Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29 edit

Template:Grand Ducal Family of Tuscany 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This bulky navigational sidebar has dozens of living private citizens (WP:BLPNAME), likely including many minors, but only a total of five blue links. It also attributes defunct styles and titles to them that, depending on where they live, are illegal to claim. JoelleJay (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Talk:Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Bsherr (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pages for the former Austrian, Prussian, and Bavarian royal families have already been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:788B:B6C:51C3:6335 (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Same IP editor ad before, while I still support delete, given the removal of unlinked entries on some of the other templates mentioned, perhaps they should be deleted as well due to limited utility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:FCCF:3D85:383A:F998 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with only four names listed, it doesn't seem all that useful as a template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV-pushes the idea that this family is still royal, despite Italy being a republic (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 5 August 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).

ABS-CBN 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 per this discussion and prior discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't 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 ABS-CBN (original programming) for the original programming, and whilst that is also probably unnecessary, that should suffice. We don't have entire navboxes devoted to CBS drama series or ABC comedy shows, etc. This can all be dealt with by categories and lists. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CruzRamiss2002: You're not supposed to expect a consensus with just one vote before you. HiwilmsTalk 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am okay with the deletion because we already have numerous templates plus there is a devoted list page for it. — Nicco18 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicco18: Are the shows listed on these templates already on the List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN? Could you please help verify? Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 08:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hiwilms: Yes they are. All previous shows by the network are finally in one article.TheHotwiki (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hotwiki: Thank you for confirming. I couldn't really dedicate much time here at the moment since we only have 3 weeks remaining for this term/quarter. Maybe this could proceed as "delete", now that the target pages are already merged. HiwilmsTalk 11:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for these templates. There are already two articles for these – List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN and List of programs broadcast by Kapamilya Channel HiwilmsTalk 20:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The numerous similar templates for the shows of GMA Network were deleted last year. So these templates should be deleted as well.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't find these templates helpful at all. Looking at WP:NAVBOX, these fail 3 out of 5 of the guidelines: They don't refer to each other; except for the drama template, none have an article on the subject (List of ABS-CBN drama series) and almost no read will be looking to jump from Hiwaga sa Bahay na Bato to Love Thy Woman. Additionally, these templates become huge and offer no real value (as plain text and references shouldn't be in it), while the list article should be used to give context. Also, there is also {{ABS-CBN (original programming)}}, which means that these templates don't list original programming, if that is the case, then the content itself is questionable. --Gonnym (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and agree with Gonnym on WP:NAVBOX guidelines; subject of each navbox isn't established independently -- AquaDTRS (talk) 19:19, 2 August 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:Fbml 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) 13:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template family is for making a football match lineup which is usually done using normal wikitables. In fact the templates are only used on one page (2016 Kenyan Super Cup). I asked at WT:FOOTY if we should start using templates here or not and the one person who responded at the time of writing this did not think so. I'm happy to defer to people who are actually writing football articles though. --Trialpears (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: {{Football match line-up kits}} has a few more transclusions than the one mentioned above, but since it's just a wrapper for {{Football kit}} there would be no issues with substituting this one. If anyone thinks discussion on this should be split from the others feel free to do so. --Trialpears (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not used and I see no point when standard wiki table formatting suffices. GiantSnowman 20:09, 29 July 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:DYKED 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost certain this is not being used or someone would have noticed that it has been broken since 29 September 2016. Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 29 July 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_29&oldid=971510096"