Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 7 January 9 >

January 8

[edit]

Template:CONMEBOL top caps and goals

[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) sst✈ 13:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Template:UEFA most caps and goals listed below. WP:NOTSTATS and simply not notable Qed237 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 21:38, 8 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:The Odd Life of Amy Letwis

[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 speedy delete. I've struck my vote for procedure's sake. This template was related to an AfD for a film that ended up being a hoax, one of several related items created to further a hoax that'd already been detected and deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template only links two articles. These are The Odd Life of Amy Lewis & Martina Rodriguez who stars in The Odd Life of Amy Lewis. It is not serving a useful function. Blethering Scot 19:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC) *Delete. It serves no current purpose and I'm actually somewhat concerned that the film is a hoax of sorts, in that the film (assuming it exists) does not appear to have won any awards, aired on television, or been made into video games. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 9 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:Cricketers with 300 or more ODI caps

[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) sst✈ 13:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, who says 300 is a good limit? Why even have this list? Qed237 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: How much limit do you want, 500??? It implies that you are not an ardent follower of international cricket matches. Don't opine about the things, you know the least. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SWASTIK 25: I dont want any arbitrary number. Wikioedia should not pick number out of thin air. Also I dont think the template is useful, we should not have a bunch of templates if they are not useful. Qed237 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237: It's not about any arbitrary number, but about the achievement. The logic you are giving out of thin air is simply rubbish! — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 06:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: playing 300 international ODI matches is considered as a great achievement. Check the list closely. How many players did achieve that feat if that was so easy to achieve as per your logic? Suman420 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Suman420: I have not said it easy to achieve those numbers but it is an arbitrary number and wikipedia should not decide those. Also the template is not useful. Qed237 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237: You may find that the template is not much important in effect. I also think so. But it's 50-50. Keeping this template won't harm any article...as well as deleting.Suman420 (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A foolish comment. That template as you know is also being considered for deletion! Which means, yes, both templates are equally pointless and neither can be defended. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Template:Englishmen with 100 or more ODI caps should be deleted? But some doesn't consider that to be deleted. See this. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 18:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it mattered what I think, then I would have !voted there already. But I haven't. So it doesn't. Remember, though, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:41, 12 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:UEFA most caps and goals

[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) sst✈ 13:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable list of scorers. Qed237 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SWASTIK 25: Done, it is now listed above, thank you I was not aware of that one. Qed237 (talk) 21:35, 8 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:Tiptree Residents Association/meta/shortname

[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, provided that the fixes mentioned below are used to prevent the templates using this template from breaking. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a meaningless template; it contains nothing besides its own name. There is also no demonstrated need for this template, as it is about a non-notable organization. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 8 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:Toronto FC Player of the Year

[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) sst✈ 13:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for associated article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Toronto FC Players of the Year, resulted in a redirect decision so this should probably be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 8 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:Fb team Springwood FC

[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 Jan 20. Primefac (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, seems to have been created in error JMHamo (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, I added some from the same category after fixing the issue here. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I don't understand why the above changes had to occur? - J man708 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, these weren't unused at the time of creation. Frietjes' edit had them taken out, as to "avoid using new fb team templates, which are deprecated". I know this isn't going to win me any friends, but I build a LOT of football pages and find this system a million times more user-friendly than the new system. I'll avoid using the new system as much as possible, especially as other football season pages prior to this new system utilise these "fb templates" aswell. - J man708 (talk) 02:32, 13 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:Brigada Mass Media Corporation

[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 Jan 20. Primefac (talk) 04:49, 20 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:Ciudad Victoria TV

[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 (no opposition). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one article on which this template could be transcluded as the other links are all redirects to national network articles. Not enough local stations in Cd. Victoria for this to make sense. Raymie (t • c) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that I have condensed these four templates into one nomination, as they have nearly identical rationale. The original (separated) nominations are on December 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 8 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:Shooting Stars

[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 no consensus with NPASR. "Standard practice" and "consensus" were discussed, but no evidence given as to this practice. Providing such conversations may change the !votes. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice not to have cast and crew in navboxes. Remove the cast, and all we are left with is a link to a list of episodes. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your right it only makes sense that we dont link cast and crew ever...why would people want to navigate those articles...the people that makes those articles dont want people to find them. What a waste of editors time.-- Moxy (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason for this consensus. Over-proliferation of navboxes. Someone who has been in twenty television series would have twenty navboxes on their article. And the connections are tangential. The only thing linking the actors therein would be that they happened to be in the same television series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
look at Elizabeth Taylor.....yes full of navboxes ....but not one that is usefull to the topic at hand...why because your projects odd belief that relevant navboxes should be deleted. Get to work on stooping the navbox spam of losslly related topics over deleting main topic navboxes. Your project needs to sit down and talk about doing what is best to navigate the topics....not go out of your way to imped navigation because you dislike lots of boxes..work on removing the useless ones....not deleting every link you see. The people that make these articles would like others to be able to find them like you would any other article....no on has the right to go out of there way to orphan theses articles from templates in this manner...your doing wrong by our readers...and is why this type of action is noted in the guideline above!!!!-- Moxy (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd welcome getting rid of the awards navboxes too, but that isn't what's being discussed here. Also, I don't have a project... I assume you're talking about the prior consensus at WP:ACTOR regarding cast and crew in navboxes --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 8 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:Miss Earth titleholders 2001

[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 no consensus. There is NPASR for these templates, but please only nominate one type (e.g. titleholders or delegates, but not both) in a single nomination. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The titleholder templates simply display the 4 annual winners - info that is already in the article the template for that year is on. Plus the main winner is also in the Infobox. This makes the templates an unnecessary link farm.

