Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5 edit

Template:San Francisco State Gators 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... not enough to navigate per WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or userfy) for now until the articles are established —PC-XT+ 00:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One link is not enough....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:26, 7 September 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:Multiple stable software releases 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully deprecated by {{Multiple releases}}. In addition to having a much shorter name, the latter uses Lua to address the issue of a dynamic list of parameters. I have personally replaced all transclusions of the former with the latter. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:40, 5 September 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:PlanetMath 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 Relisted on 2016 September 20 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 04:57, 20 September 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:Marty Whelan 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Television hosts are not a suitable topic for their own navboxes, much in the same way actors aren't. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, basically the same as an acting credits box. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a list or table in the host's article would be better. Bizarrely the template is only used in two of seven pages linked on it, and not even in the main article. anemoneprojectors 14:43, 8 September 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:Linum 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 Withdrawn for now. If the author says he has just resumed working on it, I guess we should believe him. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. This template writes down the number given to it, adds period (.) and adds the text given to it. Direct typing is actually easier. Alternatively, one can use the list markup. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please group these TfDs in one multi-template nom, since the rationale for the nom will be the same for all of them and so will pro/con arguments about them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a misleading nomination. These templates do much more, including complex CSS, customizable output parameters, etc. These templates are intended to be better documented (hadn't documented the parameters yet, but just fixed that) and deployed; it's part of a template system for producing copy-pasteable lists (i.e., ones that do not lose their numbering or bullets when copy-pasted). This is an aid to both WP:REUSE and potentially WP:ACCESSIBILITY. I developed these templates some time ago, but completely forgot that I'd done it after going on a trip. I was thinking this week that I needed to write them, found I already had, and brought the issue and why they exist up at MoS talk this very day. Until the problem can be addressed at the MediaWiki level, we need a convenient way to produce lists the formatting of which are retained upon copy-paste. The CSS involved is fiddly, and we cannot expect the average editor to understand that they can manually duplicate the appearance of # and * lists, if they do it just so, within the wrapper template. These utility templates for that wrapper make it very easy and concise (and more flexible, e.g. one can create "A) ..." instead of "1. ..." lists or whatever, which can be used to properly lay out standardized outlines as used in legislative text, etc. PS: The one nominated below is a meta-templates used by this one, though can also be used stand-alone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example use case: The inspiration for this was the numbered list at Billiard_ball#International pool, in which it is vital that the numbers be copy-pasteable. This is being done with a klugey hack method at that article at present, while this template nominated here would do it in a clearly understandable way (I can't demo it there, because the TfD notices (two per instance because metatemplating) would wreck the article. Cf. my comment in yesterday's TfD page about why we need to suppress TfD messages from appearing in mainspace.) See Template:Lino/doc for additional examples, including complex outlines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:01, 5 September 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:Lino 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 Withdrawn for now. If the author says he has just resumed working on it, I guess we should believe him. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. The function of this template is to write down the number given to it with a period (.) in front of it. Replaceable direct typing or list markup. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above; this is meta template for templates in this series and shouldn't be in a separate TfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:02, 5 September 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:Notice-nc-geo 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 Relisted on 2016 September 18 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:09, 18 September 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:Genukiary 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 merge all into one template. The possibility exists to have the entirety of the UK in one template, but for this specific discussion the four should be merged into one. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging all of the above.

Overly specific templates, linking to URLs like http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ARY/Stillingfleet, where Stillingfleet is the parameter. (eng being "England" and YKS being "Yorkshire").

