used to replace this template on all peritnent articles. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: These have been combined from the original Jan 5 listing into one nomination because the rationale is identical (as is the one !vote)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2016 (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).

Template:IPL Player of the Series 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. No rationale or explanation as to why this template should be deleted, with NPASR provided one is given. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nivas88 09:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Nivas88, what is the rationale? is this being nominated for deletion? Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes Yes I nominate/request this template for deletion. Nivas88 17:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment there has been NOREASON given for this nomination. Please give one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close Nivas88 seems fairly new to Wikipedia (348 edits as of right now since signing up September 30). I recommend closing this nomination until both Nivas88 & GreenCricket learn a bit more about how procedure works around here. It's no big deal, we all had to learn, but this discussion isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close unless Nivas88 or GreenCricket give a good reason to delete this. We need to know why this should be deleted before we can delete it. —PC-XT+ 01:32, 17 January 2016 (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).

College football all-time team navboxes 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#All-time team navboxes, these navboxes denote obscure all-time team selections that do not warrant stand-alone articles or navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I will note some of the same things I noted there: The Georgia Tech and Sewanee navboxes represent teams regularly published in official publications. These were created some time ago, and are of a different kind IMO. Georgia Tech's boxes in particular; I would oppose their deletion. After the Navy box was made, I knew of other teams by George Trevor, and thus made the Georgia and Illinois boxes. As a similar but different case, I also made the Vandy box. In other words: If the Navy box deserves deletion, then so do Georgia and Illinois boxes at the least, and probably the Vandy box too. That was the point. However, I did not have Tech or Sewanee in mind, and had made those already for other reasons, and so am a bit more dogmatic about those staying. Cake (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cake, thanks for the comment. The distinction you've offered up is understood and reasonable. However, I don't think the Georgia Tech and Sewanee navboxes past muster, nonetheless. Is Everett Strupper's selection to the "Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets All-Era football team (John Heisman Era)" so key to his biographical identity that it deserves to be a dimension of navigation? The heading of the Template:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets All-Era football team navbox clicks through only to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and John Heisman, and no mention is made in either of those two articles about this "All-Era" team. We are left with no context about how this team was selected, when it was made, and who made it. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a flaw in the articles. Heisman's article would probably be enhanced by its mention. I grant you there is not much about the selection process, but like the Tech Hall of Fame it seems somehow to be issued by the university, e. g. here (page 155). I am also curious if the All-time Southeast teams are worthy of navboxes or articles. To answer the question, say if we get rid of the All-Southern navboxes, then I would wish somehow to connect Tommy Spence to Strupper. Cake (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cake, the All-Southern articles are certainly notable, and I think the navboxes have merit if we consider this honor to be perhaps just be a smidgen below All-American. It was something of a regional All-American team, right, given the the main All-American teams of the day tended to have a bias toward Northeastern and Midwestern players? If you want to connect Spencer and Strupper, shouldn't the body of each article make mention of the other, since the two played in the same backfield? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from 1933 to 1952 it is like an early All-ACC team, and after that like All-Conference USA or All-Ohio Valley Conference or whatever; but until about 1932 it is something like as you say a smidgen below All-American. You can see some of that with the earliest Hall of Fame players linked on the All-Southern page and their profile on the Hall's site. Strupper is mentioned on Spence's article. You are right Strupper's would probably be enhanced by a mention, but I would not want to stick it in haphazardly, and Strupper is so large a figure for southern football then. There is much to cover. Spence is often neglected for mention of, say, Judy Harlan. Cake (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These navboxes fail multiple criteria of WP:NAVBOX, and the subject "honor" is neither major nor arguably notable per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." At a minimum, whether the article is immediately created or not, the list should be demonstrated to meet WP:LISTN, which would require independent coverage and rule out the affiliated university as a source. Even if the page is created, I'm more of the thinking that a reader can generally click through to the link in the article if they want to see the other members. Projects WikiProjects need to develop more internal guidance on being more selective to avoid template creep.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2016 (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).

Template:Covert United States involvement in regime change 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 21. Primefac (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template created to reflect the content of an article that no longer exists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (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).

Template:Back to contents 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Any discussion about where it should be used can be carried on at the various links posted below. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

used only around 70 times, so it's not clear why we need this. if there is a desire to have links go back to the TOC in article space, then why wouldn't we have them automatically added (by the backend software) next to section edit links? Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was made for help articles that dont have a "section edit" like Help:Directory...not sure how it got all over.....but was made to navigate large directories. I guess we could just add the code manualy...but that would just be more coding on the main page for no reason. Let me know what happens so I can fix the help pages -- Moxy (talk)
  • Keep per Moxy; I don't really see much of a problem having this. Long pages with many sections and long intros would have the TOCs not close to the top, but useful. Though a software solution would be better, if the software automatically added a back to TOC link before a section and at the bottom of the page. ; we already have {{skip to toc}} for the top of pages with long sections before the TOC shows up -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict to non-mainspace. I see zero reason for this in the mainspace since directly using Html (and thus headers which don't have edit links a la <hN>) there is basically banned. (The other reason you'd see pages without section edit links would be the magic word lying around which turns section edit links off, which also goes unused in the mainspace.) --Izno (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep prior to seeing this notice, I added template to multiple sections at Wikipedia:Tips, the complete library of tips arranged by subject. For this help article, I find the Back to contents template to be useful. In addition, I added to Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day at the 12 monthly Tip maintenance tables. --  JoeHebda  talk  19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This template is looking like it will be kept, but is there any consensus to restrict it to non-mainspace use?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not overuse (Already Voted) – And allow for Mainspace. As an example, I added the template for article Alexander Graham Bell. IMO the criteria for the template would be:
  1. Use for lengthy articles only
  2. At article major sections
  3. Not at every section
These criteria can be added to the template documentation, and perhaps an announcemnet/news at The Signpost.  JoeHebda (talk)  19:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:JoeHebda, when we add a second bolded !vote we are supposed to either cross out the previous vote (especially if it contradicts our new position) or clearly say we have already !voted in the new !vote. —PC-XT+ 08:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PC-XTThanks for letting me know. I'm new to this & addded the Already Voted above.  JoeHebda (talk)  13:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
No problem. Thanks! :) —PC-XT+ 06:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, possibly moved, but use sparingly until we decide if a software change would be better. If the software did this automatically, I'd use it. Personally, I currently prefer using my keyboard's Home key (not to be confused with "Home Page") to go to the top, which is not usually far from the contents, especially with {{skip to toc}}. —PC-XT+ 08:18, 19 January 2016 (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).

Template:Montana State Bobcats bowl game 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 21. Primefac (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just 3 links, only two of which are the topic of the Navbox. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:08, 13 January 2016 (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).

Template:Historical capitals of Serbia 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 21. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_13&oldid=1138532957"