Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 23 June 25 >

June 24[edit]

Template:Olddelrev[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 merge to Template:Olddelrev. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Olddelrev with Template:Olddrvfull.
No reason for two of these. Merge them for simplicity. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The names are not ideal, but those concerns are out of scope for this discussion and can be handled in the future. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:53, 5 July 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).

Template:Batsmen with a T20I strike rate above 140[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to similar template deletion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_3#Template:ODI_All-rounders, this also fails WP:NAVBOX guidelines and is based on arbitrary criteria. It isn't useful either. Most of the players are not active so clearly not helpful for the readers to navigate between players who played few T20I and scored some quick runs. For that purpose and many more, they can use Cricinfo – it is very useful for statistics. Otherwise, WP don't need such templates.

Per WP:NAVBOX template should meet: I. It should have an article on the topic, and should be based on a coherent subject. II. Subject of the template should be discussed on every article. Störm (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. To respond to the nominator's point: (1) this was created as a companion template for Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 - in T20 cricket strike rate is more highly regarded than average. (2) It doesn't include players who have just played a few T20Is: the inclusion threshold is actually very high. (3) The criteria are not arbitrary: they have been picked to ensure that a reasonable number of players are included. (4) The article on which this template is based is List of Twenty20 International records#Highest career strike rate. StAnselm (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the cut-off is WP:OR per StAnselm's "reasonable number" criteria which doesn't match the criteria used by the the parent section. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete simply because the number lacks any wider significance and is just something the creator made up. Strike rate isn't widely used anyway, a strike rate of 140 is completely arbitrary as a marker for excellence of some kind. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course strike rate is widely used. It is widely recognised that strike-rate is more important than average in the T20 format. StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 29 June 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).

Template:2015 AFC Cup Group A[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:33, 25 June 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).

Template:Metro Transit station[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template duplicated some of the functionality of {{Metro Transit stations}}, but with the implementation of WP:USSTATIONS no articles were named according to the convention it supported. All the transclusions were via the redirect {{MTs}}, which I've now pointed at Module:Adjacent stations/Metro (Minnesota). Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Useddenim (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 1 July 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).

Template:University of Puget Sound[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox with a whopping one linked article and three total transclusions. How has this stayed like this for five years? Raymie (t • c) 07:33, 24 June 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_24&oldid=905572231"