Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 6 - Wikipedia
- 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, now that the redlinks have been removed, which was the primary concern raised in the initial nomination. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Way too many redlinks. Either cut it to the few that have articles or wait until those articles exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the rationale for the root category, Category:World topic navigational boxes, is flawed for most, if not all of the derived templates, like this one (there are 2 templates in this category not derived from a root template). climate is not bound by nation, so a "climate of the world" template should be organized by bioregion. history excludes histories of all those subjects not currently soveriegn states. geography is best organized by continent, not country, when looked at globally. economies is somewhat justified as organized by country, but thats not the only criteria that is useful. Income is a stub, doesnt unite enough articles to justify it. philosophy is most definitely NOT best organized by country. population is not very useful, too many red links. territorial evolution links an odd miniscule set of articles, not comprehensive enough. Foreign policy and politics make the most sense, but again, why would someone interested in the foreign policy of uruguay need a template for the entire world? the most useful template would be for latin america. AND, the most important to my thinking is that no one has adopted these to any significant degree. I cant figure out where the root template is, but i would argue that they all should be deleted. It sounds great until you think of whether they serve a truly useful purpose that isnt already provided by numerous other templates. A whole world template should include other regions not recognized as nations, such as territories and the oceans (do we have this already?)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blah blah blah, tl;dr. Less talky. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All templates like suicide template bad. no like, others no like. destroy all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I removed the redlinks here. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per anon. --Bob247 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 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 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RECENTISM . The weekly/monthly fluctuation of a team in the IRB rankings is not notable , their all time high and lows are but the latest change isn't . Gnevin (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Historical records may be pertinent to encyclopedia articles: current rankings are largely not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - anyone who knows how to use the "history" section will easily find out via history what a teams ranking was in a certain week in a year...--Stemoc (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Totally not how wiki works Gnevin (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Rankings are notable and the history section as described above can also be implemented and this historical analysis of articles and templates is exactly one of the functions of wikipedia and tools for extraction and analysis of page history can be found at WP:PAGE. Moreover, as the rankings are listed on more than one article at a time, this template makes it easier to update and keep current. Exactly what a template is supposed to be for. Moreover, it actually falls directly within the WP:10YT of WP:RECENTISM. If the nominator doesn't like this template, then why doesn't he/she nominate the templates in Category:Rugby union table templates for the same reason. The 2011-12 tables are completely recent. --Bob247 (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Bob247 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between a table which gives the rankings in 2011/12, and a table which gives the rankings now. The former is a historical record. The latter is an item of current affairs. It is not at all appropriate to include a current ranking table on every single national team article, any more than it would be to include a current league table on a club article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of those templates are unused so there is strong case to delete them Gnevin (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between a table which gives the rankings in 2011/12, and a table which gives the rankings now. The former is a historical record. The latter is an item of current affairs. It is not at all appropriate to include a current ranking table on every single national team article, any more than it would be to include a current league table on a club article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This template is totally acceptable and doesn't violate WP:RECENTISM. What's next? Will you nominate every tennis top ten rankings template? Ridiculous. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 22:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As long as someone keeps it updated. I would rather have no template than one containing incorrect information. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 9 September 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 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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unused old sidebar system. An enterprising IP has already migrated the previously existing uses to {{sidebar}}, which supersedes this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:57, 6 September 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.