Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

November 30

Template:DIIV

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 Dec 9. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

As navigation between all the principle articles in this template are linkable to and from each without a navigation box, this doesn't provide any additional aid intended by such boxes. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:28, 30 November 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:Monthly maintenance category

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 Dec 9. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monthly maintenance category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of this template is unclear. The template has no transclusions, and is a wrapper of Template:Monthly clean-up category. Also, this template was created in 2010 with possibly some sort of plans to create a separate distinction from "clean-up" categories, possibly with a separate category. Is there discussion somewhere in the past 5 years stating there are plans for this template? In lieu of this information, I say delete as redundant. Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- This is supposed to be for use on categories like this. It appears that the separation between the two classes was muddied over the years. Only a little work is needed to make the template function properly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This is the template meant for maintenance categories, of which by far not all are clean-up categories. If anything, the other template should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe the category and the other template should be renamed to "maintenance" titles instead of "clean-up" titles. Either way, there is unnecessary redundancy, not to mention that renaming these templates and categories could disrupt the function of some bots that maintain these categories unless they are made aware of the changes beforehand. The way it stands, the nominated template has no transclusions, showing its current usefulness. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 1 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).

Australian political party leaders templates

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) 16:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leaders of the Australian Labor Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Leaders of the Liberal Party of Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Leaders of the National Party of Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These navboxes are redundant to Template:Australian Labor Party, Template:Liberal Party of Australia, and Template:National Party of Australia, respectively. Graham (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to disagree I'm no friend of these huge all-encompassing navboxes like Template:Australian Labor Party. I'd rather split these into separate topics like Template:Leaders of the Australian Labor Party. But let's collect some more opinions. PanchoS (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I should also have noted that the practice of having separate navboxes for party leaders appears to be non-standard when looking at other Commonwealth countries such as Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (excepting the Conservative Party of Canada; the main navbox includes their leaders post–2003 merger and their leaders navbox includes the leaders of all of the antecedent parties from 1867). I don't know of any other country for which we have separate navboxes for both parties and party leaders. Graham (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then these huge navboxes should possibly be split for the other parties you mentioned, too. With more than 50 links on different subtopics, navboxes are no more a navigational help, but substantially add to cluttering any article. PanchoS (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - too many links for something to be included on just a leader's page. Agree with PanchoS above that it is more helpful to have smaller boxes. Bookscale (talk) 10:44, 3 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:12 Play 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) 18:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:12 Play track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to navigation already found in the navigation boxes, Template:12 Play and Template:R. Kelly singles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 1 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:NogometniMagazin

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) 17:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

External link template pointing to a now-dead website. Has been deprecated and largely supplanted with {{CFF player}}. No longer used in article space. GregorB (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 30 November 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: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 relisted on 2015 December 19. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modi (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:Jack Cooper (musician, composer, arranger)

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 at Dec 29. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jack Cooper (musician, composer, arranger) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has way too many links. It looks like this template is listing everything that is connected to this musician. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would need to be done for the template to function properly or be acceptable? Shelyric (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First thing to do is to remove every album/recording in the list that doesn't have a proper Wikipedia article. There should be no external links in a navbox, and there should be no items without a link period. Navboxes are intended to navigate to existing articles, not present someone's complete discography. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've drastically reduced it, removing duplicate links, unlinked text, external links. I think it's serviceable now, but I think some of the links are probably still spurious. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 9 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:Toledo Rockets baseball coach 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 withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toledo Rockets baseball coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:EXISTING -- It is used in only one article, Joe Fortunato (coach), making it hard to navigate. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". One article is not enough for a navbox. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EXISTING with only one blue link. Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4, as a standalone list is needed to establish notability of this grouping. Existence of navboxes like this just encourages others to copy and create more non-notable ones.—Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination — the template creator has agreed to create a few articles to help navigate this article. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 02:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now six blue links in the template. Cbl62 (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep, now has enough blue links. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 30 November 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).