Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 23 March 25 >

March 24 edit

Template:Chris Cottrell (American Basketball Coach) 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 G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some unknown reason, a Speedy Deletion of this template has been declined. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, give the creator a chance to expand their article (it was CSD-tagged only a minute after creation). If they do expand it – move away from the template namespace. If they don't – delete per WP:A7. – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admin note - I'm not going to close this and then wait to see if they don't do anything with it so that we can bring it back to TFD. Request to close declined. I have, however, notified the creator of the reason why their template was nominated. I think a week is sufficient time for them to respond. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the least, that wouldn't be the right venue: if the article doesn't get speedy deleted, then any discussion about it will have to take place at WP:AFD. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles don't belong in template space. There was another such instance of this within the last month but I can't remember the topic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: I see at least 4-5 of these a week. Something is leading new users to create their articles in template space, not idea what. Usually I just move without redirect to articlespace and apply whatever deletion process fits. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:09, 26 March 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:United States squad 2017 CONCACAF U-20 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 delete. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus that youth national team squads are not needed. — Michael (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. — Michael (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - squad templates for youth tournaments are not notable. GiantSnowman 07:04, 27 March 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:Rhode Island Rams 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 merge to Template:University of Rhode Island. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Rhode Island Rams navbox with Template:University of Rhode Island.
Program is not large enough (like the Florida Gators program) to have a separate navbox for athletics. The standard is usually just to include the athletic stuff into the main university navbox, which should be done here. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge. This is an unnecessary navbox and the university one is better suited for a more encompassing coverage of University of Rhode Island topics. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but suggest interested parties (Corkythehornetfan & Jrcla2) with a vested interest in such classifications and templates ought also generate a broader policy discussion via a CFD for the categories and all such templates... which are currently based on both or either the teams & names in sports and the schools. Add in the by state features and the preferable solution gets pretty murky mighty fast. Having gone to college for a school without any modern teams to speak of, I have no interest. Others will. FrankB 04:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This particular template is substantially identical to Template:Stanford Cardinal navbox (the most broadly successful college athletic program for 20 years) and better organized. So we're not reviewing a defective template with limited links. I'm sympathetic to an argument to merge all seven of these templates (Category:American college athletic program navigational boxes) with their corresponding academic navboxes, but oppose narrowly culling just this particular one from the seven. We should decide now, as cleanup/merge of seven is much easier than after it has inevitably spread to ~100 of the common FBS colleges. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this one is deemed to be unnecessary and a merge occurs, then it will be easy to open up the other 6 in a blanket nomination. Opposing the merge of this one on the grounds that all 7 should supposedly be lumped together is not a solid argument. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:57, 24 March 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:Heads of the Ministries of the Government of 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 merge to Template:Union ministries of India. Some pages use both templates, so make sure to check that there aren't any duplicates after merging. Primefac (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Heads of the Ministries of the Government of India with Template:Union ministries of India.
Most of the links are similar. Further, most of the heads of ministries redirect to the ministries, so it would be good to keep only those heads, which have their pages. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rubber stamp - this one seems to be a no brainer. The one with most offices doesn't have the office holder listed by the other. Styled the same too. FrankB 04:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:55, 24 March 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:BritishTerrorism 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 4. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 4 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:Nueva Rosita TV 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) 19:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With only one local station in this region of Coahuila (XHSDD-TDT), there is no need for this template other than to connect a bunch of redirects that don't even use it. Raymie (t • c) 07:15, 24 March 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:Baja California TV 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) 19:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A template to link two templates. I've substed it on the templates using it so this can be safely deleted. Raymie (t • c) 07:05, 24 March 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:Televisa Chihuahua 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) 19:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A template with little to no navigational use, as most of the links are redirects. Two other templates cover the actual articles that are linked here. Raymie (t • c) 04:52, 24 March 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:TV Azteca US Border O&O stations 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) 19:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All TV Azteca stations are owned-and-operated, and most as network relayers do not qualify for articles. This template does not have much navigational use. Raymie (t • c) 04:51, 24 March 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:Chihuahua State TV 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) 19:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This bottom-navbox template used to link to more templates. Most of those have been deleted as redundant. I've substed this now-useless template so it, too, can be deleted. Raymie (t • c) 04:44, 24 March 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:NPB labeled map 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 to Nippon Professional Baseball. Use LST to transclude second usage. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subst: and delete--only one transclusion ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added it to List of NPB stadiums to show where the current stadiums are located. --TorsodogTalk 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this template was made in the style of several other team templates such as Template:NFL Labelled Map, Template:MLB Labelled Map, Template:NBA labeled map and Template:MLS labeled map --TorsodogTalk 01:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with one of the two articles and use LST to transclude in the other. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Almost all of the templates located at Category:Labelled map templates are used in only one or two articles. Is there a reason this specific template is being singled out? It seems like by the logic of this deletion discussion the there should be no labeled map template at all? --TorsodogTalk 22:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:13, 15 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, 24 March 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:Paris Metro/line 3bis stations 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 opposition. Substituted into article. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template; substitute in article. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:23, 15 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, 24 March 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:MTV Movie Award for Best On-Screen Transformation 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. NPASR. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide meaningful navigation. Also, do we really need a navbox for this kind of award? -- Rob Sinden (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - since unlike me there are millions that care about MTV and things like honors, so will happily go from article to article seeing who last won such and such an award (a category, n'est pas?). So happens, this is a 'new award' here in the days of rampant CGI, so the lists population (Today) is small compared to those better populated by years of links like Template:MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss or many other MTV award categories. BUT.... fairplay makes me say, I believe strongly in those maintaining a project area have the say in managing its formatting and in this case, that means supporting the continuance of the template because they (who are editing MTV awards pages) are being consistent within the way they have organized and linked the year to year articles. These templates are clearly part of a family, and in effect are succession templates like we used to use with infoboxes to navigate between dynasts passing crowns and titles. That approach has been superceded by large and complicated infoboxes which incorporate the successor/predecessor information in the large templates.
For example, a simple one has this partial set of lines:
{{Infobox royalty|monarch
| name            = Gustav I
| succession      = [[List of Swedish monarchs|King of Sweden]]
| coronation      = 6 June 1523
| predecessor     = [[Christian II of Denmark|Christian II]]
| successor       = [[Eric XIV of Sweden|Eric XIV]]
| spouse          = [[Catherine of Saxe-Lauenburg]]<br>[[Margaret Leijonhufvud]]<br>[[Katarina Stenbock]]
| issue           = [[Eric XIV of Sweden]]<br>[[John III of Sweden]]<br>[[Katharina Vasa]]<br>[[Princess Cecilia of Sweden|Cecilia, Margravine of Baden-Rodemachern]]<br>[[Magnus, Duke of Östergötland]]<br>[[Anna Maria of Sweden|Anna Maria, Countess Palatine of Veldenz]]<br>[[Princess Sophia of Sweden|Sophia, Duchess of Saxe-Lauenburg]]<br>[[Princess Elizabeth of Sweden|Elizabeth, Duchess of Mecklenburg-Gadebusch]]<br>[[Charles IX of Sweden]]
}}

... and clutters the top of articles, yet we tolerate them. We can tolerate with these very unobtrusive bottom dwellers even easier. These tabulate titles at page bottom. I'd prefer an infobox approach myself, but that danged principal intrudes... they are maintaining the pages, have the interest, so get to make the rules. FrankB 04:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:41, 24 March 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_March_24&oldid=1138373492"