Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 26

[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 keep. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already coved in {{Bombardier aircraft}}. Not needed. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep upon closer inspection, per below. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@MilborneOne: the point in there's unnecessary replication. The fact that some of the aircraft have nothing to do with Bombardier doesn't mean the should have their own navbox. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary, Learjet was a different company that produced most of the Learjets so it is the Bombardier template that needs amending but that is not the subject of this discussion. Nearly all major aircraft producers have a navbox so why treat Learjet any different. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2018 (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).
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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One blue link in a whole navbox cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 18:09, 26 October 2018 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really need a navbox. The school no longer exists, so there's not really a chance of expanding it and only two of the links are blue. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 18:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the fact that the school/program is defunct is irrelevant to whether or not the navbox should be deleted. However, I agree that two links are insufficient. If two more are created then it should be kept-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the template should be deleted because the program is defunct. I'm saying that because the program is defunct, that navbox will not have any new coaches to add to it, and thus will never be large enough to justify existing. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 19:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as UCO2009bluejay stated above, that the school is defunct is wholly irrelevant. I had pieced the post-World War II era of this navbox together a few days ago from news articles, but I just found a document listing all the coaches from the program's inception in 1899 to its dissolution after the 1981 season. The navbox now has four navigable links including the redirect in the title, which is sufficient for its existence. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. We do not create navbox for non-existed locations Hhkohh (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhkohh: can you clarify what you mean by "non-existed locations"? Did you mean to say "non-existing locations". There is no prohibition on creating navboxes for entities that no longer exist, e.g. Template:Ancient Rome military and countless other examples. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Navbox has now been expanded, and now has four blue links, which is sufficient for navigation. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. As an aside, not only is there no standalone artice on the list of coaches, there's not even a standalone article on even their football program or athletic program in general.Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: there is now an article for Milton Wildcats football. Will you withdraw or change your opinion here? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should also note that WP:NAVBOX states that "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:..." [my emphasis in italics]. Some more latitude on point #4 cited by Bagumba should be given here to navboxes of this class stemming from a consensus established in 2010 to use navboxes instead of succession boxes for American college and pro head coaching positions. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my "aside" comments. My point on NAVBOX #4 still stands. At a minimum, I expect a navbox or succession box to be based off of a standalone list as a way to filter out significant sequences vs. WP:FANCRUFT.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel any better, we could easily put together an article for List of Milton Wildcats head football coaches as so many other similar programs have (List of Southwestern Moundbuilders head football coaches, List of Adrian Bulldogs head football coaches, List of Wheaton Thunder head football coaches, etc.) But Wikipedia is not being built in an orderly fashion, so it hasn't been made yet. Still, we could make such an article if that would do the trick for you. (Somebody will make it soon I'm sure...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for evidence that WP:LISTN would be met, not just that we can find stat listings. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2018 (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).
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. Misplaced WP:CSD#A7 -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template, and obviously created by the subject or his representative. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:56, 26 October 2018 (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).
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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:54, 26 October 2018 (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).
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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't aid in navigation. The two links aren't even members of the band. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:51, 26 October 2018 (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).
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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:44, 26 October 2018 (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).
[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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User accidentally created page while meaning to create an external link on Independent University, Bangladesh. The templates have been replaced with links in proper format on that page. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:09, 26 October 2018 (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).
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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be accidental/test creation cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (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).
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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox doesn't really aid in navigation, with only 3 blue links cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 16:59, 26 October 2018 (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).
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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:09, 26 October 2018 (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).
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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has no links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:08, 26 October 2018 (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).
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; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 06:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template for more than 2 years B dash (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@B dash: You made Template:Countdown2 so it can be deleted under WP:CSD#G7 if you approve to it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This also includes the other five template you nominated for deletion below were created by you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2018 (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).
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; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 06:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template for more than 2 years, with some minor errors related to the format B dash (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@B dash: You made Template:Countdown clock so it can be deleted under WP:CSD#G7 if you approve to it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2018 (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).
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; deleted as G7 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template for more than 3 years B dash (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2018 (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).
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; deleted as G7 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template, replaced by Template:TC stats cyclone3 B dash (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2018 (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).
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; deleted as G7 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template, replaced by Template:TC stats table end3 B dash (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2018 (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).
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; deleted as G7 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan template, replaced by Template:TC stats table start3 B dash (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2018 (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).
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 2018 November 3. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:22, 3 November 2018 (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).

Dog breed navboxes by FCI classification

[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 relisted on 2018 November 3. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 3 November 2018 (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).
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 2018 November 4. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2018 (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).
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 2018 November 4. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2018 (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).