Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 13

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

February 13 edit

Template:Black Sabbath (album) 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With only four links, this brings no additional benefit to navigation than what Template:Black Sabbath already does. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:32, 13 February 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:GTMO-phone 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete - Another Guantanamo Bay template. Whatever its original justification, it has now lost its purpose. Only used in 1 article. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 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:Uyghur detainee 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaces article prose with a transcluded template. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete - Whatever its original justification, it has now lost its purpose. It starts "He is one of approximately two dozen Uyghur captives accused by security officials of membership ..." but is only used in 2 articles. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 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).

National football team squad navboxes 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long established consensus on WP:FOOTY and past TfD discussions (example here and here) to only have international squad navigational boxes for the men and women's: World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition. None of these five tournament navboxes meet that criteria. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:02, 13 February 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:DetroitMetroCensusPop 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 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:Defunct Airlines of Russia 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:Airlines of Russia. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Defunct Airlines of Russia with Template:Airlines of Russia.
Unnecessary duplication. Airlines of Russia template has a defunct section. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 13 February 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).

GMA navboxes 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to use navboxes to list every single show that has ever been produced by a network. Connection between the series are generally tangential. We have {{GMA Network (current and upcoming original programming)}} for the current programming, and whilst that is also probably unnecessary, that should suffice. We don't have entire navboxes devoted to BBC drama series or ABC sitcoms, etc, etc. This can all be dealt with by categories and lists. --woodensuperman 14:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easy navigation for shows under the same genre that aired in thesame network.TheHotwiki (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've always thought those templates are a great example of "what not to do". If we look at WP:NAVBOX, while these templates do tick #1 and #2, they fail miserably at #3, #4 and #5. The articles do not refer to each other in most cases; There isn't an article on the subject of the template (no GMA variety shows, GMA talk shows etc.); and there would be never a reason to link to many of these in a "See also" section, as readers aren't likely to use that to navigate to other shows on that network. I'd also say that the "main" templates of this type, such as {{GMA Network (current and upcoming original programming)}}, are also bad templates. There is a reason there aren't templates for film studios, as those lists would become giant pointless lists. No idea why people feel TV is different. --Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have List of programs broadcast by GMA Network and List of programs aired by GMA Network (not sure why we need both). Also List of GMA Network drama series. However these are all lists of TV programmes, only loosely connected (i.e. broadcast on the same channel). Surely there's no point having a template which simply replicates these lists. Nigej (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the leads, "List of programs broadcast" is for current airing programs, while "List of programs aired" is for previous airing. However, both of those should only list original (first-run) programs, and not everything that once aired, but that is for a different discussion venue. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it will be confused to all if this will be deleted and merged into one, and its kinda messy to find if this will merged into one. That's why it make all of those navboxes so that the viewers of this encyclopedia will know how to see. It is very easy to find separately, but it's up to you to decide. My decision is 50/50. Movies Time (talk) 13:27, 17 February 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:Artista Academy 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough relevant links to warrant a navbox --woodensuperman 14:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Just two links in the template. The template appears in two other articles even though the template does not mention them and those two articles do not mention Artista Academy either. Seems the template was intended to expand but the program only ran for 1 series. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 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).