Should be merged into a single template holding the http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/ string, with the rest being the parameter. (We have around 3000 links beginning http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have a single template covering all of the UK rather than have England specific? Also suggest 3 parameters for country, county and place rather than a single string. Keith D (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have around 3900 http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/ links; so making the template more inclusive would be OK by me. Why would we need separate parameters? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, from creator of the 4 templates:
  1. Yorkshire is different from many (all?) other counties in Genuki, in having two levels of code in the URL - "YKS/WRY" in http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Adel/, compared to the "DEV" in http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/Martinhoe .
  2. Yorkshire pages have titles "The Ancient Parish of ..."; I think other counties use just the parish name as the page title (see the archived copy of Martinhoe at http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/Martinhoe/). It's possible that the new look Yorkshire pages, after the currently ongoing conversion process, might use shorter titles. If not, then any new template should choose the appropriate form of wording depending on the county code, as references should cite the correct page title.
  3. If we're going to broaden the template, perhaps (as Keith says above) it needs to go the whole way and include Scottish and other pages too, eg http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/sct/FIF/Forgan.
  4. So perhaps a newly-written Genuki template needs to take parameters for "country" (Eng/Sct/Irl|Wal|Iom/Chi) and "county" (YKS/DEV etc), with optional "county2" (WRY etc) to allow for the ridings of Yorkshire (and any similarly exceptional 2-level counties), as well as the existing parameters which aim to produce a clear and accurate output from minimum editor input (they provide for (a) cases where because of spaces etc the parish name is not identical to the string in the URL, (b) cases where the article is about a location included in a parish of a different name, and (c) cases where both those apply).
I created the templates 8 years ago, while working on a lot of areas in the West Riding around Leeds, and it seemed the best approach to take at the time. But if someone else would like to create a generalised all-UK&Ireland Genuki template, which has all the facilities of these four but doesn't need much more editor input to produce the desired results, then I look forward to seeing this useful new template. I'm not offering to do so myself (this was the high point of my knowledge of template creation, and I've forgotten it all since then). PamD 23:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger: On second thoughts, why bother to "fix" something which "ain't broken"? If someone is adding Genuki links to a batch of articles from another county they can probably work out how to create {{GenukiDEV}} etc by modifying these ones - in fact it wouldn't take long to create the whole batch - 40 English counties, 32 Scottish, 32 Irish, 13 Wales, 4 Channel Isles, plus 1 for IoM; 122 in all, plus any complications like the Ridings. And having a county-specific template, to which only the parish name needs to be added in a simple case, makes life easier for editors. As a third thought: how about 122 specific templates each of which calls a basic Genuki template, to future-proof in case Genuki URLs ever change? (Though it appears that right now they are upgrading the whole thing but loading the latest pages into the old URLs, so perhaps little risk of change in future). PamD 15:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. In particular, create the "master" template first at {{GENUKI}}, convert the overly specific ones into parameter wrappers, and have a bot eventually replace them with direct template calls, via the normal template deprecation process, then remove the wrappers when they're eliminated from actual use. Or I guess someone bored could do it with AWB; wouldn't really have to be a bot. At any rate, these templates are unnecessarily specific, with names that don't mean anything except to a handful of editors. My first guess was that this has something to do with Pokemon or some other game. "Genukiery"? Seriously? People cannot be expected to memorize fiddly stuff like there being a difference between "genukiery" and "genukiary", especially when the latter doesn't even conform to any kind of run-together and improperly decapitalised acronym like the others do (there is no word corresponding to the "r" in the case of what "genukiary" refers to).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no point in keeping templates which are used only or 4 times, as wrappers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough; I have no objection to the more integral plan outlined below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what you like with the templates, but please keep the functionality as I described above at 12:27 am, 20 August, while making it straightforward for editors to use the template(s). Genuki's codes are listed here: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/Regions/Codes, and AFAIK are also the Chapman codes, though ARY does seem to be a weird exception: I created {{Genukiary}} because there were a couple of places for which YKS/ARY is Genuki's code, eg http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ARY/Stillingfleet/. PamD 23:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the names are clunky and poorly chosen (by me), in hindsight. I'd be delighted to see these 4 renamed as Genuki-WRY etc. The 4 could be merged into one Genuki-YKS, but would need a parameter for the WRY etc. A template which covered the whole of Genuki, or even just England, would need to allow for the different page names: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Adel/ is "The ancient parish of Adel", but http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LAN/WartonC is plain "Warton". The ARY version covers 49 parishes, many in the city of York itself but 20 or so outside it so could potentially be added to articles on those 20 places and other locations included in those parishes; the other 3 ridings have a couple of hundred parishes apiece - see here. PamD 07:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge these 4 to Genuki-YKS, with a new parameter to take the WRY/ARY etc, if you really want, as long as the result is no damage to the articles where they are used and life isn't made too complicated for editors wanting to use the new merged template. Support creating a GB-wide Genuki template if someone is prepared to do so with all the necessary functionality including allowing for Yorkshire being different (2 levels, different article titles). @Pigsonthewing: @Keith D: @SMcCandlish: PamD 08:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Genukiary is now used on a load more articles: I felt inspired to add it to the remaining parishes in the Ainsty (on the assumption that the clearup resulting from any merge will be done by a bot so not causing extra human work), though the result looks a horrible mess with the "Merge" message appearing between the bullet point and the template output. Hope this can be resolved one way or the other soon. PamD 09:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't suggest that it was justification for a separate template: I've already voted Merge. Was just informing the discussion of the change of statistics. The sooner something gets done and we can lose the grotty warning notice displayed at every use of all four templates, the better. PamD 21:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to one yks template for now —PC-XT+ 01:01, 6 September 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:Accessdate 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template that requires the user to type {{Accessdate|~~~~~}} instead of . Accessdate: ~~~~~ - which is fewer keystrokes. Also applies <span class="reference-accessdate">, which serves no documented purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst all uses and delete per nom. In fact the template's output is actually . Retrieved ~~~~~ which is even fewer keystrokes. PC78 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now, after the class has been explained, below, though I'm still not completely sure if CS1 styling should affect non-CS1 refs, some editors apparently prefer this... Subst and delete — I have actually been doing this, already, when working on references. I don't know of a reason to use this instead of plain text —PC-XT+ 22:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC) 01:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete, Hyacinth (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only purpose for a template like this is that it is clear and easy to remember what {{Accessdate}} and {{Access}} are, while ~~~~~ isn't so clear. We could just alter the template so that {{Accessdate}} produces ~~~~~. Hyacinth (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The span serves the purpose of using the same class as the WP:CS1 templates, so that users who do not want to see the access date can hide them. This is clearly documented at Help:CS1#Access date, linking to Help:Citation Style 1/accessdate. So the comment by the nom of Also applies <span class="reference-accessdate">, which serves no documented purpose. is clearly incorrect. Keep as a result. --Izno (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer using full CS1 if we're using a CS1 class, but there are confusing cases where this template could be handy, at least temporarily. That is, for the people who want this styled. I guess I can change my !vote —PC-XT+ 08:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of the class is not documented in the template's documentation. The fact that the class is mentioned on a help page for a class of templates which does not include this one does not negate my point. Furthermore, this template has so few transclusions that anyone relying on it to hide dates where the aforesaid class of templates is not used will be sorely disappointed in virtually all such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, actually, it entirely negates your point--the class is clearly documented. That it is not documented in the place you expected is a fault with the documentation, as well as your statement--you did not qualify your expectation of where it was documented.

