Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 December 23

December 23 edit

Template:Downsview Toronto links 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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate template created to solve a non-existent problem. The creator has been using it on pages to basically provide a navigation header and kinda See Also on articles. The template is not appropriate for several reasons. 1) We already have an approved solution for this that is standard usage. 2) the template also contains the article that you're on therefor you're listing and article the user is already reading in the header. 3) The header templates aren't supposed to provide a See Also system, they're to provide genuine disambiguation between very similarly named articles, not related articles, that's what the navigation boxes and See Alsos later in articles are for. For example no one will mistake Downsview Park for Downsview Airport, the titles aren't in anyway similar. Downsview (neighbourhood) doesn't exist and only redirects to Downsview, so you now have two links to the same place. Of that list only Downsview Park and Downsview Park Station are similar enough to warrant this and they already had the correct disambiguation template inserted at the top. This is also incredibly specific and not of use elsewhere and provides no value. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 23 December 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).

College football coach 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. I, the nominator, have agreed to userfy these templates until they are ready to go live. (non-admin closure) Corkythehornetfan 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan 06:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Four or more is the standard. Corkythehornetfan 06:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What can I do to prevent these deletions? Can I move these to a temporary spot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigredlance (talkcontribs) 12:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be stand-alone articles on multiple coaches for each template; each of those articles would need to be supported by significant, independent coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG. If you wish to pursue creating such articles, you could ask Corky if he'd consent to "userfy" the templates, sending them to your user page to allow you to determine whether the stand-alone coaching articles can be created. Cbl62 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more than happy to withdraw and userfy the templates as we have done in the past. Just let me know. Corkythehornetfan 15:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bigredlance: I would strongly encourage you to userfy any navbox you have created that have less than four blue links; I can accept three as I have been lenient on three links lately. I have been know to go through the categories and start nominating them for deletion if they have less than three or four at random times. If you want these userfied, let's do that before the seven days is up... otherwise they'll just be deleted. Corkythehornetfan 20:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I would love to go the userfy route. I think that's a great idea. Would love to have someone set me up with that.

Question: At what point can they become un-userfied?

Glad to help out any way I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigredlance (talkcontribs) 21:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigredlance: The standard has been that as soon as at least four articles (coaches) have been created, then the navbox can become live or "un-userfied". If you want, I can move them for you, but I'll need a list of all of the templates that this might effect – you can add the list to my talk page... Corkythehornetfan 21:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Template:Minnesota State–Moorhead Dragons football coach navbox now has four blue links. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Nebraska–Kearney navbox now has four or more workable links. May we remove it from deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigredlance (talkcontribs) 05:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Update: The West Liberty navbox now has four or more workable links. May we remove it from deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigredlance (talkcontribs) 05:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the two "updates" were moved from the top of the deletion request.
I've withdrawn Kearney and Minn. state. Corkythehornetfan 14:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I've withdrawn West Liberty and have userfied Concordia, Western Oregon, Aurora, and Cortland to User:Bigredlance/Template:Concordia Golden Bears football coach navbox, User:Bigredlance/Template:Western Oregon Wolves football coach navbox, User:Bigredlance/Template:Aurora Spartans football coach navbox, and User:Bigredlance/Template:Cortland Red Dragons football coach navbox. Corkythehornetfan 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
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).