Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 27 May 29 >

May 28 edit

Template:California cities and mayors of 100,000 population 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. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REDNOT, which states "Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template."

The purpose of a template is to enable navigation. Of the 72 mayors listed on the template, just 22 have articles. A little over a year ago, in April 2017, just 23 mayors listed on the template had articles. This indicates this template is likely to remain mostly redlinks.

Discussions of this and similar templates have occurred at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 33#State by state 100,000 population city and mayors templates, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 8#100k city templates, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 29#Template:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but removing the redlinks would make the template fairly useless, just as keeping the template--mostly just redlinks--makes the template fairly useless. A link to a list would be far more useful to the everyday Wikipedia user. The template also clutters the articles it has been placed on. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, part of a series; or increase the threshold. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 7 June 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).

Module:Broader 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. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary luafication (wikitext version: {{hatnote|For a broader coverage related to {{{2|this topic}}}, see {{format link|{{{1|}}}}}|selfref={{{selfref|}}}}}) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 07:38, 28 May 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:Shaye 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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While each of the members have articles, none of the albums or singles do, giving this little navigational benefit. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - the three performers are independently notable, and one of the albums does have an article but the template was pointing to a redirect which itself was not targeted properly (I've fixed it). All of the links are former articles which perhaps could be expanded. I may have a COI on this topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Keep or merge with Template:Tara MacLean. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 07:36, 28 May 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).

Module:Librivox book 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 2018 June 7. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 7 June 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:Colonial empires 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 2018 June 7. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 7 June 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:Roman colonies in ancient Levant 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:Roman colonies in Europe. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Roman colonies in ancient Levant with Template:Roman colonies in Europe.
Should conveniently fit well enough into the one and same template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Roman colonies were not separated at the time by Europe/Levant criteria, thus Wikipedia should not as well.GreyShark (dibra) 10:51, 30 May 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:Magna Graecia 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:Ancient Greece Topics. No opposition to merge. There is another discussion below with a merge proposal between Template:Magna Graecia and some other templates, which also closed as merge, so if the final merge name makes more sense to be "Magna Graecia" there's no issue renaming it there. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Magna Graecia with Template:Ancient Greece topics.
To try the idea. Please see below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that this discussion is slightly different than the group below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 28 May 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:Pontic colonies 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:Magna Graecia. No opposition to merge. There is another discussion above with a merge proposal between Template:Magna Graecia and Template:Ancient Greece Topics which also closed, so if the final merge name makes more sense to be "Ancient Greece Topics" there's no issue renaming it there. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Pontic colonies with Template:Magna Graecia.
Should well fit into one single template, which could then be called perhaps "Colonies of Ancient Greece" or similar. If more of a radical change, the contents could even be incorporated into Template:Ancient Greece topics. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that this is the combination of three separate mergers (on May 17) with identical statements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:27, 28 May 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:Food Network specials 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 someone wants to add specials to the main template they're welcome to, but there's no consensus to do so here. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. Could be merged to {{Food Network series}} if content must really be kept. --woodensuperman 11:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just merge it then? You don’t have to delete something first in order to merge it. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I favour deletion in this case. --woodensuperman 08:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said "could be merged..." right above. Which one is it? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note my second clause: if content must really be kept... --woodensuperman 08:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mainly to get opinions on the merger thing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:24, 28 May 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_May_28&oldid=844843178"