Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13 edit

Template:Askiisoft 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.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template has only one link. Therefore it does not satisfy the purpose of a navbox, which is to hold links for multiple related articles. The1337gamer (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you jumped the gun a little here, I had just created the other article in question. I would ask you to please retract this now that the article has been created.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you jumped the gun in creating this template... Two articles is still small for a navigation template to be necessary. Just add a wikilink in a See Also section. The subject of the template, Askiisoft, doesn't have an article either (WP:NAVBOX). --The1337gamer (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of indie game developers that have nav boxes for all their games and no articles. I don't see what harm it is doing by existing. A "see also" link would not make it clear that the games have the same developer.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the WP:NAVBOX guidelines you mentioned are suggested guidelines and only some of them need to apply. Something does not have to have an article about it to have a navbox.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of navigation boxes is to provide navigation between multiple related articles. If an article has one other related article, then a template really isn't necessary. A link in the See Also section is sufficient. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no parent article. connecting two articles can be accomplished with standard "see also" and "in article" linking. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nav template with two links is pointless. --Muhandes (talk) 16:52, 14 July 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:Notin 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 09:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not used and not necessary. Can be replaced by the real character ∉. Golopotw (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Might become useeful. The argument that it can be replaced by a character applies to {{In}}, {{All}}, {{Exist}} and everything in {{Logic symbol templates}}. These template provide easy access. --Muhandes (talk) 16:57, 14 July 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:Kyūshū Collegiate American Football Association 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. I will move it to userspace in the event that more team articles are created, or in case someone wants to merge the content with another template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template mostly links universities not the teams. Actual football links are just two and that isn't enough. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the red links could feasibly be created, and it's not an unuseful navbox in principle. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 13 July 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:Comparison electric car efficiency 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 July 21. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 09:34, 21 July 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:Spam5i 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) 23:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, untouched since 2010 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep — As explained above, too many existing transclusions. Consider substituting them with a bot job before renominating. —PaleoNeonate - 05:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I check incorrectly or these were quickly fixed since the 5th  ; I also see that the above poster said "substituted" not "transcluded", so I may have misread. In any case, if a new template now replaces this one, or this one is really no longer used, by humans, bots or tools, the substituted uses don't matter and will not be affeted by the deletion. I find only one transclusion in the search but when I visit it it's not there, so it seems irrelevant. —PaleoNeonate - 18:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — If no longer used by tools, bots, humans or other templates. I would be interested to know which template replaced it, if any. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 18:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • can anyone prove that this is "no longer used by tools, bots, humans or other templates"? if not, we should keep it. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 14 July 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:N-VR 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 July 21. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 09:42, 21 July 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:Educational institutions in 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 09:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 47 central universities and 364 state universities in India. Not to speak of hundreds more universities and countles "educational institutes". Clearly, a nav box isn't going to include them all. That's why we have List of state universities in India and various other lists. This makes this navbox misleading and pointless, especially in it's current form. Muhandes (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, better to use list articles and categories for navigating between entries in very large lists. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 14 July 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:NCAAHS player statistics start 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 G5 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a duplicated template. Also, HS stats are not shown in a table in practice. Babymissfortune 11:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, almost certainly not needed. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 13 July 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:2016 2nd All-Pro 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 Speedy delete per the request of the creator at the discussion linked below. Hut 8.5 20:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#2nd_All-Pro_team_template, this template sets a bad precedent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 13 July 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_July_13&oldid=1138373632"