The delegates templates are a massive list of every one of the 80+ girls that competed each year, plus all the girls that DID NOT compete. Many of these girls were simply cast by franchise holders to go to the global event without winning any local event. These lists were also in the article for each year but various editors determined the info was completely unsourced, overly detailed and promotional fancruft of no encyclopedic value.

Both sets of templates display information usable only on one year article, which strongly suggests they are not required as templates. Their function as a navigation aid between event articles is already covered by yet another template.

These articles appear to be built out by professional paid editors (a number of whom were blocked as socks) that were very generous with links back to the sponsoring organization. Efforts to trim them are met with restoration by Single Purpose Accounts who rebuild them again without sources. I propose deleting all the templates listed, leaving the simple navigation template covering 15 years (not nominated) For an example see Miss Earth 2014. I also found many of these were not in use, and have removed most of the others from use other than in 2014. Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legacypac, I know for a fact that the majority of the templates above were not created by a paid editor because I created them {{Miss Earth titleholders 2004}} through {{Miss Earth titleholders 2012}} were created by me. The delegate templates are very useful as they link articles of subjects with a common interst group making the navigational linkages important. The titleholder templates serve a similar purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I realize you created some of the templates but the mass of articles the link are often created by paid editors. The navigation function is provided by the simple year template. 09:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Strong Delete The pertinent policies strongly support deleting the massive, entirely non-notable, grossly inadequately referenced, unverifiable delegates templates. These uncorroborated, trivial, fancruft lists give a long list of delegates for each year, some of whom are appointed arbitrarily, or who do not attend the final pageant etc. etc. These lists have Wikipedia act as an unpaid web hosting service for content of a type that absolutely needs to find a happy home on the commercial sponsor's own web page, or some similar venue, where it is secure, finalized and official. The titleholder templates are less egregious, in that they have some references (or can in principle be referenced and verified), but, as the nomination correctly states, their function has already been totally met by alternative (and already redundant) links. In addition to the two sets of linking mentioned in the nomination, there is also List of Miss Earth titleholders, so there are at least 3 ways to run the cross links already. (Off topic commentary about professional paid editor issues is entirely irrelevant.) FeatherPluma (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think deleting the template is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What we need to do is to delete all the non-notable delegates that have articles. If half of the delegate articles are for non-notable subjects that does not mean we should delete the templates. It means we should only link among the half that are notable and delete the rest of the articles. Navigation across the delegates that are in fact notable is valuable. I believe that all delegates are in fact titleholders in their countries. Also, problems at verifying which delegates should not be addressed by deleting navigational links between them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I created some of these for consistency (others already existed). I am not too concerned if these went away (it could be the right thing; I really have not investigated). That said, I believe this meta template should also be added to the list of those considered:
It will be totally unused and unnecessary if those considered in this listing are deleted. Uzume (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not blatant canvassing? Each creator was properly notified by me already via Twinkle. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously not canvassing and never has been. I don't know what Twinkle is. However, it is always customary to notify creators of templates at TFD on their user pages. That is what I did.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Placing your canvassing effort right below my notification of this discussion. You also make it look like I did not properly notify by posting in this thread how you went out and notified the article creators. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn the definition of WP:CANVASS. In no way is a notification of editors of content up for deletion a form of canvassing. I apologize for the redundant notifications. It is likely that most of them will not even be read. Of the four editors that I contacted, 2 are inactive and 1 is barely active.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete titleholders. Keep delegates for now. The titleholders templates' category is just to narrow for useful navigation. As for the delegates, let's weed out the non-notable contestants first. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are two different types of template listed here. If you have opinions about one but not the other, please make sure you emphasize that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: titleholders, some of these templates have only one transclusion. A navbox with only one transclusion is necessarily useless, as it has nothing to navigate. As such, I'm strongly in favour of deleting the titleholder templates for 2001 and 2003. As for the other templates (both delegates and titleholders), whether we keep them seems like it should be tied to the fate of the corresponding articles; if it's possible to get sufficiently many articles that fit on the template and obey the verifiability and biography of living persons policies, and the inclusion on the template itself is verified, then I don't see a problem. I checked a few articles at random, and most seemed to have sources showing that they belong on the templates. Thus I'd favour keeping the templates around for now, and recommend that the nominator focuses on cleaning up the articles that they navigate between instead; if there's nothing wrong with the articles then there's nothing wrong with the templates, but OTOH if the articles shouldn't be there then the template might become useless. No prejudice against deleting the templates if the articles in question get deleted. --ais523 21:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The titleholder templates and delegate templates are valuable use for readers to navigate. Many of the delegates are notable since they are titleholders/winners in their national pageants. --Richie Campbell (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least 2001 and 2003 titleholders per ais523, but the delegates could be kept for now if editors want to work on them. —PC-XT+ 00:29, 17 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).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_8&oldid=1138532918"