Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2 September 4 >

September 3[edit]

Template:SAFF U-19 Championship[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 no consensus. Alakzi (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First tournament has only just started. In a few years time when there have been more tournaments this will be a useful aid to navigation but currently it is not. The two links in the navbox are already found in both the articles themselves. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there is no harm to the encyclopedia by retaining this template especially it will be expanded in the future. It is encouraging to editors to continue writing articles they know they will be used in a template. Deleting it now will only mean that it will have to be recreated in the future.
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Announcements for future host will be made soon, and a template will be remade if this is deleted. There is really no point in deleting it, other than pushing a deletionist ideology. Ayoopdog (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2015 (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.

Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form nomination templates[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. Alakzi (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only Hugo Award category to have these separate nomination templates. The winner already has the Template:Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) template. No need for an extra one. charge2charge (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • tentative Keep, I personally liked the only one I've looked at, 2011, and quickly used it to make an addition to another template (have never heard of the video Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury, watched it, and it seems template-worthy and a nice tribute). Maybe the only question is "should nominees be included on a major award template", or do other major awards have yearly nominee listings on any of their templates. I'm not familiar enough with them to know. Randy Kryn 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, only need to link between winners, not nominees. imagine if we had this for the academy awards ... total navbox cruft. if you want to find out the nominees, try [gasp] to read the article? Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Complete overkill. "Not everything needs a navbox." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I completely agree. If someone has a burning need to know what the 20XX Hugo nominees were, he can go read the articles. Ravenswing 09:40, 9 September 2015 (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:Italian brands[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 relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#Template:Italian brands. Alakzi (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very large, and already covered by both a list article and a category. Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notify Northamerica1000 . Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into separate navigation bars by topic, which will significantly reduce its size. North America1000 00:08, 4 September 2015 (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:Infobox Star Wars character[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 relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#Template:Infobox Star Wars character. Alakzi (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost an exact copy of {{Infobox character}} with a low transclusion count (only 64). ~ RobTalk 14:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought Andy had already whacked all of these characters-for-particular-series infoboxes. If so, this one should be treated no differently. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2015 (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:Starbox multi[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 relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#Template:Starbox multi. Alakzi (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used widely (only 8 transclusions). It has already been replaced by the templates at {{Starboxes}}, which has the necessary functionality. Nothing to really merge here. ~ RobTalk 14:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, remaining transclusions appear to be via {{Starbox 2}}, which I've been merging into {{Starboxes}}. This has no transclusions not via Starbox 2, I believe. ~ RobTalk 20:25, 3 September 2015 (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:Real estate development[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 relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#Template:Real estate development. Alakzi (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, not updated since 2009. NSH002 (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, a bit of a "grab bag" of items. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Speaking as a commercial real estate lawyer who specializes in development, this is not a "grab bag" or topics, but a properly structured overview of the major sub-topics related to real estate development. It's a shame it's not being used. The template creator has not been active in the past year; do we have a WikiProject for real estate? If so, the WikiProject should be made aware of this template and its potential usefulness. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2015 (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:Louisiana High School Athletic Association[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. Alakzi (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless each of these individual groupings of high schools are somehow notable per guidelines they don't all need their own pages and thus this template is not needed; the groupings can be on the page about this association. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually done this before with templates so if this is somehow out of order please let me know and I would be happy to do what is asked or needed. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, almost entirely redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unused with no useful links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's some kind of important double-secret national security code. Like the Bible Code, only more real and Louisianaer. Randy Kryn 19:52, 4 September 2015 (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.
Discussion is already closed. Use Deletion review if you're not satisfied

Note: I would have been a Keep vote on the precedence of preventing the deletion of numerous similar high school athletic groupings. However, there was no notice posted on any of the affected articles. This is a BAD system, effectively hiding the secret deletion activity (and the only purpose for all these "discussions" is for deletion) and I have said exactly that on numerous occasions. Templates for deletion should notify ALL affected articles that a deletion discussion is going on. I protest this decision and any others like it that may occur in the future. Trackinfo (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Trackinfo: While I disagree on the usefulness of the LHSAA template (it was almost entirely red links), I am very mindful of proper TfD procedure including posting TfD notices on the template page and providing user talk page notices to template creators who have been active in the last several months. Was this not done? I did not check. If notice was not provided as required by the TfD instructions, that is the basis for unwinding this close, temporarily restoring the template, re-opening the TfD discussion, and providing proper notice as required. Please advise ASAP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis, Northamerica1000, Alakzi, and 331dot: Pending a brief investigation regarding notice, we may need to be prepared to re-open this TfD and any others where required notice was not provided. If so, an additional 7 to 10 days after proper notice would be appropriate. In the interest of fairness, we need to provide proper notice per the TfD instructions -- this has been a major problem in the past, but I thought we were over it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already responded to Trackinfo on my talk page, here. What's with the random assortment of pings? Alakzi (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alakzi: Opabinia and NA1000 are among the few administrators who are closing TfDs, and have the ability un-delete. You were the NAC closer, a dot331 was the nominator who was supposed to have provided the required TfD notices. All pinged in the interests of fairness and openness. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have simply asked Roger, who deleted the template, to undelete it. Alakzi (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I have no objection at all to further discussion. I also am only interested in this specific template and did not intend to set a general precedent. I wasn't aware of any notification requirements beyond the template page itself being tagged. I apologize. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @331dot: Shit happens; we were all newbies once, so no one is going to beat you up too badly. You may want to review the instructions at WP:TfD for future reference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trackinfo: No "deletionist" conspiracy here, just a newbie nominator who was unaware of the TfD notice requirements. FYI, I am usually pretty protective of the sports-related WikiProjects, and I usually check to make sure proper notice has been provided. I didn't check in this case, so it's partially my fault. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did actually notify the author by using Twinkle, which is all that's "required". The WikiProject were notified automatically by means of WP:AALERTS. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alakzi: Was the required TfD notice template placed on the subject template page, so that it was transcluded on all article pages that used the template? (I can't see it -- the template page has been deleted.) If so, our rookie friend satisfied the "letter of the law" regarding notice. I thinks that's what TrackInfo was bitching about. If not, his complaint is valid, but easily fixed (as you said on your user talk page). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_3&oldid=1077821833"