Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11

edit

Template:Hay and Stone

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. ~ RobTalk 01:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nav box for a band that did not meet notability and the article was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay and Stone. As such, the template navigates a topic with no article. Whpq (talk) 17:40, 11 March 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).

Template:ColtsFirstPick

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 relisted here. Izkala (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if these and all the NFL first-round picks by team templates are excessive. There are also templates for first-round picks by draft year and separate templates for, in this case, all of the Colts picks by draft year so the same person comes up in three different templates. Categories would be different but it seems excessive that Don McCauley is in Template:1971 NFL Draft (1971 first round), Template:Colts1971DraftPicks (being on the far left, intuitively is the first pick which is generally first round) and in this template. Not every team has a template for each year of picks so I'm just starting with this one template and trying to see if there's a consensus on whether all three are appropriate. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Honestly a template for each draft year for a team seems the most obnoxious. Looking at it as a reader I can't imagine very many people would even care about which Colts were drafted in 1971, let alone use the template. Lizard (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find these to be useful. Template:Colts1971DraftPicks and similar ones I don't have a strong opinion on and I don't really use, but the first round ones by team should stay.--Yankees10 23:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yankees10. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of a situation in which someone would want to navigate to another first round draft pick only because they were a first round draft pick, and even if some obscure situations exist, they're not frequent enough to justify the navbox cruft. ~ RobTalk 01:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT. No good reason to have this cluttering things up. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This TFD nomination is flawed. There needed to be a discussion at WP:NFL first about whether these templates should exist or not. Not enough users from the project are voting and i'm guessing some don't even realize this is here. Randomly nominating just the Colts one makes no sense. If this is deleted it will be the only team of 32 not to have this type of template.--Yankees10 20:47, 6 April 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_11&oldid=1138532813"