Fuji Television drama 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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE --woodensuperman 13:47, 13 February 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:Nippon TV Sui'yō Dorama 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE --woodensuperman 13:41, 13 February 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:Nippon TV drama 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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navbox used for templates and has 3 links, with 1 of them not even using this template on its article page (as it isn't a template). 2 links don't really need a template and a "See also" can be enough. Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A template than has no links in main space, just two in other templates. Templates in templates. All too complex. Not enough links anyway. Nigej (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 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:TheFinalBall 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per a request at the Administrator's noticeboard here as the template is protected. Deletion of the source on which the template is based is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TheFinalBall. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • To expand my deletion reasoning, it's a user generated site, and not a reliable source. As such, we shouldn't have a template directing Wiki readers to this unreliable site. Which is the same reason we deleted the Transfermarkt template a few years ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: at least in the case of Portuguese (or Portugal-based sportspeople for a long period of time), it's quite informative. I do agree it's not to be used as a reference in an article (i.e. in body of text) as it is user-generated, but as a harmless external link it provides useful information.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not a reliable source as it is user-generated. Compare it to Transfermarkt (a similar user-generated site) which was determined not to be a RS here and whose own template was deleted here. It should not even be used as an external link. GiantSnowman 15:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete should be rare used because it is a unreliable source Hhkohh (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as an external link (it's main use on the pages) it is harmless and provides more information than most websites. There is a reason Quite A Character writes about the Portuguese reality, it's probably our main way of seeing the players clubs, stats and other informations. Only then we complete the info with references. Again, we use it as an external link, please consider keeping it. Blahhh23 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the logic and previous consensus to delete the Transfermarkt template. There is nothing wrong with editors using the site as a resource to generate background info on a player, but we don't actually need to link to it in order to do that. The presence of the link sends a signal that it's an acceptable reference. It isn't. Nzd (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nzd. Not a reliable source. Does not warrant inclusion in such a regularised way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gives a misleading impression of official Wikipedia community support for links to an unreliable source. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Finalball is a major source for Portuguese sports articles, and removing it is a nightmare to replace, if not impossible. I used it for it's intended porpouse, to reliably show the statistics of a player. I can't tell who inserts the stats, but the whole website is owned by ZOS,Lda, in Porto. They also provide news and bets. Knowing wikipedia, the decision is already made, and having two featured articles who rely on finalball for it's recent players stats, it's my problem to replace it per wp:burden. Just hope someday, other user generated stats sites used in featured articles like www.stretfordend.co.uk or www.lfchistory.net, will get the same destiny.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ForaDeJogo is a decent alternative to zerozero. SLBedit (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
StretfordEnd is an official website. LFCHistory may or may not be considered a reliable source by the community (we can have that conversation elsewhere if you'd like), but I don't agree that it's user-generated in the same way that TFB/ZeroZero is. "I can't tell who inserts the stats" is the key point here. In testing, I was able to create an account, submit a data change without having to cite a source, and have that change accepted within around 20 minutes. Whether anything was done by TFB to verify my change before accepting it is unclear. This is what makes the site unreliable. Nzd (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If any registered user can edit it, then it's not reliable. SLBedit (talk) 17:34, 20 February 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 Dream Makers 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only three links. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The three links relate to the three articles where the template is used, Not needed since each of the three has a "see also" section mentioning the other two, as well as mentioning them elsewhere in the article. Nigej (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 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:Star Awards for Young Talent 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only two recipients have articles. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:32, 13 February 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:Trolleybus systems 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, this navbox is effectively redundant to Category:Trolleybus systems by city and Category:Defunct trolleybus systems by city (and to some degree List of trolleybus systems), thus violating the template namespace guideline that "Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or 'See also' section list can perform the same function." Second, the subject is too broad. As stated in the articles Trolleybus and Trolleybus usage by country (with references), there are approximately 300 existing trolleybus systems around the world, and more than 500 defunct systems have existed in the past. This template misleadingly lists only a fraction of the systems its title covers, but if it were to list all of them, more than 80% would be red links (the two categories mentioned above show that WP articles exist for about 150 of the 800 systems) – with the vast majority not likely ever to receive articles. Even among just the approx. 300 existing trolleybus systems, only around 80 have Wikipedia articles, a large number of which are stubs, mostly created in 2011 and never significantly expanded in the eight years since. Russia alone has around 85 existing systems, and almost none of them have Wikipedia articles. The template misleadingly lists only one Russian system (Moscow, and that single-sentence stub is not actually about the trolleybus system), but if it were to list the others, it would mean an additional 80+ red links in a template already replete with red links. SJ Morg (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not contest the criteria for deletion. Under the template namespace guideline cited above, the following templates are also effectively redundant and should be considered for deletion as well:
There may be others, but the three cited above were part of the reason that I believed this was a relatively uncontroversial addition. The Trolleybus systems template was created as a means to more quickly navigate between related articles. It is cumbersome to jump into the category or list article, then select a specific article covering a city, especially when the main list article has sub-main articles covering specific countries; however, as noted above, this template does not meet the criteria and I will not contest the request for deletion. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better to navigate by category for something this large. Frietjes (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too large to be effective as a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:48, 20 February 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:Numtext 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:Number to word. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Numtext with Template:Number to word.
They are completely redundant to each other. They do the same thing and use the same module and function! Template:Number to word should be kept due to the more descriptive name and higher usage (475 vs. 135). Could someone kindly tag the templates as I don't think I'm allowed to. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 05:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect Most of the Numtext usage is in old editions of WP:SIGNPOST. eg "Twenty-two featured articles were promoted." (compare: "Twenty-two featured articles were promoted." using Number to word). Redirect is less effort and probably effective. Nigej (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or just replace, if there really is nothing to merge) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Templates weren't tagged until now. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:19, 18 February 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:Younger 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links; fails the WP:NENAN rule of thumb of five links. -- /Alex/21 03:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article Lizability has been created for episode 60 of Younger (TV series) (currently the last episode). The previous 59 episodes do not have articles. As such the template is useless. Nigej (talk) 08:44, 13 February 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_February_13&oldid=884331234"