Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 10 April 12 >

April 11 edit

Template:7th Saga 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies, provided this isn't WP:OR. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The titular series does not exist. Aside from Mystic Ark and Mystic Ark: Theatre of Illusions (which has no article of its own, just a subsection of the Mystic Ark article), there is no official connection between these games apart from their being by the same publisher and developer. Simply put, this template's sole purpose is to promote a hoax. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should Produce (company) be cleaned if so? Aside, I doubt it's a hoax—the more likely cause is some fan theory connecting the disparate games. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if and when we get consensus to delete this navbox I plan to fix Produce (company) and the series fields for the three component games. I wasn't sure it would be appropriate to bring up those proposed fixes here. The "series" being based on a fan theory is my suspicion too, but that falls under the definition of a hoax (though I'll admit the term has an excessively negative connotation).--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I mean, even if the series did exist, a meager 4 entries isn't really enough to warrant a navigation template like this... Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 12 April 2017 (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:Animator.ru 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. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template was used three times, but two of the articles were WP:CSD#A7s. There's no evidence this site should be promoted through a nominated link template. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (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:BS8d-2 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:40, 11 April 2017 (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:Test 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a duplicate of {{uw-test1}} and {{uw-vandalism1}}. Delete the series, please. UpsandDowns1234 05:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with {{uw-test1}} since it is actually a duplicate of this template, just with different wording. Plus, this is a user warning template, yet does not have the uw that should precede it. UpsandDowns1234 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These arguments were hashed out and rejected in 2007, 2013, and 2015. I realize that you start editing since then, but if you're making a fresh nomination you need to state what's different. It's disruptive to just keep renominating this template. Also, if you still want to "delete the series" then you should tag what other templates you consider to be within the scope of this discussion and list them here. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I discovered this template very recently, and the deletion discussion for 2015 caused most of these templates to be redirected. If all of them are redirected, as they are pretty much unused, then it would allow older editors to use the newer templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsandDowns1234 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is generally subst'd; please provide evidence that it is unused. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination appears incomplete if {{test2}}, {{test2}} and {{test3}} are not included. They would fall under the same rationale. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep retarget if needed, but don't delete these. — xaosflux Talk 02:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect/Merge: First of all, the wordings are remarkably similarNeither one assumes bad faith, but Template:test is slightly more certain in its accusation: Template:Uw-test1 said that an edit "appeared to be a test" and gives instructions if the user thinks the reversion was a mistake; the other definitively labels the edit a test, saying "Your test worked and was removed" and providing no such opportunity for contesting the determination. I performed a search for the wording of the template and did find it on thousands of pages (roughly 180,000); the vast majority seemed to be from 2007-2009, though there definitely were some more recent usages. That might because, as DavidLevy said in one of the discussions, {{test}} is not included in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, but for me the fact that it's not included there is actually a demerit against it. The other arguments seem to be that talk templates do not need to be standardized, so we should allow infinite varieties assuming those infinite varieties are used. While I'm sympathetic to that argument, I don't find it compelling enough in and of itself to support the continuation of a redundant template.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted because {{Test2}} ... {{Test4}} were not properly tagged. They've now been tagged and are incorporated into this discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 05:51, 11 April 2017 (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:Pp-main-page 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 2017 April 22 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:15, 22 April 2017 (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:Editnotices/Page/Power Rangers 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. No objections. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notice is out of date. I do accept that an update of the content may be more appropriate, but I am not familiar with the edit history of the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom. I think it goes without saying that we should not reproduce speculation, but perhaps there have been some specific issues with that article with unregistered and recently-registered accounts. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely accept that; the edit notice refers speculation about a series that aired in 2015. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (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:BS3x 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 Deleted upon request by author (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 15:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete by author. Fast route-map template, not needed since MediaWiki wikitext parser became 6x faster in 2014. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wikid77: Moreso because {{Routemap}} allows faster loading through use of the Lua module, probably. I don't think the parser change did anything to reduce template load, at least not for the largest RDTs. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me       14:37, 11 April 2017 (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:Flight-schedule-list 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. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no practical use; Wikipedia is not a timetable. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, I can't see any uses for this. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2017 (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:Patriot League women's soccer 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if and when there are more articles created. As it stands, there is no need for a template that has one bluelink. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Articles under development. Agree with Quidster. Hmlarson (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unless more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX (I can not remember which is the guideline). This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2017 (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:NCAA Division I Women's Soccer Seasons 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles under development. Exceptions in bullet point #1 of WP:EXISTING applies here. Hmlarson (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, seems like new articles are being created. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (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:NCAA Division II Women's Soccer Championship 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if and when the redlinked articles are actually created. As it stands, there is no need for a template that has one bluelink. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link, plus it was deleted in August 2015 for no links at all... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Exceptions included in bullet point #1 of WP:EXISTING essay (not guideline) applies here. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (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:NCAA Division III Men's Soccer Championship 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if and when the redlinked articles are actually created. As it stands, there is no need for a template that has one bluelink. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Exceptions included in bullet point #1 of WP:EXISTING essay (not guideline) applies here. Hmlarson (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- insufficient navigation. Nav boxes are not expected to be used as "article creation maps" on subjects that may or may not be notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2017 (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:NCAA Division III Women's Soccer Championship 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if and when the redlinked articles are actually created. As it stands, there is no need for a template that has one bluelink. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Exceptions included in bullet point #1 of WP:EXISTING essay (not guideline) applies here. Hmlarson (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- insufficient navigation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2017 (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:St. Francis Brooklyn Terriers men's soccer coach 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. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Quidster4040.--El Mayimbe (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, can be easily recreated from the coaching history section if more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - insufficient navigation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2017 (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:UMass Minutemen soccer coach 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 no consensus leaning towards keep. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Quidster4040: And what is the purpose of creating a navbox with one or two links only? It certainly does NOT navigate, which is the whole purpose of having a NAVbox. I'm not sure how hard that is to understand. If you don't want to create the articles to allow the navbox to do what is made to do, then don't create the navboxes at all. Plain. and. Simple. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Quidster4040: Please have a look at WP:POINT. I don't see any reason beyond the fact that pages may be created someday to keep these templates. These discussions are primarily about the usefulness of templates, and they serve a very limited purpose as they are.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (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:Pink Grand Prix: 1998 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. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After entries without articles have been removed, only three entries remain.

This and related templates seem to be part of the effort to cross-categorise various marginally notable topics on the Japanese pink movie genre. I find this and other templates to be excessive, since the annual Pink Grand-Prix ceremonies are generally not independently notable. See for example: Pink_Grand_Prix#1998. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Primefac: I might eventually nominate the lot of them as unnecessary cross categorisations. But this discussion is about one template, as being particularly useless. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2017 (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/2017_April_11&oldid=1136066678"