Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 16: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 219: Line 219:
</gallery>
</gallery>
[[Special:Contributions/77.11.201.49|77.11.201.49]] ([[User talk:77.11.201.49|talk]]) 12:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/77.11.201.49|77.11.201.49]] ([[User talk:77.11.201.49|talk]]) 12:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
::Didn't I warn you about IP-hopping just yesterday? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


*'''Replace and delete''' per nom. Good catch, no other wrapper seems to exist in the list [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place]] with that few transclusions. Re [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] - 1) there are other sets of entities with fewer members, but they all use {{tl|Infobox settlement}} directly; 2) thousands of places in Canada already use {{tl|Infobox settlement}} directly, so hundreds of editors of Canadian articles know the interface of that one already plus the thousands of others that edit articles about places around the world that use {{tl|Infobox settlement}}. [[User:JelgavaLV|JelgavaLV]] ([[User talk:JelgavaLV|talk]]) 16:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Replace and delete''' per nom. Good catch, no other wrapper seems to exist in the list [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place]] with that few transclusions. Re [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] - 1) there are other sets of entities with fewer members, but they all use {{tl|Infobox settlement}} directly; 2) thousands of places in Canada already use {{tl|Infobox settlement}} directly, so hundreds of editors of Canadian articles know the interface of that one already plus the thousands of others that edit articles about places around the world that use {{tl|Infobox settlement}}. [[User:JelgavaLV|JelgavaLV]] ([[User talk:JelgavaLV|talk]]) 16:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Line 387: Line 388:
[[Special:Contributions/77.11.201.49|77.11.201.49]] ([[User talk:77.11.201.49|talk]]) 12:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/77.11.201.49|77.11.201.49]] ([[User talk:77.11.201.49|talk]]) 12:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
{{-}}
{{-}}
*'''Admin note''' - closer please note that the various IPs in the 77.11.x.x, 78.5x.x.x, and 89.14.x.x ranges, are all very likely being used by one editor to badger this discussion with graphics about the situations in other geographic areas and similar unrelated points. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=908555568#Could_someone_quickly_protect_these_pages_please?] for more info. Please weight accordingly. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


==== [[Template:Thomas A. Simone Award]] ====
==== [[Template:Thomas A. Simone Award]] ====

Revision as of 14:31, 30 July 2019

< July 15 July 17 >

July 16

Template:Zuri-Metzgete

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) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 16 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).

Caltrain s-line templates

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 -FASTILY 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{S-line}} templates for Caltrain. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Caltrain. All transclusions replaced. There are four dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and past consensus to migrate to Adjacent stations module. BLAIXX 13:00, 22 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).

Abandoned Featured portals templates

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) 17:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TFD#REASONS, 3 - The templates are not used after Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as "historical". Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:51, 16 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:Portal nav

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TFD#REASONS, 3 - The template is not used. Redundant with Template:Portal information sidebarGuilherme Burn (talk) 16:39, 16 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).

Portal navbar series

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) 17:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TFD#REASONS, 3 - The templates are not used in any portals. Only used is Template:Portal navbar no header2 Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:23, 16 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:AAF roster

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. Already deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) -- Trialpears (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 16 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:User wikipedia/OTRSAccess

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:User OTRS. (non-admin closure) -- Trialpears (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User wikipedia/OTRSAccess with Template:User OTRS.
practically the same.. with only logo different. Viztor (talk) 13:01, 16 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:Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship

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) 22:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

recently tagged for deletion by the author. not a serious title. list of champions are in the main article. Frietjes (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obviously. APM (talk) 20:52, 19 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).

BART s-line templates

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 -FASTILY 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

s-line data modules

{{S-line}} templates for Bay Area Rapid Transit. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/BART. All transclusions replaced. There are 24 dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; redundant and no longer in use. Jc86035 (talk) 14:36, 16 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:Decades

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Hddty. (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin note previously nominated for deletion, the outcome allowed for renomination if unused. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused, still after the last TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 21:20, 18 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:Hierarchy of the Catholic Church

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) 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. The contents can easily be added to the article Hierarchy of the Catholic Church The Banner talk 10:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - that template is so cluttered and hard to read and is just a mess. I see no reason for it to exist in its current form and since it was just created yesterday, there is no inherit "keep" here. --Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could it be merged somehow with Template:Catholic Church hierarchy sidebar? PPEMES (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that there are also factual inaccuracies. One thing that stands out is that I don't think that it is right to show 'Lay' at the very bottom, because I think that this is not the position of the catholic Church. In fact, sacramental marriage ranks above consecrated life in the Order of precedence in the Catholic Church. If at all the template is retained, this needs to be corrected. The Discoverer (talk) 16:37, 18 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:Infobox province or territory of Canada

Replace and delete

Province or territory of Canada-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions (13!), on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

  1. No other {{Infobox settlement}} wrapper has that few transclusions
  2. Only two wrappers for first-level country subdivisions exist (the other has 89 transclusions)
  3. Except for provinces and territories, Canada already uses {{Infobox settlement}}