        this template has so few transclusions that anyone relying on it to hide dates where the aforesaid class of templates is not used will be sorely disappointed in virtually all such cases. This seems irrelevant. The use case is clearly extant. My expectation is that users who choose not to use CS1/2 choose not to use any templates, but per WP:CITEVAR where such are being used, that cannot change without cdiscussion on those talk pages. --Izno (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        • Not irrelevant in the least; it - an average of fewer than 30 transclusions per year, since the template's creation, when we have thousands of citations added every day - shows lack of community uptake. The existence of an "extant usecase" is not a bar to the deletion of a template, in the light of such low uptake, and neither is WP:CITEVAR. Further, a number of the pages on which it is used already use CS1 templates alongside it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hyacinth: Your changes broke extant use. Can you please revert, or at least make the template backward compatible, with that intent? --Izno (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, pre-subst (if there is consensus for subst+delete), the template should be changed such that the span and class is removed, IMO. --Izno (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either use our CS1/CS2 citation templates or don't. We shouldn't have weird "lone wolf" tags that templatize a tiny portion of citations, of no actual utility, that no one uses, which leave behind inline CSS when we subst and delete them. So, remove the CSS first.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others, especially SMcCandlish. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:04, 18 September 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).

Unnecessary file wrappers 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 Merge (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more similar templates

Propose merging Template:Dfu with Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale.
Propose merging Template:Furd and Template:Orfurrev with Template:Orphaned non-free revisions
This system, which is in use on many templates involving maintenance of non-free files, is confusing, needlessly restrictive, and redundant to Module:Unsubst. These templates should thus be merged by wrapping the code of the latter template in {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||date={{{{{|safesubst:}}}Date}}|$B=...}} and redirecting the shorter name to the longer one. Note that this proposal is not about merging the different groups of two templates, only each template with the longer-named one below it.Pppery (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The point about the short name ones is that all you need to do is {{subst:dfu|still alive, easy to obtain free-use pic}} (or whatever) and they get converted to the long one and automatically dated, for example {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=still alive, easy to obtain free-use pic|date=29 August 2016}}. The date is necessary, because these deletion criteria have a seven-day grace period. Merging would lose the auto-date feature. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are misunderstanding, Redrose64. The auto-date feature would still exist under my proposed merger, but it would be provided by Module:Unsubst instead of a wrapper template. Pppery (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify my proposal, this would make these templates listed work exactly like {{citation needed}} and other article maintainance templates. You can either say {{subst:citation needed}}, which will get unsubstified into {{citation needed|date=August 2016}}, or you can type the dated template yourself. The same feature would still exist for the file templates, you can say {{subst:Di-no source}}, which still expands into {{Di-no source|date=29 August 2016}}. Pppery (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom (and nom's more detailed explanation). We don't need redundant templates, and more these work like our most-standard dispute/cleanup templates like {{Citation needed}}, the better.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and discussion above -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just added Template:Orphaned non-free revisions, which I had previously converted unilaterally, to this tfm nomination. Pppery 17:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just please make very sure they work. Some of these get applied by bots, and if they break, it might be a long time before a human notices. —Cryptic 10:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are holdovers from the pre-Lua days and should be streamlined. This would also have the effect of making the documentation pages for these templates less mysterious. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Makes sense as it can be simplified while retaining existing functionality. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:15, 19 September 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:Current NFL punters 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 Snow delete (non-admin closure) Pppery 01:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a useful criteria for a navbox. While starting quarterbacks might justify a navbox, punters, and placekickers don't. It takes up editor when and can cause navbox clutter. It also provides no real benefit to the reader. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 03:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral per the last time this was brought it. And you might not think it's important (that's perfectly valid), but I fail to see how this would provide "no real benefit to the reader", as there is nothing confusing about this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Imagine {{Current NFL starting wide receivers}} and similar. I see this more as template creep than something useful to the readers. In the interests of transparency, note that I received a neutral message on my talk page informing me of this discussion, probably because of my involvement at WP:NFL. ~ Rob13Talk 03:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, template creep, unneeded, Template:Current NFL placekickers next. Lizard (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current punters of the week of X? This is a WP:NOT#NEWS problem as well as the other issues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is template creep all right....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I recommended in a previous deletion discussion. Agree with the above rationales. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in agreement that this is navbox creep. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 03:17, 9 September 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_September_5&oldid=1142562425"