Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 December 11

< December 10	December 12 >

December 11

Template:KK Crvena zvezda sidebar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KK Crvena zvezda sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary sidebar for a sports club. We use navboxes for teams and Template:KK Crvena zvezda does the job well. This is a case of an extra template that isn't necessary. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sidebar has a different structure. --DragonFederal (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Redundant to {{KK Crvena zvezda}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --IndexAccount (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a rationale. Keep is not sufficient alone. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It combines articles which are lists and statistics. It not unusual to have both, a sidebar and navbox. --IndexAccount (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This just duplicates the navbox. We don't do sidebars for sports teams. Category:Sports club departments sidebar templates is not the same since this covers and links teams with the same name for different sports. Having a sidebar for a general team is a waste of template space because why aren't navboxes sufficient to be just used.? A different structure as said by the creator doesn't mean anything. Duplication of the same material is what has to be avoided. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not deletion then an alternative is to redirect to the navbox. This has the same group of links as the navbox. But again, sidebars for a sports team is not needed at all whatsoever. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, entirely redundant to Template:KK Crvena zvezda. the horizontal navbox footer version is better for the article layout because it doesn't take away from other right floating content like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Frietjes. Izno (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2022 (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:2008 Tibetan unrest

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Tibetan unrest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three links related to the main subject. A small number of links for a sidebar and all articles are linked on the mainspace. This doesn't provide much for navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too few articles to justify its own sidebar. Mucube (talk · contribs) 03:21, 15 December 2022 (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:Karakoçan District and similar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Karakoçan District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kovancılar District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Palu District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alacakaya District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Maden District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Elazığ District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Arıcak District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sivrice District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Keban District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Villages in Samsat District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Villages in Tut District, Adıyaman Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All entries have been redirected so no need for the template Semsûrî (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Semsûrî, can you merge these all into one nomination? All have the same rationale for deletion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to do that. Semsûrî (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have merged these nominations. Note that a few of the nominations said something like "All except two links are redirects." – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The articles in these navbar templates should not have been redirected like this. There's not even mention of the villages in the redirect target (e.g. Tut, Turkey, where Boyundere, Tut has been redirected to). Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable (see WP:NGEO), and there were references (population census) in the articles. Markussep ^Talk 11:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Markussep. These villages can be expanded from Turkish wikipedia and sourced, redirecting with no information and deleting the infrastructure isn't intelligent long term. We'll inevitably have articles on these eventually. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main issue here is finding notable information based on RS to expand the articles. I have indeed expanded articles like Güven, Midyat but in my opinion its best to 'centralize' and expand the district article like at Sincik. Semsûrî (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to expand the district articles, but that doesn't justify deleting the articles about the villages. The subjects are notable, and the articles contained enough basic, verifiable information to provide the necessary context (see WP:STUB. Markussep ^Talk 08:01, 15 December 2022 (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).