Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 7 July 9 >

July 8 edit

Template:KK Olimpija current roster 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) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Club abolished its first team and merged into a newly-founded club KK Cedevita Olimpija, so template not needed anymore. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 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:Alli Fitz 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) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the template items has an article and it's proposed for deletion at the moment. ... discospinster talk 15:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Navbox guidelines. BLAIXX 15:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Provides zero navigation. --woodensuperman 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one link that will probably no longer be an article is not enough to justify having a navigational template and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 06:12, 9 July 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:Netflix original current 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply too big to be useful. Subjects such as this are not really good candidates for navigation boxes, as navigation between articles in this manner is unlikely. Best left for categories and lists. Deletion already had reasonable support when navbox was split, and navbox has grown since then. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 26#Template:Netflix original series. Also see similar discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 27#Template:Netflix films and documentaries. --woodensuperman 15:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've said this many times before, but studios should not have a navbox for everything they've produced or broadcast as while some might a handful, others, like TV studio/broadcaster ABC or film studios like MGM will have an enormous list which doesn't even serve any purpose as people reading about a 2019 TV series won't care about a series from the 1950s (or even from 2 years ago). These lists should be exactly that - list articles. I'd also support the deletion of the other templates in the Netflix set. --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep If it's too big, then split it, don't simply delete it. I personally think that simply deleting content is the disruptive path to go, not the constructive way. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not destroy it. This template itself came from a split from Template:Netflix original series, which it originally had 278 articles linked in its final state pre-split, where it then created the five separate templates (Template:Netflix original current series, Template:Netflix original continuation series, Template:Netflix original ended series, Template:Netflix specials, Template:Netflix original upcoming series). This can be seen from the first link discussion, where there was clearly no consensus to delete it but a firm consensus to split it, so clearly a statement that there was "reasonable support" to do so is false.
The situation is identical here; the template currently links 207 articles (about 75% of the original template). There is also no reasonable reason to delete the other Netflix templates other than for personal reasons and views. I therefore propose a split of this template by year; split the template into 2016 and before, and then by yearly releases, providing the same format in four smaller and more manageable templates. -- /Alex/21 03:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 5 calls for delete out of the 12 !votes could easily be considered "reasonable support" (the same number as split, as it happens). Note the statement by the closer: "After the split occurs there is no prejudice against nomination of the template(s) for deletion, mostly based on recent consensus to delete similar templates and the (completely valid) "delete" arguments against this type of template". To split this navbox by year is a ridiculous suggestion - this reduces further the little navigation benefit there currently is. What are the chances that someone wants to use a navbox to navigate between all the Netflix shows that premiered in a certain year? This is functionality for a category or a list, not a navbox. --woodensuperman 08:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You think, yes. You know, no. If there was "reasonable support" to delete it, it would have been deleted. It was not. A comment above was people reading about a 2019 TV series won't care about a series from the 1950s. The proposed suggestion fixes this issue. Again, I suggest that you should always look for the constructive path: We are here to build an encyclopedia, not destroy it. My !vote remains thus, and will not be changed, as I see no citings of policies that would directly prevent the creation of such templates. -- /Alex/21 10:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would have been deleted if there was consensus to delete. That doesn't mean that there wasn't reasonable support for the deletion, which is why the closer mentioned the possibility of a re-nom in the lede. And yes, we are here to build an encyclopedia: deletion of useless navbox clutter is constructive and supports that aim. --woodensuperman 10:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting on I personally think that simply deleting content is the disruptive path to go, not the constructive way. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not destroy it - this isn't content, it's a tool. No actual content would be lost from its deletion. --Gonnym (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely useful. I disagree that navigation between articles in this manner is unlikely -- I'm just one user, but I do it all the time. But, per Alex 21, could support a split. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 17:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A split is possible in the near future. --Landingdude13 (user talk) 10:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per reasons above. Movies Time (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:TVGUIDE. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Frietjes, can you quote what part of TVGUIDE is violated here? Note that TVGUIDE is related to articles, not navboxes and templates. -- /Alex/21 02:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Split, if necessary. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other streaming services have similar templates, why should Netflix not have a series template? Virin1009 (talk) 17:40, 15 July 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:2010–11 Prva HNL 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) 23:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:10, 9 July 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:Recipients of the John B. Fenn Award for a Distinguished Contribution in Mass Spectrometry 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) 00:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Distinguished Contribution in Mass Spectrometry Award has been renamed in honour of John B. Fenn. However, instead of renaming (moving) the existing Template:Recipients of the Distinguished Contribution in Mass Spectrometry Award, a wikipedian has created a new template. In my view this creates confusion and double work. I think the new template "Recipients of the John B. Fenn Award for a Distinguished Contribution in Mass Spectrometry" should be deleted and the old template "Recipients of the Distinguished Contribution in Mass Spectrometry Award" renamed (moved) (the new name "Recipients of the John B. Fenn Award for a Distinguished Contribution in Mass Spectrometry" is correct), because most recipients have a link to this (older) template. Ileresolu (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete new one. I'm also not opposed to deleting the old one, as (a) there isn't an article for John B. Fenn Award and (b) even American Society for Mass Spectrometry does not have a list of winners so the navbox list is pure WP:OR. First create the article, then create the navbox, not the other way around. --Gonnym (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • if I may, the navbox is based on the source of the official ASMS website. Does it add value to copy and paste this page in a wiki article (prize and/or list of recipients), more than this (convenient and elegant in my eyes) navbox ? Ileresolu (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The navbox has zero value and may subject to TfD for failing WP:V as it is based on nothing and does not show WP:N by having a stand-alone article. Look at the templates for awards, from big and famous to smaller ones, they all have an article that has a table for the winners at the minimum. Better ones have an article per award. This does not even have an award article, so fails WP:N (and if it isn't notable, why would a list of the winners be?). If someone would nominate this template atm, I'd vote to delete it based on that. --Gonnym (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • With respect to WP:N, WP:V, TfD, atm and the like, I would like to refer to the Wikiquette: "Do not use jargon that others might not understand." The statement "navbox has zero value" expresses your opinion, but is certainly not shared by the wikipedians involved in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mass_spectrometry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ileresolu (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is the same award [1]. The original template should be moved to a new name to replace "the Distinguished" with "a Distinguished" and add Fenn's name. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3 as substantial duplication. --woodensuperman 10:20, 9 July 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:Byomkesh Bakshi in other media 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 T3 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The template is very well accommodated in Template:Byomkesh Bakshi already. Duplication is not needed and hence should be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:53, 8 July 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_July_8&oldid=906459771"