Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 23
September 23
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 Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Automata theory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The color is distracting, it's not obvious that it's clickable and it does not add anything not already listed in Template:Formal languages and grammars. If deleted, the image should probably be deleted as well. Cic (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The template isn't redundant to Template:Formal languages and grammars, which is an order of magnitude larger in terms of listed entries, can't fit in the lede of an article, and doesn't contain the helpful illustrative image. This template is integral to the lede structure in the five articles it transcludes on, so at the least this discussion should be listed on the talk pages of these articles. If that doesn't happen, I'd suggest a procedural speedy keep, and if it does – provisional keep per my reasons above. Uanfala (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 16:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I agree mostly with what Uanfala says. The colours I don't see as particularly irritating , and the cool, but very old way of pulling you between the hierarchy I find refreshing. I wish we had more of it on WP. These five article would need double worked, why?, to recreate the hierarchy. Keep. Scope creep (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Capital Kings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
A navigation template for a band with six articles seems hardly necessary, particularly when nearly every article has a link to the others already (primary topic and discography do; album articles link to at least one and usually two of the album articles) Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Navbox has at least 5 links, four of which do not connect to all of the other articles. This is the exact purpose of a navbox, to connect related articles that would not otherwise be connected for an ensemble that is still producing music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 16:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- keep, connects six articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Daily Politics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No cast and crew in navboxes. See WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
No cast and crew in navboxes. See WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete pretty much all this content can already be inferred in List of BBC newsreaders and reporters and the respective BBC News articles. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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 October 5 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Pygmalion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:My Fair Lady (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- 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 delete. REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Template:.io games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Useless. WP:NENAN. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Although many .io games are similar in nature, there are also other games hosted on the .io TLD that are vastly different. Therefore this template is not representitive of the ".io games".
- 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).