Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 17 January 19 >

January 18 edit

Template:Nations at the UCI Road World Championships 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) feminist 03:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SEEALSO As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. This is used in the "See also" section and the links are also in the navigation box {{UCI Road World Championships}} immediately below (see Germany at the UCI Road World Championships). BaldBoris 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:41, 18 January 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:Main section 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 January 28 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:32, 28 January 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 soccer awards 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

College soccer awards are only notable if they're national awards. These are not national awards. Therefore they're not notable. Some of these templates have previously been deleted per discussion here. – Michael (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and previous consensus, non-notable regional college awards. GiantSnowman 08:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no evidence to suggest that this is non-notable, and it is a sweeping assumption to suggest that regional awards for college soccer are not notable. Meets WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as the athletes have jumpstarted professional careers with these awards. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather local awards. I hope Quidster4040 can prove that the players "jumpstarted" their career due to these awards. But I guess that they would have been picked even without the awards. The Banner talk 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you're a victim of not doing research Banner. Furthermore this meets WP:NCOLLATH.
    No this does not meet WP:NCOLLATH because they're not national awards. – Michael (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are notable awards, and is consistent with Wikipedia:Navigation template. Furthermore, we have established conference POY navboxes for football, and baseball among other sports. (Therefore Otherstuffexists should in this case strengthen my argument, because the nominator falsely claims that college sports awards are only notable if they are national.)UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability seems to be an improper argument for the navboxes. The awards likely meet WP:LISTN, and most (all?) have standalone lists already for their respective topic, suggesting they are, in fact, notable. A more relevant argument might be whether the navboxes for non-national awards are WP:TCREEP.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UCO2009bluejay. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:25, 21 January 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:NBA minutes leaders 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 per concerns of creep and necessity. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:TCREEP. I've done a random sample (James, Iverson, Mason, Tripucka, Havlicek and Chamberlain), and confirmed that all articles but two (Chamberlain and Mason) did not mention this achievement in the prose, thus not satisfying some of the criteria in WP:NAVBOX. –HTD 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, template creep. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I too conducted a sample of basketballers whom this template features. What I found was pages cluttered with templates at the bottom, diluting the usefulness of the information there. In all cases this template stood out as the least likely to be useful. This is a relatively obscure NBA statistic. Moreso than points, assists and rebounds. The separate list for this statistic might be useful. But adding this template to pages of highly accomplished basketballers, who will already have many templates, is not. Syek88 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not typically a statistic with much meaning historically. Rikster2 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per TonyTheTiger, you can't say that since there is an article that covers minutes leaders were shouldn't have this template. WP:NAVBOX states, "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." Just because a stat isn't included in a player's article doesn't mean the stat is insignificant. It means that the player's article should to be edited to include the stat. That's why there's always work to be done. Plus as Tony also notes the nominator offers no policy other than WP:TCREEP, which states "delete redundant and inappropriate templates". This template is no less redundant or inappropriate than all of the other NBA stat leader templates. –Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:34, 24 January 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:ESPNRISE 2000s All-Decade boys basketball team 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) 00:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:TCREEP. I've done a random sample (James, Lawson and Jennings), and confirmed that all articles did not mention this achievement in the prose, thus not satisfying some of the criteria in WP:NAVBOX. –HTD 07:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a classic example of valuable encyclopedic information, because it gives someone today a first idea of which basketball players dominated media coverage during their amateur career. --bender235 (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template'; none exists for this 2000s all-decade team.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NAVBOX presents five guidelines with the statement "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines". Howard the Duck has pointed out that this template does not follow one of those guidelines (subject is not mentioned in the prose). Obviously, the guidelines are not a requirement based on how they are described as general rule that may be partially followed. Probably a significant portion of the subjects included in {{NBA statistical leaders}} are not included in many of the articles linked in the associated lists and templates. This is not a reason for deletion. This fact actually makes Bagumba's deletion unsupported by fact or policy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, what is your reason to keep?—Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is encyclopedic content and you have given no policy-based reason to delete.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • NAVBOX #4 exists specifically to demonstrate that the grouping is notable; if the parent article does not exist, it's dubious whether the topic is really encyclopedic. Bear in mind that not every grouping needs a template either, per WP:TCREEP (yes, an essay).—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, template creep and no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does seem like template creep. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:06, 27 January 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:Permian lithostratigraphy Europe 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. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 14:51, 18 January 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:PSL-stub 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) feminist 03:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no independent category. Unlikely to be used. ~ Rob13Talk 14:46, 18 January 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:Rockland Records 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) 00:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release and artist rosters for record labels not suitable for navbox inclusion per precedent. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 18 January 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:Nations at the 2015 UCI Track Cycling World Championships 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) 00:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All articles linking to this template are now redirects. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 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:D. B. Weiss 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. If more linkable pages are created, this could be REFUNDed. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their are enough links - AffeL (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It links three articles including the subject - this does not justify a navbox. WP:NENAN. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely. It has two links. This is just an attempt to create separate navboxes, templates, the-list-goes-on for everything Game of Thrones-related. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:NENAN. 2-3 links means it does not help with navigation and it serves no useful purpose. Dunarc (talk) 15:39, 26 January 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:Joe McManners 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) 02:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – agreed, this sort of navbox is only necessary for artists with a bigger discography. Linguisttalk|contribs 12:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this box looks silly with only one entry, and there are more than enough ways by which people can find their way from Joe McManners to the article about his sole album. Syek88 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 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:Golden Globe hosts 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. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 09:32, 18 January 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:Prosenjit-Rachana films 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. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No actor filmographies in navbox per WP:FILMNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:32, 18 January 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-Cuba 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. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 06:40, 18 January 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_January_18&oldid=1079966039"