Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28[edit]

Template:Kill 'Em All[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kill 'Em All (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded duplication of {{Nine Inch Nails}}. I Help, When I Can.[12] 23:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean {{Metallica}}... –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary duplication of {{Nine Inch Nails}} or {{Metallica}}:PCurb Chain (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary duplication, single albums don't need individual templates. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and an eyesore. Яehevkor ✉ 01:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single album, no navigation needed. Hekerui (talk) 09:06, 4 August 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.

Template:Vanguard class submarine armament[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanguard class submarine armament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template is no longer in use, contents have been subst into the five articles that used it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:18, 28 July 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.

Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, with no prejudice toward recreation if the subjects of the appropriate articles are deemed notable and said articles are created. JPG-GR (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template contains only red links and one single blue link. Templates are meant to link articles together, but if only Tony Gwynn has a page, then there is no purpose to this template. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion. This template is part of a series of templates to provide navigation for NCAA Division I baseball coaches found here: Category:NCAA Division I baseball coach navigational boxes. Also, I have created a stub for Jim Dietz, so this template now has a second blue link. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navboxes are there to navigate articles which already exist, not as creation guides for new content. If and when there are established articles in need of navboxes these can be recreated. Cloudz679 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The red links encourage article creation for these coaches, all of whom inherently pass notability guidelines for coaches since they coach(ed) at the highest level of amateur competition in the United States for baseball (NCAA Division I or historical equivalent). Jrcla2 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the purpose of navbox (navigation box) templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Jweiss11, there are now two blue links in this template. Also, many templates are used to convey information, not only for navigation. cmadler (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NAVBOX, editors should write the articles before the navboxes. This is pointless and distracting at present. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're quoting an essay, not a policy, that explicitly encourages articles to be written, not mandates it. The fact that this baseball coach navbox already had at least (1) blue link in place makes it avoid being speedy deleted as "pointless". Furthermore, in WP:REDLINK, a policy, it says to treat redlinks with common sense. Right here even states "Only make links that are relevant to the context." How are the coaches' full names and tenures not relevant to the context of this navbox? The title being the operative condition: San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox? Jrcla2 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm also pointing to the consensus which sees navboxes like this deleted every day. A huge red box which doesn't actually navigate very far is not helpful to our readers. That's why the documentation says to write the articles first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to see an example of the consensus you're talking about, not trying to be a jerk, but because saying something exists without evidence is a throwaway statement. And I am willing to bet there are many more people who think a navbox as concise and detailed as this one is helpful, but that's just my opinion. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of nav boxes such as this one, in addition to their ultimate role in providing navigation, is to provide context and structural framework, promote quality control and standardization, and stem off content forking for a developing topic. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine if this were 2005, but we've a long-established consensus that navboxes are there to navigate existing content, not to serve as blueprints for future work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the redlinks were removed (converted to plain text), would that resolve your concern? (If not, why?) cmadler (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. Navigation boxes (again, navigation boxes) are footers (not part of the article) which are supposed to help simplify moving between related articles. Non-links are as useless as redlinks. Without that facility they are simply distracting colour blocks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and there should be a procedural withdrawal by Muboshgu at this point. There are now at least 2 blue links on the template. Also agree with Jweiss11 and Cmadler. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Two blue links are enough, and this is a great, concise way to present the information on SDSU coaches, especially until articles are created. Kithira (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If all the subjects are notable, I say keep - my only question is if college baseball coaches are inherently notable. I'm not sure they are in the same way that college football and basketball coaches are - those sports receive significantly more media coverage than college baseball. In cases where all the subjects are inherently notable, I think having redlinks to encourage creation of some relevant articles is not a bad thing. Not all Wikiprojects are in the same stage of development and having some redlinks out there helps them to grow. Rikster2 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jweiss11, Cmadler, Jrcla2, Kithira, Rikster. If there are two active blue links within the navbox, it satisfies the basic requirements for its existence. Moreover, navboxes are being actively employed to replace the ridiculously chaotic graphic clutter that results from 5 to 20 succession boxes at the bottom of some coaches' articles. Properly structured navboxes, such as this one, convey more information about the coaching succession and do it in a more compact and graphically pleasing manner. Oppose deletion, keep the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jrcla2. - Masonpatriot (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jweiss11, Cmadler, Jrcla2, Kithira, Rikster, Dirtlawyer1. The navboxes further the project by (1) encouraging the development of articles on notable individuals, (2) aiding in the navigation among related pages, and (3) helping to ensure a set of several pages are cohesive with each other in terms of the type of information provided, etc. City boy77 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not finished and the navbox conveys information to a reader: it lets the reader know the chronological order for each coach, the years he coached, the start of the programs existence, and it links to 2 existing articles. Red links are useful to let an editor know that an article is needed. —Ute in DC (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per obvious/all of the above. Pasadena91 (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing an awful lot of "keep per"s here. Was this TfD posted somewhere which has attracted all this random attention? