Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 18 January 20 >

January 19[edit]

Template:Latin Union[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 relist to Jan 27. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Hiatus[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. delldot ∇. 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created less than a month ago and is only transcluded on 1 page. This seems unnecessary as it will probably not be used enough to be retained when this template can be created through customizing the parameters in {{Retired}}. In addition, the wording of this template makes it seem redundant to {{Not around}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redundant with {{Wikibreak}} -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not redirect. Agreed with the IP. A review of hiatus doesn't seem to suggest that the template name will be needed, so I'm ambivalent about whether it should be deleted or simply redirected. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hello. This is the author of the Template. When I created the page, I didn't know about the editable parameters of the Retired template (because I was a noob).. I figured out a few weeks later, and when I realized I couldn't delete a page by myself, I just left it as is. I'm sorry about causing a hassle. Pandg2 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect after replacing the one transclusion —PC-XT+ 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per redundant. Perhaps even WP:G7-speedy per author Pandg2's delete !vote. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2016 (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).

Template:Royal Rumble Final Four[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) Primefac (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. WWE doesn't recognize it as a large feat. CrashUnderride 12:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Was notable exactly once due to a storyline set up by it. Otherwise arbitrary and meaningless. oknazevad (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost winning the Rumble doesn't get you anything at all. Winners or bust. No reason to have this over Final Two, or Three, or Five ... no reason to have any of these at all. Arbitrary, yes. starship.paint ~ KO 12:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even sure what the point is? So you almost won?  MPJ-US  13:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Kill it with fire--WillC 15:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that with the exception of the 1997 Rumble the 27th-29th person eliminated is trival.--67.68.31.185 (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally useless.LM2000 (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has become a thing for the last four to go to each corner and put on their waiting-for-the-camera faces for about ten seconds, while JBL says "We're down to the final four, Michael!" and Cole says "Which one of these Superstars is headed to WrestleMania?" Then they pair off and Lawler makes his happy noise. It'll happen this year as sure as the winner will put on his waiting-for-the-camera face while pointing to the big sign, but it's also exactly as lame as that spot. Not arbitrary, though. The ring has precisely four corners. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insignificant "accomplishment", not recognized as anything special. Trivial. Echoing all above. Gloss 21:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Uneeded. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2016 (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).

Template:PD-unknown[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 relist to Jan 28. Primefac (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2016 (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).

Template:The King of Fighters chronology[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) Primefac (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per a previous discussion, video game chronology templates generally aren't considered useful, unless it isn't clear how they are chronologically set. In this case, it's not needed as there is no confusion. Soetermans. T / C 11:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, delete. Clearly there isn't going to be any (or much, at all) confusion. --Izno (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. And not only are these types of templates frowned upon, but this is pretty functionally unnecessary too, its pretty redundant to its main navigational template. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if we did use these types of templates I don't see a need with a timeline this simple. Even the template for The Legend of Zelda chronology (a much more complex timeline) was deleted.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2016 (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).

Template:FHSAA's All-Century Team[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 userfy to User:Dirtlawyer1/FHSAA's All-Century Team. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template denotes an obscure honor that is not an defining characteristic for its recipients. No stand-alone article exists for this subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agree with nom that this high school honors isn't defining for these professional players to justify adding to template creep. Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."—Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or userfy Per @Dirtlawyer1 userfy request below. Agree to userfication for proposed conversion to an article-space list, not for recreation as a navbox per WP:ATC.—Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Jweiss11 and Bagumba.--Yankees10 07:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - @Jweiss11, Bagumba, Yankees10, and Cbl62: Per my explanation on the WP:CFB talk page, instead of deleting this navbox, I would propose to move the template to a sandbox in my user space where I may convert it into a stand-alone article and list. The honors are certainly notable per the many regional Florida newspapers that covered them at the time, even if the honors do not rise to the level of meriting a navbox. Thank you for your consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you identify say 3 independent sources that would satisfy WP:LISTN? I found a couple on news sites but they are just reprints of the FHSAA press release.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per your request:
1. Bill Buchalter, "Deacon Jones anchors list of Florida's top 100 high school football greats," Orlando Sentinel (December 5, 2007)
2. John Patton, "FHSAA's top 100 Florida players," The Gainesville Sun (December 5, 2007)
3. "FHSAA's All-Century Team," The Ledger (December 13, 2007)
4. Roy Fuoco, "Polk's Lewis, Riley Selected to FHSAA's All-Century Team," The Ledger (December 13, 2007)
5. Joey Johnston, "Those Were The Days," The Tampa Tribune (December 15, 2007)
6. "Fla. player of century: Emmitt Smith," The Gainesville Sun (December 16, 2007)
7. "FHSAA Top 100," The Florida Times-Union (December 24, 2007)
8. "The Best Out of a Hundred," The Florida Times-Union (December 24, 2007)
This all-time team got a lot of ink in Florida newspapers in 2007; these articles are just what comes up with a simple Google search -- no Google News Archive, no Newspapers.com, no NewspaperArhcive.com. And these are just what I would call significant coverage -- there is a lot more in the nature of passing mentions in articles about the individual honorees. Keep in mind that about half of the major newspapers in the state of Florida are buried behind paywalls, including the The Fort Myers News-Press, The Miami Herald, The Naples Daily News, The Palm Beach Post and St. Petersburg Times. I can find more if you want me to do so. There has also been continuing mentions of the All-Century Team every time a newspaper publishes a retrospective on a player on this list -- perhaps not rising to the level of "significant," but evidencing the continuing noteworthiness of this all-time team. Building a stand-alone article/list will not lack for sources, and I am not advocating keeping and/or recreating the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to userfying. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to userfying here either. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_19&oldid=1142562462"