Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25 edit

Template:*mp 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 but make sure that the output is the same after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's used on 34,000 pages. It could be deprecated and retained for historical purposes, but I don't see a reason to delete. Nihlus 13:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see no reason to subst given that it would take a bot thousands of edits to do so, which is rather excessive. Nihlus 08:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete We don't need to have single-character templates that serve no useful purpose. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete currently all it outputs is "*" so it seems reasonable to subst it Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace and delete, but be very careful. (1) where it is used in {{DYK talk}}, simply remove it since we don't need two bullets (see here). (2) where it is used that the start of a line, and there are no args, it can be simply replaced with * (see here) (3) where it is used at the start of a line, but there are extra args, the extra args are frequently comments and should be preserved (see here). (4) if it's not at the start of a line or in the DYK talk template, i should be left alone for manual review since it did not need to be at the start of the line but the simple * does need to be at the start of a line (or at the start of a branch in a parser function; see, for example, Wikipedia:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame). Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2018 (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).

Please note that I have undeleted this template, because without it, the layouts of historical revisions of WP:Selected anniversaries subpages get all messed up. —howcheng {chat} 17:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colocationwebhost 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 procedural close. Policy and guideline templates are out of scope for Tfd. They should be discussed on the policy or guideline's talk page. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are both half-assed hard-block reasons. Web hosts and colocation providers fall under the "shared IP" category, and should be treated like other shared IPs. KMF (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per WP:PROXY, "open proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time." Editing through a webhost computer is one way that a Wikipedia editor can conceal their true IP address so it is subject to these rules. Proxies can be used as a method of block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2018 (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:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame 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. Strong support to delete, even if the reasons are wide-ranging, but only a solo !vote to keep. —Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template provides navigation with respect to a minor award that is not defining for its recipients. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. School “halls of fame” just aren’t significant enough to warrant navboxes in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The template is absolutely "defining to its recipients", as most of them are notable primarily because of their athletic achievements at UF. The purpose of templates like this is to group together people with something in common so that readers can easily jump from one to the other. If you actually click on it, you'll see that this particular template is extremely well organized, so readers can easily click from article to article about former Gator athletes from one particular sport if that's what they're interested in. It's useful, it's very well designed, and it doesn't violate any guidelines. There's absolutely no reason to delete it. Zeng8r (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The suggestion that most of these recipients are notable primarily because of their athletic achievements as UF is false. Most of the recipients who are notable enough to have a stand-alone article are at least as notable for their achievements as professional athletes after leaving UF. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You are incorrect. Many people in the template are notable primarily because were major college athletes, especially those who played a non-revenue sport. And even if they went on to a professional career in sports or something else, their collegiate achievements first gave them public notoriety. Zeng8r (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zeng8r, please substantiate that claim with examples. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11:, if I had time for that sort of stuff, I wouldn't be semi-retired here. But a quick look at those listed in the baseball section (a semi-revenue collegiate sport, I'd say) shows that nine out of 18 honorees are only notable (in the Wikipedia sense) for being a member of the UF Athletic HoF. According to my math, that's half. I'm sure the percentage of football players meeting that criteria is lower, but I'm also sure that it's higher in less publicized sports. Zeng8r (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeng8r: how many of those nine have stand-alone articles and aren't just links in the template pointing back to anchor at List of University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 02:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, with over 300 members, this is too big for a single navbox, better to create a category or just navigate through the list article. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I understand the point of view of those voting delete, but I still haven't seen anyone point to a hard and fast guideline that justifies its removal, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a large but well-designed and well-organized template that serves a useful purpose. There's no good reason to get rid of it, imo. (I didn't make it, in case anyone was wondering, but I actually have used it.) Zeng8r (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeng8r:, Furthermore, my last question posed above to you was intended to underscore the point that the subjects for which being a member of the UF HOF might be defining tend not to have stand-alone articles. For those subjects, the very ones who could make the best case for this template's appropriateness, the navbox is pointing to various anchor tags within the article for the HOF, not to other articles. Thus the navbox is pointless. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Category is best fit for this. Corky 05:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A category isn't appropriate either, because being a member of the UF HOF is not defining for its subjects. We have an article with a list of members. That is the only structure the encyclopedia needs on this dimension. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2018 (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/2018_February_25&oldid=885206922"