Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 20

< May 19	May 21 >

May 20

Template:2017 bowl game navbox

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 2017 May 27. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017 bowl game navbox (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).

Template:Deaf cricket

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 per author approval Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deaf cricket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to merit a navbox. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand the fact that I couldn't able to provide sources like cricinfo. I accept this deletion nomination. User:Abishe (talk)

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:2017 AUDL season

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 per author request Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017 AUDL season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too many redlinks. The creator of this template appears to be creating more pages, but given that there aren't any other Ultimate seasons, I'm doubtful those pages will be sticking around. Basically, pages first, template later. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient navigation. Templates should not be used as "guides" for future article creation. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah I got a bit ahead of myself making this! Ult580 (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2017 (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:Estonian recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Estonian recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 20th Waffen GD as all of the names on the template under discussion appear on the other template. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not necessary and not part of a series. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:35, 24 May 2017 (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:People associated with Pink Floyd

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:People associated with Pink Floyd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Pink Floyd}}, to which any missing names should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Conditional delete (do not merge back into {{Pink Floyd}}) The Pink Floyd template is ridiculously big - bigger than any other artist navbox I've ever seen. The template is not redundant; its purpose is no different from {{People associated with The Beatles}}, which is to clear up space for the main navbox. There should be additional splits for {{Pink Floyd singles}} and {{Pink Floyd filmography and videography}}.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and trim from {{Pink Floyd}} as some are only tangentially related. As one example, consider the body of work that Storm Thorgerson has produced. Per WP:UNDUE {{Pink Floyd}} should not be so prominent on his article, but to include others causes WP:TEMPLATECREEP. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thorgerson is highly relevant to Pink Floyd, and vice versa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but he is also highly relevant to a lot of other artists too. It puts WP:UNDUE weight on his work for Pink Floyd to only include him in the {{Pink Floyd}} navbox, and it would be unmanageable and inappropriate to include him in all the other navboxes too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given his relationship to, and his whole carer's dependence upon, Pink Floyd, that emphasis is far from undue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- excessive & borders on "fancruft". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excessive. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:35, 24 May 2017 (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:La Reine Margot

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 May 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia: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 per majority view that the navigation provided is redundant to navigation provided by {{Alexandre Dumas}}.. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:La Reine Margot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of the "characters" originate from the novel, and are in fact real-life historical people. Therefore navbox is only transcluded on five articles, four of which are included at {{Alexandre Dumas}}, rendering the navigational benefit of this navbox negligible. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I recall, in general the minimum number of blue links for a subject to be considered a valid template subject is 3. Even without the characters, this subject clearly has three relevant blue links. I am not familiar with a limit to a reason to discount historical characters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These relevant blue links are included at {{Alexandre Dumas}}, which renders the navigational benefit of this navbox negligible. As far as the characters go, only characters which Dumas originated should be included. Historical characters could turn up in lots of works. Imagine if Queen Victoria or Abraham Lincoln were included in every navbox for every fictitious work they showed up in, for example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical characters belong in the navbox although the navbox does not belong on their pages. You have been shown to not be in the majority in regard to this dichotomy in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, and no I haven't. And to not transclude a navbox on a page doesn't allow a navbox to perform in its usual navigational capacity. --14:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Robsinden I think what you are saying is that you have tried over and over again to have WP:BIDIRECTIONAL expanded to support your claim that subjects like historical characters should only be included in templates if the template is included in that historical character article and that over and over again this has not been supported and you don't understand that it has not been supported and thus still believe yourself to be correct even though you are not allowed to include such language in BIDIRECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, this is a navbox, not an infobox, so unless it provides navigation, it shouldn't be here. Linking to the historical characters can be done from the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robsinden, Isn't that the same argument that you have made in your repeated unsuccessful attempts to expand WP:BIDERECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, navigation is redundant to navigation already provided in {{Alexandre Dumas}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Frietjes are you saying all the historical character content should be removed against the repeated consensus regarding WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - TonyTheTiger, no, currently, this navbox is transcluded on Alexandre Dumas, La Reine Margot (1994 film), La reine Margot – Soundtrack, La Reine Margot (1954 film), and La Reine Margot (novel). all but one of those (the soundtrack) transcludes Template:Alexandre Dumas. so either (a) add the sound track article to Template:Alexandre Dumas, or (b) realize that the soundtrack is already well-connected to La Reine Margot (1994 film) and only tangentially related. Frietjes (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Frietjes Doesn't that ignore that this template provides navigation to a whole bunch of historical figures. You state that this template's navigation is redundant to that provided elsewhere, but you seem to ignore the historical characters in order to make this point.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tony, it doesn't provide navigation between those historical figures - that's my point above (and the first line of WP:NAVBOX). They will be linked from the article(s) if they are relevant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - one-way navigation to historical figures should be provided by the articles, or how else would mobile users find the links. Frietjes (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe these new explanations can carry the day at your next attempt to revamp WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not necessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:35, 24 May 2017 (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:Patience tracks

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patience tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not necessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:35, 24 May 2017 (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:7 Days of Funk track listing

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:7 Days of Funk track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only connects two articles Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not necessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Navigation provided in {{Snoop Dogg songs}}. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:50, 24 May 2017 (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:Wikispecies redirect

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 2017 May 27. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikispecies redirect (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).