Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

February 24 edit

Template:High Desert Yardbirds 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:High Desert Yardbirds roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

team is defunct, so there is no current roster Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no longer necessary. Pozzi.c (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2020 (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:Attempting school wikibreak 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:Atschool. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attempting school wikibreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Atschool}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – similar to the above: {{Attempting school wikibreak}} is actually the better version of the two. I'd advocate merging the latter into the former (i.e. merging into {{Attempting school wikibreak}}). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @IJBall: You seem to want to merge not keep; but {{Atschool}} has far greater fucntonality, and more use-cases, than the nominated template. What exactly is it about the latter (wording, style, image, etc.) is it that you wish to retain? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{Attempting school wikibreak}} is the better-looking and better-worded version. No matter what, the final version should be based on the look of {{Attempting school wikibreak}}... And what I'm saying is – if one of these has to go, I'd be in favor of keeping {{Attempting school wikibreak}} over {{Atschool}}. Otherwise, I'd favor merging the latter into the former. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, note that {{Attempting school wikibreak}} has 57 transclusions, while {{Atschool}} has 466. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{Atschool}}. I have tried to create a mish-mash between the two templates on my userspace. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{Atschool}} - Per Soumyabrata. Analog Horror, (Speak) 16:10, 14 March 2020 (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:Keir Starmer 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keir Starmer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

provides no navigation Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Created too soon in the hopes that Starmer would become Labour leader. ミラ P 23:11, 3 March 2020 (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:Keir Starmer sidebar 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) DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keir Starmer sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard biography template, conflating navbox, infobox and article ToC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, only used in one article, so not really why we have sidebars. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2020 (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:No orbit for payload 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. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No orbit for payload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~Redundant~~ Unnecessary because ~~the {{infobox rocket}} does not have "apogee", "perigee", or "inclination" parameters as described on the nominated template~~ we do not want to make too specific about the payload capacity of a launch vehicle. Only used by two articles (Ariane 1, Ariane 4). Delete. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Redundant" is not the right word for what you mean; that doesn't just mean unnecessary, it means repetitious. It is irrelevant that Infobox rocket doesn't have apogee, perigee, or inclination parameters; these need to be entered manually on the Payload parameter lines. The fact remains, lack of these specified for a given payload makes the payload meaningless (especially for higher Earth orbits). The tag is quite necessary to bring this to the attention of careless editors. Also, how many articles use the tag is an irrelevant argument to whether or not the tag should exist. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With your argument, there are plenty of articles (Soyuz FG, Space Shuttle, etc), where this tag is necessary. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am testing my proposed parameters of {{Infobox rocket/payload}} on my sandbox. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:55, 26 February 2020 (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 Zealand 2006 Tri Nations squad 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) DannyS712 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand 2006 Tri Nations squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is a general consensus that navboxes should only be used for national teams' squads for major tournaments like the World Cup, where a limited squad has to be named in accordance with the tournament regulations; there are no such squad requirements for the Tri-Nations. – Pee Jay 09:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (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:2002 Crusaders rugby team 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) DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2002 Crusaders rugby team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While it is impressive that this team went an entire season without being defeated, there is no reason to have a navbox to link between the members of the squad. If necessary, create a 2002 Crusaders season article, but a navbox like this is overkill. – Pee Jay 09:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (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:2011 Eastern Province Kings Currie Cup squad 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) DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 Eastern Province Kings Currie Cup squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no particular reason why the 2011 Eastern Province Kings' squad should be recorded in this way. If a historical record is needed of their season, I suggest an article along the lines of 2011 Eastern Province Kings season is created. – Pee Jay 09:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (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).

2013 Super Rugby Promotion/Relegation 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) DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2013 Lions Super Rugby Promotion / Relegation squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2013 Kings Super Rugby Promotion / Relegation squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see no reason why the squads for a promotion/relegation play-off should be linked in this way. Navboxes should be reserved for clubs' current squads and any national team squads for a major tournament such as the Rugby World Cup. This is neither of those. – Pee Jay 09:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (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 Eastern Province Kings incoming tours squad 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) DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2014 Eastern Province Kings incoming tours squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The hosting sides for a tour do not need to be linked like this; not even the touring side should have a navbox like this except in exceptional circumstances. – Pee Jay 08:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (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).

2012 South African Barbarians 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) DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 South African Barbarians (North) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012 South African Barbarians (South) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These squads are not sufficiently prominent to warrant their own navboxes. The South African Barbarians are a sporadic team with no regular opponents, and selection for an invitational side is only particularly noteworthy in special circumstances. – Pee Jay 08:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (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).