Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 24

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Types of cooperatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FA Cup Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used anywhere in the mainspace that I can tell, only covers a few of the winners (up to the end of the 1910s...). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:15, 25 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb bg blank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not needed. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2002–03 Honduran Liga Nacional squads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally unclear what is the meaning of this template. The clubs should have their own team templates, so this should fork with them. Even then this template is hopelessly incomplete. The Banner talk 13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:14, 25 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Jason (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per consensus, actors and acting roles are not included in navboxes. As this navbox cannot be reduced (as they are all acting or similar roles) it should be deleted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Amenta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - "See Also" sections are more difficult to maintain than navboxes. Also, the navboxes for Sonny Throckmorton and WFAHM were kept with four links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:34, 24 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jerry Jeff Walker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - What a long article does, is makes it more difficult to find links within it (especially if there is no navbox within the article). A navbox makes the links much more conspicuous. If wikilinking is the solution, then why do we have navboxes at all? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This is one of those borderline cases that Jax has become so good at. I tried to compare this to such navboxes for {{David Lee Roth}} and {{Lionel Richie}}, which are not included in the articles for Van Halen and Commodores, respectively. The difference is that those bands have their own navboxes while Circus Maximus doesn't (nor does it need one). For related articles and the rule of five, I usually ask myself "Would readers benefit from this navbox being included in the related article?", as opposed to just saying they don't count. Of course, Jax would say the answer is "yes" for every case; but while I don't see any need to include it in Django Walker or H.R. Stoneback, I think it would be reasonable based on the content to include it in the Circus Maximus article. This doesn't mean the other two articles should be removed from the template, just that I wouldn't add it to those articles. I hope that's not too confusing. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on this one. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.