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, as is the norm in any AfD/MfD/CfD/TfD, the WikiProjects most affected by this nomination were notified. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • addendum - I forgot to mention that WP College football and WP College basketball were let known, but not WP College baseball (because there'd be too much COI). Jrcla2 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, right. Yes, this bit of canvassing (on a page which had already been notified) would certainly explain all of the above noise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a difference between canvassing and letting people who work on projects that would be affected by the change weigh in on a conversation about policy as it occurs. There was no attempt to tell people what to agree/disagree with in this discussion. Frankly, it seems dodgy to prefer for the debate to occur in the dark and for any implications to just be imposed on affected projects on the back end. Rikster2 (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I saw no reason to involve completely in-the-dark WikiProjects. Would you like me to post that same message at the WP:MILITARY, WP:NIGERIA, and WP:BADMINTON talk pages also? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would prefer that you not post sky-falling-down messages on any WikiProject talk pages. This is an absolutely typical navbox of the sort that gets TfDed every day, so I have no idea why you phrased it "most likely have long-reaching impacts on WikiProject College football, WikiProject College Basketball, and WikiProject College Baseball"; it won't have the slightest impact on any of those WikiProjects. The rash of responses above plainly show that people responded to that notification as a call to arms. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If the result is that navboxes where 100% of the subjects referenced do not have articles are deemed against policy, then of course there would be an impact on those projects. We can think for ourselves - I couldn't care less what Jrcla2's wording was and if you read my comment you'll see that I don't necessarily agree that this particular template should survive - I just disagree with the premise that a navbox shouldn't redlink valid articles on notable subjects. You're getting tweaked because you don't agree with that (which is fine, you could just stick to the discussion at hand a little more vs. getting cheeky). Rikster2 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's already the status quo: I've seen dozens of similar timeline articles deleted in the same genre for the same reason. The only reason this one may survie (and that's may, depending on the closing admin) is because it was canvessed with language which led to a bunch of people all showing up and arguing for it on first principles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finished my argument since my points have been made, and will just wait to see this get overturned and kept. Adios, everyone. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's alot of discussion for one little template. As I nominated it, there was one page and the rest were red links. Now, there are two pages, one of which I don't think is notable, one legit page, and a bunch of redirects, which are not the purpose of a template. It may end up kept, but if it does and the stub for Dietz is deleted, I will renominate this template. And Jrcla2, your canvassing was a bit ridiculous. I understand notifying projects, but "long-reaching impacts"? This is a TfD on Wikipedia, not the debt ceiling. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have no opinion currently whether to keep or delete, but it seems like the red links were made to turn into blue when List of San Diego State Aztecs head baseball coaches was created on July 29, and all the previous red links (7 of the 9 navbox entries) were turned into redirect pages back to the newly created list containing currently unsourced, trivial content about each coach. So while there are no longer red links, the real issue is whether the navbox should point to "meaningful" content before its creation when college coaches are not automatically presumed to be notable per WP:NSPORTS#College athletes —Bagumba (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seemed to me entirely in keeping with WP:Summary style to create the list article, with the uncreated coaches as redirects to it. As more information and reliable sources are found -- and I am confident that, given the lengths of their coaching tenures, they will be for Smith and Olsen at least -- the list can be expanded, and at an appropriate point the information can be spun off and the redirects turned into proper articles. As to the question of larger implications, the college athletics wikiprojects have come to a broad consensus that such templates can and should be used to provide basic information in addition to aiding navigation. This is why, for example, the range of years coached is given. It's not applicable here, but in other such templates, indications are also made for interim coaches (see Template:Eastern Michigan Eagles football coach navbox). Elsewhere we find Template:Michigan Wolverines football, of which the first section simply gives the (current) all-time record. Looking outside athletics, consider Template:University of Kentucky, which gives the founding year, the currrent enrollment, and the endowment size. Of course, this can all be dismissed as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but you might consider that the very existence of that other stuff undermines the claim of a consensus that this sort of template is only to simplify movement among related articles. See also this deletion discussion, in which a template containing a single active link was retained. Look at the date; that was just this year—not 2005!. cmadler (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTN, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I doubt if there are many schools that have that type of notability for their college baseball coaches, let alone San Diego State. The list has been tagged for notability concerns. —Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the characterization of the support for this template as "noise" and "random" is not only off-base, but offensive. If anything here is random, it's the cherry picking of this template from a vast set of analogous templates that provide structure and navigation for a subject with established notability. The reason this discussion has garnered so much attention from college football and college basketball regulars is that those two projects have dedicated much time, effort, and discussion over the past year to these navboxes and the consensus we have built has promoted a vast improvement in the concision and the aesthetics of these subject areas and others, such at the NFL, that have adopted this form. I recently got into the business of creating a lot of the college baseball navboxes, to which Jrcla2 has joined in, because many of these baseball coaches, especially from the first half of the 20th century, also coached football and basketball. Many others were ex-Major League Baseball players, and their articles, along with the supporting navboxes, form a bridge to the body of MLB content here on Wikipedia. Higher-order standardization and consilience should be virtues we all support.

