Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17 edit

Template:Scientists of Bangladesh 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make such navboxes. Totally cherry-picking. Fails navbox purpose. Störm (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2019 (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:New message 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) 19:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:New message with Template:New discussion.
Two templates with the same purpose. I suggest redirecting {{New message}} to {{New discussion}} --Trialpears (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace {{New message}} with {{New discussion}}. "Message" to me means sending a private message similar to other messaging services, which is obviously not what happens here. --Gonnym (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The templates don't have the same purpose: "new message" is specifically for user talk pages, where other users might indeed send messages to a particular user, whereas "new discussion" is a more generic link that might work with any page that has discussions on it. I don't see a compelling need to merge or replace here. Mz7 (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this particular merge per Mz7. However, {{new message}}, {{user new message}}, {{message}}, and {{leave message}} appear to serve the same purpose with only color, phrasing and minor functionality changes ({{new message}} creates a new section in the current page, {{User new message}} always goes to the User talk namespace, and the other two create the section in the associated talk namespace). They could probably be considered for merging in a separate discussion if this one closes as keep (if it's closed as merge instead, then they should all be merged for consistency).
Note that {{Message}} has 902 transclusions and {{User new message}} has 411, while {{New discussion}} has 237. –Sonicwave talk 23:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mz7 sums it up quite well. BTW there are no private messages on WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 23 August 2019 (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:The Who rock operas 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 2019 August 24. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:47, 24 August 2019 (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:Business in Australia 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 reduce scope. Feel free to renominate if you would still like to see the template deleted Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template is based on arbitrary criteria, not usual to how we create navboxes. In WP book, if company has an article then it should be in the related template, if any. Otherwise, specify criteria by using reliable source. To me, useless as navbox. Störm (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Störm, can you offer a bit more explanation? I couldn't understand what you meant by "if company has an article then it should be in the related template, if any. Otherwise, specify criteria by using reliable source." I literally don't know what those sentences mean. I do see that the navbox does not tick many of the criteria at WP:NAVBOX. But I also see that the capacity to have an overview of potentially related topics of interest could be lost if the template is simply deleted. other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, too broad in scope, which is probably why we don't have a parent article either. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just an indiscriminate collection of links. Ajf773 (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce scope to just the first three sections (Institutions, stock exchanges and business associations). The S&P50 has its own template and the other three categories have no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion in this or any other navbox. --Scott Davis Talk 10:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce scope per Scott. These sections are useful and the man deletion argument doesn't apply to these sections. --Trialpears (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2019 (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:Kerja di Australia 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 nominator — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly moved to template mainspace, perhaps as part of attempt to evade CSD. David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2019 (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).

T&P s-line templates 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused {{s-line}} templates for the Texas and Pacific Railway. Never (near as I can tell/remember) implemented. Any new implementation would need to be with {{Adjacent stations}}. There are two dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2019 (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:Campus Living Villages in Australia 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article link, not useful for navigation Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too many redlinks, the time for this navbox has not yet come. Maybe in the future though. Mujinga (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:20, 22 August 2019 (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:Gojoseon 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only four links, one of which is a redirect to another. Template provides little context and the three articles are all interlinked anyway. Seems unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too few links, especially when disregarding the redirect. --Trialpears (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2019 (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:2014 Japan Football League table 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:49, 19 August 2019 (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:Pp-meta 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 2019 August 24. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 24 August 2019 (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:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (American TV series) 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. czar 14:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navigates too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - season 1 does not have an article, so it navigates between the series and season 2. The two winners should not even be included in the navbox. TV series template do not include links to specific cast members, but for some reason reality series editors feel the need to add these links. --Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there isn't enough to justify a navbox presently. Mujinga (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2019 (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/2019_August_17&oldid=912327506"