Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 16

< October 15	October 17 >

October 16

Template:MTV Europe Music Award for Best World Stage Performance

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 world stage. Feel free to renominate the others. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTV Europe Music Award for Best World Stage Performance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MTV Europe Music Award for Best Rock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:American Music Award for Favorite Alternative Artist of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock Performance of the Year (2000s) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration of the Year (2000s) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Best selling albums by year worldwide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Minor award templates which are not big enough to deserve one. Fails WP:NENAN. Earthh (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the world stage, but I think the rest awards deserve a separate template. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 06:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 19 October 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:BBHM

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 as too unwieldy for a navigational template Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BBHM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Its enormous length makes this template too unwieldy for navigation. An alphabetical list of participants is already provided by Category:Bigg Boss participants; if a series-by-series list is required as well then the template should be migrated to a standalone list. (On the off chance that this template is kept, however, it really needs to be renamed to something more meaningful.) Psychonaut (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : All the participant of most popular & famous reality show of India, Bigg Boss, are notable celebrities. The template should be kept. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the articles linked to by the template is not at issue here. The question is whether the template meets our project's template guidelines, WP:TG and WP:NAVBOX. Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : A massive template that is nothing but fancruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog. Thomas.W ^talk 15:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, seems not significantly worse than template:Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants, but that one is questionable as well. Frietjes (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : may be renamed to Template:Bigg Boss participants.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Ch an der 12:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete : length becoming too large — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.60.172.164 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 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:University College Dublin A.F.C. squad

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. 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:University College Dublin A.F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two clickable links does not make this template anyway useful JMHamo (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not navigate between sufficient notable bluelinks, therefore serves no purpose as a navbox. Giant Snowman 17:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful for navigation. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:12, 25 October 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:Galway United F.C. squad

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. 28bytes (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galway United F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No clickable links does not make this template anyway useful JMHamo (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not navigate between sufficient notable bluelinks, therefore serves no purpose as a navbox. Giant Snowman 17:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful for navigation. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:37, 25 October 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:Waterford United F.C. squad

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. 28bytes (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waterford United F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two clickable links does not make this template anyway useful JMHamo (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not navigate between sufficient notable bluelinks, therefore serves no purpose as a navbox. Giant Snowman 17:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful for navigation. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:38, 25 October 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:Metal ratios

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metal ratios (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a very odd template indeed. I've never heard of these 'metallic means' before called such, and it seems there is no such article. There's silver ratio but that accounts for almost half the links (though you'd not know it as "silver ratio" appears nowhere). There's also Pell number which seems entirely unrelated and a bunch of red links.

The rest are all related via the golden ratio but not obviously related to each other except via it. There's no need for a navigation box as readers can navigate via that article. Finally there's a bunch of maths: numbers next to links, an implied series next to two links, and some expressions in boxes as an image. All that should be explained in articles not decorating a navigation box. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it should be deleted because it has numbers? Hyacinth (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "There's silver ratio but that accounts for almost half the links (though you'd not know it as "silver ratio" appears nowhere)." Where does silver ratio account for almost half the links to or from and thus where does the term "silver ratio" not appear? Hyacinth (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment the reason for deletion is mostly as the things it lists aren't known as "metallic means". If you have a navigation box the membership criteria should be clear. E.g. {{Winter Olympic sports}} lists all sports of the winter olympics. Someone seeing that box on a page will recognise what it means and why it's there. Not in this case. In particular in the fairly comprehensive Golden ratio does not mention it's a 'metallic mean' anywhere.

The term 'silver ratio' does not appear - the link is abbreviated to it looks like it's linking to the metal. Ditto 'golden' and 'bronze'. 'almost half' is perhaps exaggerating but there are four links to the article which is three too many; there should be only one and it should use the article's name. Piped links/redirects which use a different name but that all go to the same article are confusing. Red links should not appear, nor should mathematical values, series and expressions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A title which could be improved is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason to improve the title. The same with inappropriate links, they are not a reason to delete, they are a reason to improve. Hyacinth (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hyacinth (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Metallic means to match the article, and keep or delete along with it. —PC -XT + 23:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template basically just collects (1) every mathematical concept that ought to be linked from golden ratio, and all of them are linked from there already, and (2) the silver ratio, which is also linked from golden ratio as a "see also." There is no realistic hope of ever expanding the contents of the template to include much more about the other metallic means, which although significant are of much narrower interest than $\phi$ and $1+{\sqrt {2}}$ . --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that templates can not include links to articles which are already linked to from other articles? Hyacinth (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that templates on very limited topics which are completely redundant with the existing links from one article and have no hope of ever being expanded are useless clutter. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates link related articles, but these are not related via metalic means. It has partly been tidied up but it still uses the wrong name for articles such as Golden ratio, Silver ratio which it should never do as it confuses and misleads readers, making it harder to find articles they may be looking for. These seems to be an attempt to establish the relationship that's simply not there. Other names are confusingly shortended: "Rectangle" for example as it's unclear its the golden rectangle - even if someone knows there's a golden rectangle with sides in the ratio the golden ratio the golden ratio isn't mentioned. One article's linked twice, neither time with its proper name, it should only be linked once. And there's unexplained text which makes no sense (when you see ",..." in maths it means continue the series in the obvious/natural way but it's not at all obvious how to extend that sequence) and shouldn't be there.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:10, 9 November 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.