Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 18

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SEEALSO As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. This is used in the "See also" section and the links are also in the navigation box {{UCI Road World Championships}} immediately below (see Germany at the UCI Road World Championships). BaldBoris 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:41, 18 January 2017 (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).
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 Relisted on 2017 January 28 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:32, 28 January 2017 (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).

College soccer awards

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

College soccer awards are only notable if they're national awards. These are not national awards. Therefore they're not notable. Some of these templates have previously been deleted per discussion here. – Michael (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (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).
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 per concerns of creep and necessity. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:TCREEP. I've done a random sample (James, Iverson, Mason, Tripucka, Havlicek and Chamberlain), and confirmed that all articles but two (Chamberlain and Mason) did not mention this achievement in the prose, thus not satisfying some of the criteria in WP:NAVBOX. –HTD 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, template creep. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I too conducted a sample of basketballers whom this template features. What I found was pages cluttered with templates at the bottom, diluting the usefulness of the information there. In all cases this template stood out as the least likely to be useful. This is a relatively obscure NBA statistic. Moreso than points, assists and rebounds. The separate list for this statistic might be useful. But adding this template to pages of highly accomplished basketballers, who will already have many templates, is not. Syek88 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not typically a statistic with much meaning historically. Rikster2 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per TonyTheTiger, you can't say that since there is an article that covers minutes leaders were shouldn't have this template. WP:NAVBOX states, "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." Just because a stat isn't included in a player's article doesn't mean the stat is insignificant. It means that the player's article should to be edited to include the stat. That's why there's always work to be done. Plus as Tony also notes the nominator offers no policy other than WP:TCREEP, which states "delete redundant and inappropriate templates". This template is no less redundant or inappropriate than all of the other NBA stat leader templates. –Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2017 (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).
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. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:TCREEP. I've done a random sample (James, Lawson and Jennings), and confirmed that all articles did not mention this achievement in the prose, thus not satisfying some of the criteria in WP:NAVBOX. –HTD 07:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a classic example of valuable encyclopedic information, because it gives someone today a first idea of which basketball players dominated media coverage during their amateur career. --bender235 (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (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).
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 14:51, 18 January 2017 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no independent category. Unlikely to be used. ~ Rob13Talk 14:46, 18 January 2017 (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).
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. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release and artist rosters for record labels not suitable for navbox inclusion per precedent. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2017 (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).
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. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All articles linking to this template are now redirects. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2017 (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).
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. If more linkable pages are created, this could be REFUNDed. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their are enough links - AffeL (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It links three articles including the subject - this does not justify a navbox. WP:NENAN. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely. It has two links. This is just an attempt to create separate navboxes, templates, the-list-goes-on for everything Game of Thrones-related. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:NENAN. 2-3 links means it does not help with navigation and it serves no useful purpose. Dunarc (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2017 (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).
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. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2017 (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).
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2017 (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).
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No actor filmographies in navbox per WP:FILMNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2017 (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).
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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 06:40, 18 January 2017 (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).