Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 30

July 30

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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too large to be useful already and would balloon in size if actually populated fully. Arbitrary criteria for selection. There are many of these, all created by the same editor, many unused in the mainspace. If this nomination ends in deletion, I'll nominate the lot. They all suffer from arbitrary inclusion criteria, although this one is the worst in terms of size. ~ Rob13Talk 23:50, 30 July 2016 (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).
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, it appears as though this sort of thing is common place. Please feel free to renominate a larger group if you think two-use squad templates should be deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Didn't medal at the event, and usually we don't include "squad" navboxes for teams who don't medal. ~ Rob13Talk 20:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and fix the rosters articles). I wasn't aware that they were unused. That is fixed now; each template should normally be used in (at least) two articles: the GBR at the 2012 PG article, and the article on all rosters (men/women) (now created).
Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding here; these templates are not navboxes (used for navigating between players in the roster). They're convenience templates, as can be seen in the templates' noinclude sections, i.e. they're used to collect information used in more than one place in order to 1) economize editing, 2) reduce the size of main articles, 3) maintain uniform appearance and consistent information being displayed between articles.
See also Category:2012 Summer Olympics basketball team roster templates for the corresponding Olympic rosters of the same year, which happen to be complete. Rosters are notable information, regardless of whether teams medaled or not.
For the claim that we don't include squad navboxes for teams who don't medal, see for instance Category:UEFA Euro 2016 squad navigational boxes.
HandsomeFella (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2016 (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).
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, it appears as though this sort of thing is common place. Please feel free to renominate a larger group if you think two-use squad templates should be deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Australia national women's wheelchair basketball team - 2012 Summer Paralympics}}. Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 20:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and fix the rosters articles). See above. Not redundant, because one is a navbox (to be transcluded from player articles), and the other is a convenience template, to be transcluded in two articles, as described above. Not unused anymore since rosters articles (men/women) have been created. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2016 (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).
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 speedy deleted. ~ Rob13Talk 22:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and useless template that appears to attempt to duplicate another template. ~ Rob13Talk 20:43, 30 July 2016 (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).
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 speedy deleted. ~ Rob13Talk 22:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unused templates database report is now updated, so get ready for more of these, folks. Completely useless and unused template. ~ Rob13Talk 20:41, 30 July 2016 (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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, created in 2007. Single transclusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 30 July 2016 (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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template, while seemingly useful (and a reasonable navbox facsimile of {{Equivalent ranks of Indian military}}), fails a few of the navbox rules and is basically a giant Easter egg hunt; there is only one link here to a specific Indian Officer rank (Field Marshal). Everything else is just a link to a generic officer description. As such, it provides no useful navigation. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2016 (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).
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 relisted on 2016 August 7Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:43, 7 August 2016 (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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused template, presumably superseded by Template:List of minor planets/navigator, which was superseded by the more-functional Template:MinorPlanetListFooter. Template:List of asteroids/Helper redirects here, but has no transclusions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  01:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, since it's now obsolete and unused. Urhixidur (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2016 (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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused template superseded by the more-functional, well-documented Template:MinorPlanetListFooter. Template:List of asteroids/navigator redirects here, but has no transclusions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  01:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, since it's now obsolete and unused. Urhixidur (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2016 (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).