Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 15 - 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).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Senior Living (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template to serve a non-existing subject. The Banner talk 11:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No parent article. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 14:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. it now has a parent article - Nolan Perry (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, it is a poor template with a smell of advertising The Banner talk 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @The_Banner There is no advertising on it, it only links to the articles for the various aspects of Senior Living, and to the Major 5 Companies that Work in it Nolan Perry (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To my opinion, most subjects in that template are drawn in as window dressing. It would be enough to make a list of those companies (as separate article). The Banner talk 17:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @The_Banner There is no advertising on it, it only links to the articles for the various aspects of Senior Living, and to the Major 5 Companies that Work in it Nolan Perry (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, it is a poor template with a smell of advertising The Banner talk 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm entirely unconvinced that this topic needs a navbox, and the companies in the list seem arbitrarily selected. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This not a great navbox. The new title is at least better and less corporate-sounding, but it is woefully incomplete and oddly organized. Those are both fixable issues however, and I don’t think it is so bad that starting over would be easier than fixing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but fix up. Get rid of the tangentially related articles like physician - indeed, probably the entire first and third rows could go. Also globalise the major companies section, avoiding the term "senior living" (which I have never heard of before and is probably a regionalism or marketing term) and removing the US-centric focus. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:51, 19 July 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).