Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

December 24

Template:Vietnam's Got Talent

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) 05:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnam's Got Talent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I recently removed all the non-navigable items from this template, and was left with just two links plus the main article. Therefore should be deleted as being unnecessary. –anemone projectors– 23:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2014 (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:Your Face Sounds Familiar

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) 05:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Your Face Sounds Familiar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one navigable link here plus the main article. Unnecessary template. –anemone projectors– 23:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More links/information should be added soon as the second season will come in spring 2014. Dimitris ♪ (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would be added? A link to season 2? That would still only be two links plus the main article. If the presenter and judges had articles then it would be a better template. –anemone projectors– 11:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (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:Angel Haze

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) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel Haze (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following my cleanup of this article (removing non-navigable items), only one link plus the main article remain. Unnecessary template. –anemone projectors– 23:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (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:Tania Foster

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) 02:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tania Foster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following my cleanup of this article (removing non-navigable items), only two links plus the main article remain. Unnecessary template. –anemone projectors– 23:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is really considered improper to empty a template or category before nominating it for deletion. You should have left the links and then nominated it. At the same time saying why you think certain links shouldn't be there....William 14:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a while ago when I did it, and I did so by following guidelines. I didn't remove links because I thought it should be deleted. Here is how it looked before I found it. Shining Star isn't an article so doesn't belong in navigation. "SupaWoman" redirects to Tania Foster so doesn't belong in navigation. I removed the other links because of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL - the template was not included on those pages, and they are only "related articles" anyway. That leaves just two valid links, not necessary for a navbox. –anemone projectors– 11:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (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:Celebrity sports participation television programmes

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) 05:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Celebrity sports participation television programmes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. A navbox for unrelated teleivsion programmes. –anemone projectors– 23:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete well, they are connected, in that they are all UK programmes, but that is not how the navbox is titled. Still doesn't serve any useful purpose. --NSH002 (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2013 (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:English Heritage List entry

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 the short version, now that the two have been merged. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English Heritage List entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:English Heritage List entry - short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:English Heritage List entry with Template:English Heritage List entry - short.
Merge these very similar templates Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the short version does not actually appear to be used in any articles, why not just delete it.--DavidCane (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right - as the short one is to an external website, as academic as it is, it should be with a full descriptor like the other one (which editors such as you and I rightly actually use so as not to offend WP:ORG and not to mislead people).- Adam37 Talk 14:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The idea of having just one obviously makes sense, and if the short one is unused then why not just delete it?

I would say this could be done speedily with no further discussion! --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (apologies for the further discussion) but with reservations. The short seems to give no note of the source so is pretty lacking, but at least it's immediately easy to see what the subject of the link is if you are scanning down the refs, unlike the long version - I can't see the reason for having the 'English Heritage' at the front - perhaps it should move after the place description as publisher, as typical in cites, just like the PastScape template. Perhaps the opportunity to remove the short version can be used to look at the long one too. Acabashi (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear whether the long version is intended for use in references, or in external links sections, or both. Perhaps remodelling to look more like, say, {{OpenCorp}} would help? Or adding a switch to allow editors to choose the format? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last comment by Acabashi. At present, used as a reference, it doesn't have a publisher, which it should have. The publisher is English Heritage, and using it at the front (it is, I understand, identifying EH as a "co-author" or something) is IMO a mistake. It also caused me mega-trouble at FLC when EH was used in some references as the publisher, and in others as the "author". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I think there is consensus on this. Can we just do it now? Every article that uses this template is showing the message The template below (English Heritage List entry) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. which can make them rather difficult to read. Hallucegenia (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Sorry to break with consensus, but I can see a potential use for {{English Heritage List entry - short}} on "List of public art in..." pages (e.g. List of public art in Birmingham) in the designation field of {{Public art row}}, or the equivalent field in ones that don't use the template such as List of public art in the City of Westminster. The text displayed could be Grade I, Grade II* or Grade II as appropriate. It seems to me like the least visually cluttered way of linking to the NHLE. Ham 15:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's a good use-case, but it could still be done with a merged template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I agree to the merge. Ham 19:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the merge. I am sorry as I appreciate that viewpoint, Ham, but the alternative for tangential lists would be a matter of stylistic preference rather than inhibiting 'use'.- Adam37 Talk 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the merge and let's just do it asap, as the existence of this discussion is making a dreadful mess of hundreds if not thousands of articles. Eric Corbett 19:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the merge as the present discussion tag messes up the refs section of the articles. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge (and now boldly merged, use |short=y for short output) Frietjes (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (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:India squad 2012 AFC Challenge Cup

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) 02:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India squad 2012 AFC Challenge Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template for a second tier tournament in Asia which is essentially a qualification tournament for the AFC Asian Cup. Overall I feel that squad templates should only be made for the FIFA World Cup and TOP continental tournaments like the Asian Cup, the Euros, Gold Cup etc. Otherwise people will continue to make templates for tournaments like this and also others like the Nehru Cup. Cheers. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - consensus exists at TFD that only top-level international tournaments should have squad templates; this is not one of them. Giant Snowman 16:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman....William 21:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a fully an international football competition were players receive binding (players can't change allegiance afterwards) international caps and is organised by one of the six FIFA recognised Confederations. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the AFC Challenge Cup is not one of the top-level international tournaments that we should have squad templates for. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2014 (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.