The accusation of canvassing against Jrcla2 is also unfounded. It's not as if Jrcla2 went on a systematic campaign of politicking with various editors. He indeed echoed my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, but I don't know that that's so unreasonable considering that the project talk page has gotten very busy over the past few days after a period of relative lull, and promises to get busier as we approach the start of the new college football season. Things can get lost in the shuffle pretty easily on a busy talk page, and, as I explained above, this is a subject into which many of us have invested a lot of time and effort. When we misapply a policy or law, as has been done here by Jrcla2's accuser, we exorcise the spirit of that law or policy and are left with nothing but empty bureaucracy.

As for the importance of this issue, true, we're not dealing with a trillion dollar debt here, but global finance is not our responsibility. We could blow up the Wikipedia servers and we'd still all be alive...the sun would come out tomorrow. But while the servers are still intact, we ought to focus on our charge here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:00, 30 July 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.

Template:Fix bunching[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fix bunching (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer required for its intended purpose, per Template talk:Fix bunching#Universal fix has been discovered!. All cases where this template was used for other purposes (usually as a hack to float elements in a certain way) have been manually fixed. While I hadn't planned on orphaning the template before nomination, an enterprising IP has done just that with the redundant articlespace transclusions (almost all military history articles). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, good job guys for finding the solution. No longer needed. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-D per nom and myself as author -- assuming it and alias Template:FixHTML(edit talk links history) (ORG NAME--some 10-12 talk page links there need fixed by a BOT!) are indeed both disconnected and out of use. Tis a pity--this was my one template people would email thanks to me for writing. Sniff, sniff. // FrankB 18:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: But if we do delete this, Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links, and its shortcuts, WP:BUNCH and WP:FIXBUNCH should be deleted at the same time, otherwise they're documenting a non-existent template for history. (Otherwise I'll revert the last change there by an IP where they've changed the historical page to start documenting the still existing {{stack}} and related.) Mark Hurd (talk) 05:56, 2 August 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.

Template:PGUJSPC[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PGUJSPC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:PUSRD-SP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The status of "portal selected picture" does not merit a box on the file page. Only exceptional-quality pictures (such as featured pictures, POTD) are worthy of such boxes. This box is unused, and does not need to be used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Orphaned and unnecessary. Hekerui (talk) 09:04, 4 August 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.

Template:Samantha Who?[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Samantha Who? (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only links to three articles. -happy5214 08:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely unneeded. The article on Samantha Who? links those few articles just fine, no navigation help needed. Hekerui (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Consistency is a good thing. Do users expect to see something like this at the bottom of a TV Show? Possibly. violet/riga [talk] 23:10, 4 August 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.

Template:Nuvola[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's used on 1 article with little foreseeable use on any other article, and can be a browser-crasher for some people with ancient computers. Not everything needs an over-illustrated example of a mass of icons.

