Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 23 - Wikipedia

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major English-language Science and Technology Magazines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See previous discussion for reference, started by the same user on major current affair, arts, busines magazines. Selective navigation, no criteria which magazine to include (very subjective), fails WP:NAVBOX. Störm (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAVBOX#3: The articles do not refer to each other to a reasonable extent. Category-based navigation is sufficient, and if any sci/tech publication is particularly relevant to another, either reference in prose or the See also section. czar 23:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I love navboxes and this would be very convenient for navigating between related magazines; or,

Alternatively, convert to a portal, maybe? (Half in jest, but thought I'd tag BrownHairedGirl here...maybe she'll get the [dark? dry?] humour.) [[--Doug Mehus T·C 22:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete much better to use Category:Science and technology magazines which (1) doesn't require WP:OR to determine what is "major" and (2) doesn't require manual update each time an article about a magazine is created/deleted. I also note that the entries of Category:Science and technology magazines do not match the entries of this template (probably due to the issues outlined in 1 and 2). Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2019 (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).