Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13

Template:Science commemorative events

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, and the discussion has stagnated. Feel free to renominate it if you would still like to see it deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Science commemorative events (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Incoherent topic. Fails WP:NAVBOX. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep As creator, I don't understand how it fails WP:NAVBOX: These topics make sense together: they are events that are public-ally focused, and are meant to celebrate and commemorate scientific achievements. I don't understand how the topic is incoherent.Sadads (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet any of points 1-5. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the thing: it meets all but #4 in my mind; you provide no explanation of how it doesn't meet 1-3. When I first created the navbox, most of them were linking to eachother in see also sections, so minimally the navbox meets 5. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. Should be "Commemorative science events" or "Commemorative events for science" to be more coherent. — Wylie pedia 09:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These topics are not really linked together. It's rather a grab bag. "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." - This isn't the case. Neutrality^talk 19:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to just use a category or a list article. Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2015 (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.

Large metropolitan area roads templates

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) 02:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Metro Detroit Freeways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Denver highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Atlanta expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Baltimore Metropolitan Area Roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Boston Road Transportation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chicagoland expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cleveland freeways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates should be deleted because they are not necessary in articles—Categories are sufficient for organizing these links—and because they cause problems with tracking what pages link where. Many of these templates have been deleted recently, starting with the Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, here, and here. V C 01:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Rs chen 7754 02:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per past precedent. While you're at it you should have nominated {{Philadelphia Road Transportation}}. Dough4872 03:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These templates are useful for readers navigating to related articles. Categories are not as reader-friendly. The guideline WP:CLN states that they complement each other, and neither can replace the other. I also agree with the other points in that guideline. Guidelines should supercede any prior precedents, as guideline reflect the views of a wider group of editors. I also note that none of the precdents listed above, cited the guideline WP:CLN. For that reason, they should all be re-examined for un-deletion. — Lentower (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying that every category should have a corresponding navbox template? --Rs chen 7754 04:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course not, and why is your question relevant to this consensus? — Lentower (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NENAN. And as long as we're citing things from WP:CLN, how about "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." (emphasis added) --Rs chen 7754 04:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As per all my previous votes. I know that the smaller area boxes have been deleted, but the large ones should be kept. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedents. Imzadi 1979 → 05:43, 14 June 2015 (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.

Template:Infobox tennis player season 2

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 already merged by nom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tennis player season 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox tennis player season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox tennis player season 2 with Template:Infobox tennis player season.
Gender fork; Davis/Fed Cup can simply be made a switch. Alakzi (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
already done? Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2015 (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.