The good thing I found about this was that there are a lot of good icons for my userpage, but I digress, and this does nothing to help it in article space.

The first two sentences in this nomination lead me to ask for it to be deleted. --Σ talkcontribs 07:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. This belongs in a gallery on Commons. It certainly isn't necessary to illustrate the complete icon set here for any reason. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subst into the Nuvola article. Maybe combine into a single image. Chris has a point that the icons might be useful on Commons.--Salix (talk): 06:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I substituted it and added a link to the commons category. Feel free to trim down the gallery or remove it, but I am sure it can now be deleted with no issues. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:55, 5 August 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.

Template:Time 100s 2000s[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete all. Courcelles 23:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Time 100s 2000s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Time 100s 2010s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Time 100s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Time 100 award isn't worth templating. It would be added to up to 100 articles for each year in the 2010s. It has little value. I've also nominated the Time 2010s template for deletion for the same reasons. Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is cruft. Just one private company's hundred favorite subjects for each year. No encyclopedic value. --damiens.rf 03:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - we have articles and categories for this huge lists -> Category:Time (magazine) 100 Lists.Moxy (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Since we have a complete set of Lists AND categories, this is just excessive.Curb Chain (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep personally, I think the templates are like Pro Bowl teams for culture to complement the Person of the Year, which is like the MVP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's one entry a year, compared with 100 entries a year for these (Times 100).Curb Chain (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • List only. There are many annual 100 lists, and this is just one of them. They should all be Lists rather than Templates. The information is useful, but the presentation is not. However, I strongly disagree that it is "spamming a thousand links". A useful list would also include the full name and reason for achievement (business name, for example). A list of last names isn't particularly helpful in most cases. 75.60.18.64 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Merge related template TFDs, I have closed the duplicate discussion immediately below, which covers the same three templates. Most of the same people had made the same type of comments, but the closing admin may want to review them for any nuances. Here are the comments from the other discussion by individuals who did not comment in this one:
  • Delete, it's definitely not terribly useful to be able to navigate between Time 100 recipients since there are so many and don't really have a unifying theme. It's probably more useful to readers to just have recipients' articles mention that they won it and link to the main article, which is probably what is already done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all It is Time magazine fancruft. Martarius (talk) 10:45, 28 July 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.

Template:Time 100s 2010s[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Procedural close. Per a request at WP:AN, I'm combining this discussion with the one immediately above, which discusses the exact same templates . RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Time 100s 2010s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Time 100s 2000s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Time 100s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Time 100 award isn't worth templating. It would be added to up to 100 articles for each year in the 2010s. It has little value. It's also ugly, but that could be fixed. Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is a notable group of individuals.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are readers really going to need to navigate between 1000 different pages from a navbox? These people have very little in common which would warrant clumping them like this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's definitely not terribly useful to be able to navigate between Time 100 recipients since there are so many and don't really have a unifying theme. It's probably more useful to readers to just have recipients' articles mention that they won it and link to the main article, which is probably what is already done. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Axem and per my vote above. --damiens.rf 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - we have articles and categories for this huge lists -> Category:Time (magazine) 100 Lists.Moxy (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Since we have a complete set of Lists AND categories, this is just excessive.Curb Chain (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all It is Time magazine fancruft. Martarius (talk) 10:45, 28 July 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.

Template:...And Justice for All (album)[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:...And Justice for All (album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded duplicate of {{Metallica}}. I Help, When I Can.[12] 01:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your signature here, the words "I Help When I Can" are black now instead of blue. Did you also nominate the {{Pretty Hate Machine}} template for deletion below this page? Txiиg$ Tx/-\t VV!ll +8I+E 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Pretty Hate Machine}} is on the July 27 logs. I Help, When I Can.[12] 02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to the more comprehensive template. --RL0919 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single albums don't need their own templates – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this being nominated in such fashion as the Nine Inch Nails's album templates: because they are having trouble going thru CSD? If so, Delete.Curb Chain (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason these templates are here is because pissed off fans keep removing the CSD's. There are Metallica ones too. I Help, When I Can.[12] 15:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's delete them all.Curb Chain (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Jweiss11 likes this. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and near impossible to read. Have I gone colour blind? Яehevkor ✉ 01:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single album does not require a navigation template. Hekerui (talk) 09:01, 4 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_28&oldid=1078573398"