Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 19

< December 18	December 20 >

December 19

Template:Modi

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 merge. Pinging Primefac if you're still interested in completing the merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with Template:Narendra Modi already present. We don't need two templates for same stuff. I prefer to keep the vertical one, not of the orientation, but for the content as the horizontal one has too many diluted loosely connected links also mentioned in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete redundant, per dharmadhyaksha. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dharmadhyaksha. D'SuperHero (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this template is having some extra articles related to Modi then those can be added in another template. No need of 2 templates on same person. --Human3015^TALK 16:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep:Template:Modi is a Navbox. Delete Template:Narendra Modi if you want. That's redundant. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a Navbox, what is other? And Template:Narendra Modi exists here since before this new one was created. So why should the old one be deleted? Because you created it disregarding work of other editors? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware about vertical infobox since I used to edit in Indian religion related topics. It has two boxes one Navbox at bottom for topics and one vertical on top. So I applied same logic here till you suggested deletion. The reason why I suggested keeping horizontal one is that we can't include all articles in vertical one, else it will become too cluttered. You are right about getting rid of loosely linked articles, but they are only 3-4. Rest all are directly linked articles. Vertical template can't even include all Schemes started by Modi Government. I suggest please review the new template closely at least once and reassess the count of articles not required. And yes, please dont accuse me to disregarding work of other editors. I respect work of every editor here unlike some others. I wanted to keep both since they both have different characteristics, forced to chose one, I chose the one with full list. If you want, I can even list the differences, major two being pic of modi and appearance on mobile devices. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for deleting vertical one; size constraint, isn't convincing. There is no limit to entries that a vertical template can have. And there surely is no reason to keep both. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Template:Narendra Modi. I prefer the navbox format since it doesn't encroach on the space used by infoboxes and images. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two templates. There was a similar TfD regarding {{Ollywood films}} (and other film templates) nominated by Dharmadhyaksha with pretty much the same rationale. I see no reason why we can't have both a horizontal and vertical option for this template as well. Primefac (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should this be closed as a merge, feel free to ping me; I am happy to merge the two templates. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Capankajsmilyo has put in some decent work aggregating information in the horizontal Template, however ther vertical format would be better suited because it can accomodate more information (since a lot is still missing in the horizontal and vertical version) and the vertical version gives for better visibility anyways. So I vote that we merge the two by taking all the data in the horizontal format and putting it into the VERTICAL format along with restructuring the vertical one. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2015 (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:TriMet Rail System 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 relist to Jan 6. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TriMet Rail System 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:Top international association football goalscorers by country

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) 02:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top international association football goalscorers by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not needed as a template, seems to be mostly OR and what is the inclusion criteria.. JMHamo (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not needed. Giant Snowman 09:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needed. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 09:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SWASTIK 25: Please explain the inclusion criteria JMHamo (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not needed. Kante4 (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not needed. --Jaellee (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fundamentally not a navbox, but a list masquerading as a navbox. Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary. I also echo Fenix down's comment. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the only mainspace article transcluding this template is List of top international association football goal scorers by country and that this template merely duplicates part of that list. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:21, 25 December 2015 (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:The League of Nations

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) 02:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The League of Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating on behalf of TrueCRaysball, who nominated main article The League of Nations (professional wrestling) for deletion and expressed a desire to include this navbox as part of that effort (see AFD). While the navbox doesn't necessarily violate WP:NENAN or similar, I agree with the overall sentiment expressed in the AFD. Constantly giving such inordinate attention to "the latest fashion" is only further killing Wikipedia's credibility, making us out to be another news or social media site instead of an encyclopedic information resource. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability problems aside, there are only four real members of the group (two valets, one of which is no longer a member) which makes for a rather useless navbox.LM2000 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too soon, not notable and not needed. MPJ-US 04:35, 21 December 2015 (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).