Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 5 - Wikipedia

Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure

Article Images

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Athletics national champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost all of the pages that this links to are red links and the template itself provides no infomation. I do not, therefore, see the use of it and I think that it should be deleted. Oddbodz (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see this more as a work in progress than a useless template (1 in 5 links are blue). The notability of the lists have not been challenged and I think this kind of template is the most logical, user-friendly way of linking them. Saying that, I don't think any specific editor personally has their sights on creating the missing articles in the short term. SFB 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes should never be "work in progress". They are there to help readers navigate between disparate articles, not because every subject needs a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean poorly connected when you said "disparate"? Navigation boxes are certainly not meant to connect disparate subjects. I think works in progress can be acceptable when they are the most user-friendly method for a reasonable body of work (the only alternative here would be 11 articles in the "see also" section). SFB 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, has over a dozen blue links, is useful for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough of the articles exist to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, mostly due to the nomination only including a single template, and not the entire group. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Raiders1996DraftPicks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Being picked in the draft for a team in a particular year is not a close connection that warrants a navbox. The AFL draft is done by year, not by eventual team (e.g. {{2009 AFL Draft}}).

Also currently unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to delete all the unused templates in Category:National Football League Draft navigational boxes? Also note that {{1996 NFL Draft}} and the like only list the first round. TimBentley (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to pretend I'm any sort of expert on what warrants a navbox and what does not, but I did read through Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and was not quite able to derive a concise source for your nomination. I'm not sure if using the example of the 2009 AFL Draft was accidental, as the Australian Football League is quite different than the National Football League. Suffice to say, my goal of adding this and other additional templates is to facilitate those researching the information. Presenting data in both manners (by year and by eventual team) gives different perspectives on the same events. I also do not understand your reference to the template being "currently unused" as I verified each template worked on the Template:Oakland Raiders Draft template list after I created it. - Nolook (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not included on any pages; that is how it is unused. See WP:NAVBOX for information on navboxes. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is used as part of Template:Oakland Raiders Draft template list which is itself included on many pages. Additionally, the template itself is newly created, to delete this template now would ensure it is never included on any pages. Time will allow it to be included in several articles. As noted by TimBentley, there are many of these navbox templates that are not dissimilar to this one. Are you, in essence, requesting they all be deleted? Thank you for the WP:NAVBOX link. - Nolook (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, I think the proposal to mass-delete these templates has some merit. This should probably be restarted with an appropriate full list. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Many are actually in use, but I think they all fail WP:NAVBOX, unused or not. Depending on what happens here, I might dust off User:TTObot and start a mass nom. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Anonymous-EU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure with Template:Anonymous-EU.
Someone else before me had proposed it. I just happened to surf it. Honestly, processing a merging nomination for templates is not an easy job for a casual user. Anyway, they both look the same to me; the difference would be the flag addition in one template. So I don't know what else to say, but {{tfm}} should be required, not {{merge}}, for templates, so discussion is located here instead of any template's talk page. Gh87 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from {{Anonymous-EU}} to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} works for me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salvador albums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think that a navigation box with 4 links is needed in the encyclopedia... | ^help _dןǝɥ | 03:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN, WP:WTAF. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep, 6 links is enough (including the top link). Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen the articles? Skeletons consisting of nothing but an infobox and discography table. A better solution would be a page merge. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - sounds like something to discuss at AfD. however, given that this is TfD, I would say that 6 links is enough. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, 6 links is sufficient to justify a navbox. Now, some of those articles may not pass the notability guidelines, but if so that's not an issue for TFD. Robofish (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, very few transclusions —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Actually wanted to nominate it myself for the same reason. But nominator beat me to it. Fleet Command (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is used with good purpose in about 40 different articles as of now. It is not a template that is intended to be permanent, so this number could fluctuate, but it has good use in aiming to improve articles. The nom's rationale is quite vague, and is based very much on personal taste and not Wikipedia guidelines.Sebwite (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in use, and potentially useful. If it's being deprecated, it should only be deleted once there are no transclusions. Robofish (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Directors General of UNESCO (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Bulwersator (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, but not unusable. There does not seem to be a substitute providing the same information, so why not just place this on the articles for which it is relevant? bd2412 T 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template is substituted here Bulwersator (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete, as it only seems to be used in one article, no template is needed. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]