Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

[edit]

Template:GamesSport2

[edit]
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 Feb 7. Primefac (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2016 (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:Brisbane Lions major sponsors

[edit]
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) 04:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this separately from the navboxes below because it's a bit of a different case. The rationale is the same though: it fails WP:NAVBOX criterion #4 because there is not an article on the subject. Additionally, I don't think I have ever seen a navbox like this for any sporting team. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2016 (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).

Brisbane Lions navboxes

[edit]
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) 03:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These navboxes all fail criterion 4 of WP:NAVBOX because subject of the templates do not have an article. Not everything needs a navbox and these serve only to bloat the footers of articles. Additionally, a fairly recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 6#Navigational box notability? agreed these templates should be deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, simply a poor lack of judgement by me, thought they were notable then, have realised otherwise. Sorry for the inconvenience! Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: consistency with recently deleted Collingwood templates, can't have one club get theirs deleted and the other keeps theirs.
However, as a note, in the mentioned discussion there was a comment for keeping best young-player templates, which wasn't really discussed. I'm for this as I think the AFL and all clubs place significant emphasis on training and elevating young players. If so we'd need to restore the Harry Collier Trophy. --SuperJew (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Flickerd (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Non-notable team-level awards and honors. If important enough, these team award recipients may be listed in the main team article. Among the sports WikiProjects, very few team-level awards are considered noteworthy enough to have navboxes -- navboxes for team-level awards and honors are usually reserved for team halls of fame, retired jersey numbers, etc., which recognize the handful of players who constitute the team's all-time greats. Listing the annual best player at each position does not rise to that level. Not even close. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2016 (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).

Record label navboxes

[edit]
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 Feb 7 Primefac (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2016 (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:PD-unknown

[edit]
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 Feb 7. Primefac (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2016 (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).

cricket templates for speedy delete

[edit]
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. I have merged these two templates into {{ICC Team of the Year}}, which can be expanded to include multiple years as was done with {{ICC Cricketer of the Year}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leads to junk. There can be more than 10 of these templates created for various cricketers yearwise. Check ICC Awards. For eg: Dhoni, de villiers,..etc can have 11 templates as they are involved in many teams. Smith won 2 awards& was named in 2 teams in 2015. 4 templates are created for 2015 alone on Smith's page. 11 such templates can be created for Dhoni, de villiers, sachin, .... Imagine a cricketers page with templates list being 2008 ODI team of the year, 2008 test team, 2009 ODI team, 2009 test, 2010 ODI, 2010 test,.. so on. And there are templates already for {{ICC Cricketer of the Year}} {{ICC ODI player of the year}} {{ICC Test cricketer of the year}} {{ICC T20 performance of the year}}. In spite of various warnings, SWASTIK 25 & GreenCricket have not stopped creating template junk. SWASTIK 25 has been blocked currently. Chris8924 (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; the point of a navigation box is that it assumes the user is likely to want to get from one article in the box to another. For an actual team, this is likely. However, in this list, while someone interested in one person on the list is also likely to be interested in the others, it does not follow that a user reading an article on one person who did well in 2015 is likely to want to view the page on another player, who may well have played for an entirely different team. That's before we even get into the WP:TOOMUCH argument. Harrias talk 09:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree @Harrias: I agree very much with Harrias who have pointed rightly but i have concern in navigation box which are currently present on footballers who are also from different nations and have templates with much similar conditions...I want to have your opinion on those templates..what you say about that? GreenCricketTALK 13:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that you are possibly right, but that those templates are not the subject of this discussion. Harrias talk 13:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenCricket: the previous ICC team templates such as 2014 Team of the year doesn't exist yet. It will be best to create them and merge all in a Template titled ICC Team of the Year. Otherwise this will be deleted. Someone has to take the responsibility. Ikhtiar H (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2016 (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:Fb team Abano

[edit]
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 precedent. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused template, non-professional club. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2016 (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:Marvel Video Games

[edit]
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 after merging into the series-appropriate navboxes as mentioned. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of template is Marvel video games, which is a too broad for a subject. There's also List of video games based on Marvel Comics and Category: Video games based on Marvel Comics. There's {{Spider-Man in popular media}} for Spider-Man, {{X-Men media}} for the X-Men and Wolverine. Soetermans. T / C 12:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also {{Blade}}, {{Avengers}}, {{Captain America}}, {{Punisher}}, {{Hulk}}, etc. --Soetermans. T / C 16:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as appropriate to the series-specific templates. Where that's not possible (e.g. the crossovers) consider a new template e.g. Marvel crossovers. --Izno (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2016 (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).

Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa templates

[edit]
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) 14:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates and redundant with generic template present at Template:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2016 (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:I-League Champions

[edit]
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 Feb 7. Primefac (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2016 (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:Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[edit]
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) 03:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. Was a listing of H-H H books that now contains 2 titles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2016 (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:Wikivar

[edit]
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 Feb 7. Primefac (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_28&oldid=1086088966"