Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10 edit

Template:South Carolina Gamecocks women's basketball 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 Relisted on 2017 February 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:11, 18 February 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:Field marshal (India) 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 February 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 18 February 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:PubMed 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 February 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 18 February 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:Nosler Cartridges Firearms 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) 18:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox. All of the extent article have been merged into one article. All the other entries are red links. Due to the nature of the relatively non-notable commercial products, it is unlikely that article will be written. So the template only used on one page and serves no purpose. Felsic2 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 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:CSU–Pueblo ThunderWolves football 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 Relisted on 2017 February 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 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:Westminster Parsons football 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 Relisted on 2017 February 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 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:Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference women's basketball 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXISTING... linked in one article... not linked in the Savannah State article. Fails to navigate. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just fixed it right now. Even with that, is there anything the template needs to link to in order to stay solvent? Wikidude10000 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox needs to be listed in at least 4 articles in order to navigate and to pass WP:EXISTING. Right now it is only in 2. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of 12:20pm, there are now four navigable articles (Savannah State, SC State, Howard, and the Tournament page) Wikidude10000 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, but possibly comment out some of the redlinks until the articles are created. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 10 February 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:Rio 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 February 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 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:Simpsons Sideshow Bob 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 February 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 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:Duchesses of Cornwall 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Princesses of Wales. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • These ladies were also notable as the wives of the Dukes of Cornwall, and some of them were known as the Duchess of Cornwall before becoming the Princess of Wales, like Mary of Teck, and as you may know the most recent duchess, Camilla, isn't known as the Princess of Wales. So it can't be considered redundant actually. Based on your opinion we should probably nominate all the templates for deletion, especially Template:Dukes of Cornwall & Template:Dukes and Duchesses of Rothesay as many of those Dukes and Duchesses were also the Princes and Princesses of Wales. Furthermore, we should also erase the lists and delete the articles because the holders of a specific title could in most cases hold another noble title. A pointless nomination, without a clear reason. Keivan.fTalk 11:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the women on this template are also on Template:Princesses of Wales, and all the women on that template should be on this template, since all princesses of Wales are also duchesses of Cornwall. Therefore, it is a hardcoded duplication of another template. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Celia Homeford Cecily Neville is a Princess of Wales who never became the Duchess of Cornwall. So get your facts straight before starting a discussion. And as I said above some of these women were only known as the Duchess of Cornwall for a period of time before becoming the Princess of Wales. This title is important enough to have its own separate template. And I find your reason totally pointless and inane as I said, because many of the Dukes of Rothesay were also the Princes of Wales. Does that mean we should delete that template too? The answer, of course, is no! Keivan.fTalk 11:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG!! You've just proven you don't know what you're talking about. Didn't you read Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York#The wheel of fortune (1459–1460): "made him Prince of Wales (and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall) and Lord Protector of England[11] on 31 October 1460.[12]". There's even an helpful link to a source for you: "Rychard duk of York shold be called Prince of Wales, duke of Cornewayle, and erle of Chestre". Who's got their facts wrong now? Celia Homeford (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Celia Homeford What does it have to do with what I said? Are you trying to say that he wasn't the Duke of Rothesay? You just showed that you didn't even try to read a sentence completely. I said "many of the Dukes of Rothesay were also the Princes of Wales". Try to read more carefully next time. Keivan.fTalk 11:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said, and I quote explicitly, "Cecily Neville is a Princess of Wales who never became the Duchess of Cornwall". I have proven without doubt that such a statement is false. I'm not the one here who seems to have trouble reading. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Does it make any difference? Still you can't find a suitable answer for my question. I said it once and I repeat it again. Some of those ladies were only known as the Duchess of Cornwall for a period of time before becoming the Princess of Wales, like Mary of Teck, and the current holder of the title, Camilla, has never been called the Princess of Wales. The other thing is that many of the Dukes of Rothesay were also the Princes of Wales. Does that mean we should delete that template and the other similar templates too??! Keivan.fTalk 11:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that Edward of York was the Duke of Cornwall in 1460 is disputed, as Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales, was the Duke of Cornwall in 1454–1471. Keivan.fTalk 12:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales, was the Prince of Wales too. (The clue is in the name.) Celia Homeford (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that I know he was the Prince of Wales too. But as you said we should "restrict our comments to the topic". So do I have to rewrite what I said? Because honestly I cannot see your overall idea and reason for nominating this template as what you just said above can be said for many other templates too. But the reason that we have all of them here is pretty much clear, each of those titles are unique and the fact that the same historical figures carried them throughout their lives doesn't make them unimportant or insignificant for having at least a separate template. Keivan.fTalk 12:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a navigation template is to link related articles. All the articles linked on this template are already all linked to one another through the Princesses of Wales template. Consequently, it is redundant to the other template. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be linked to each other multiple times through multiple templates. You and I obviously aren't going to agree on anything so I let the others judge what I said. Keivan.fTalk 14:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Obvious duplication: all the links on one template are on the other. This should be resolved through re-design of the existing template not a duplication of virtually identical material. DrKay (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, merge them. It seems to be the best solution. Keivan.fTalk 10:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If any princesses weren't duchesses, a footnote can mark that, and you can add a little bottom section to hold any duchesses who weren't princesses. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 14 February 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-pc2 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 February 18. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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:PD-ZW 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) 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 07:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly, hence, this is not needed here. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 10 February 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:PD-USGov-DHS-FEMA 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) 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 07:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly, hence, this is not needed here. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 10 February 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:PD-Japan-Film 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) 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 07:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly, hence, this is not needed here. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 10 February 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:Miss New York USA 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 T3 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template where all but one of the links have been deleted. The only remaining blue links are the main pageant article and a broken redirect. No navigation left. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 10 February 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:Expressways in New York City 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) 17:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per past precedent. Dough4872 21:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—pre precedent. Imzadi 1979 → 20:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only because of precedent. I do think this navbox could be useful. Laurdecl talk 04:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repurpose. JFK Expressway is maintained by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, apparently not by the state or federal governments. This template could be converted so that it contains expressways maintained by the PANYNJ (and perhaps expressways maintained by the city of New York), which would avoid the issues typically found in templates of this sort. I'm unaware of how many such expressways exist; if there aren't enough to warrant a navbox, I won't oppose deletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, part of the issue with Valdosta et al. is that the affected articles would have tons of navboxes for various cities if we had such a system. With my proposal, we'd only use the template for local highways, so they wouldn't be able to get the other navboxes. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that logically you would need to include all the other facilities maintained by the Port Authority (otherwise the template would be too small in scope). But that's not a good use for a template either. WP:NENAN. --Rschen7754 07:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's wrong with the concept itself? If the authority maintains ten highways, for example, such a template would provide simple navigation from one to the next. Why would we need to include non-highway facilities? That would be confusing, "highways" being obviously similar while "highways and other facilities" isn't. As I note above, I'm unaware of how many highways they maintain, and if the number of highways is too small, I'm fine with deletion. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 16 February 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:BS-Infobox 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BS-Infobox with Template:Routemap-Infobox.
Almost identical; {{Routemap-Infobox}} works in both {{BS-map}} and {{Routemap}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:25, 10 February 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:SharedIPUser 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 February 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:22, 18 February 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_February_10&oldid=1087817636"