Cf. Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Geography_and_place#Place 77.11.163.184 (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If it isn't broken then don't fix it as this looks to be a solution in search of a problem. I fail to see this maintenance issue per the template's sparse editing history [1], [2] What exactly is the maintenance issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As pointed out in the nomination it is broken, because out of thousands of articles about territorial entities in Canada, 13 use an extra template that is not used anywhere else. The others use {{Infobox settlement}} which is used in 500 000+ articles about places all around the world, i.e. thousands of editors know the standard template. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Knowledgekid87, I fail to see this maintenance issue per the template's sparse editing history - If you failed, why you voted Keep? If new features are implemented in the infobox that is wrapped by the one in discussion, namely {{Infobox settlement}}, then they might be needed to be implemented in the wrapper too. Thus, a "sparse editing history" could also be a proof that nobody is implementing new features here. 78.54.200.249 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are only 13 transclusions because that's how many provinces and territories there are in Canada. Like Knowledgekid87 I don't see what the problem is. I doubt that subst:ing this infobox (so that the template's complex code is added to the page in place of the transclusion) would reduce the cognitive or maintenance overhead. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ivanvector, Like Knowledgekid87 I don't see what the problem is - then why did you vote? 78.54.200.249 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, this is a community discussion. Do you have a point to make or are you just trolling? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ivanvector, this actually applies to you. Why did you vote if you didn't even see the reported problem? 78.54.200.249 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure I can't expand on my earlier comment. It's not that I don't see the reported problem as you put it, I don't believe the problem as stated by the nominator actually is any kind of problem, and thus I see no compelling need to fix it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ivanvector, why should there be a dedicated template for 13 Canadian items? It is inconsistent with the usage elsewhere in the English Wikipedia. Of course, one could have one infobox per type, (here it is actually one infobox for two types, province and territory), but how many types exist? In Canada alone, since types are defined by provincial law, and there are also federal entities, maybe 10? Or 20? Or in the USA, just on some higher levels there could be 10+ types. The UN has 193 member states, some country-like entities that are not UN members exist, and then assume 10 types for each, so 200 * 10 = 2000 templates. But 2000 such templates don't exist. Why an extra template for 13 (!) Canadian entities?

77.11.201.49 (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I warn you about IP-hopping just yesterday? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Visualisation of Canada place infobox usage
Infobox usage on articles about places in Canada

TerraCyprus (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC) // TerraCyprus, in the caption I changed "Austria" to "Canada". 78.55.133.168 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is just a Canadian variation of USA's {{Infobox U.S. state}} and England's {{Infobox English county}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete Totally unnecessary, infobox settlement works perfectly. No need to copy the U.S. state infobox mindlessly. TrailBlzr (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per above and per most of the recent discussions. I'll just repeat my sentiment from previous discussions: the wrapper system is not the correct way this should be handled, and instead a new module system similar to how the french wiki does this should be worked on. As it stands at the moment, I support the one template model for the reasons stated above by others. --Gonnym (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikiprojects make theses so they don't have to deal with unwanted parameters being filed. --Moxy 🍁 02:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moxy, can you relate your statement to the numbers presented above that 3659+ articles about territorial entities of Canada alone do not use a wrapper around Infobox settlement and only 13 do? It seems "Wikiprojects" didn't "make theses" for most - does that mean they have other ways "so they don't have to deal with unwanted parameters being filed" or are they filled but they do not deal with them? Also, why is there no other Infobox settlement wrapper with that few transclusions in the English Wikipedia? 78.55.155.203 (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : General consensus in the English Wikipedia seems to be to delete the wrappers that have few transclusions:
Wrappers with less than 200 transclusions are usually deleted
Wrappers with less than 20 transclusions have never been kept
Some items blue in the list, due to redirects
Template Transclusion count
{{Infobox Austrian district}} 88
{{Infobox Bangladesh district}} 63
{{Infobox Belgium settlement}} 31
{{Infobox Bulgarian province}} 30
{{Infobox Canton}} 27
{{Infobox Chaco}} 25
{{Infobox Chilean region}} 16
{{Infobox County Romania}} 19
{{Infobox District PT}} 17
{{Infobox District Slovakia}} 80
{{Infobox Egyptian Governorate}} 29
{{Infobox England region}} 11
{{Infobox Finnish former municipality}} 82
{{Infobox French region}} 32
{{Infobox fylke}} 20
{{Infobox Fylkeskommune}} 19
{{Infobox German Regierungsbezirk}} 33
{{Infobox German state}} 23
{{Infobox Greek prefecture}} 13
{{Infobox Helsinki subdivision}} 90
{{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} 306
{{Infobox Kelurahan}} 1
{{Infobox Kenya county}} 3
{{Infobox Korean settlement}} 448
{{Infobox Latvian district}} 28
{{Infobox Latvian municipalities}} 114
{{Infobox London Borough}} 34
{{Infobox Luxembourg commune}} 119
{{Infobox Luxembourg former commune}} 20
{{Infobox Maldives}} 234
{{Infobox Maldives atoll}} 30
{{Infobox Neighborhood Portland OR}} 95
{{Infobox Nepal district}} 75
{{Infobox Omaha Neighborhood}} 1
{{Infobox Palestine municipality}} 434
{{Infobox Partido Argentina}} 214
{{Infobox Peru region}} 26
{{Infobox Philippine region}} 18
{{Infobox Prefecture Japan}} 55
{{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}} 29
{{Infobox Province Peru}} 191
{{Infobox Province Spain}} 38
{{Infobox Province TR}} 81
{{Infobox region of Italy}} 21
{{Infobox Russian city district}} 1
{{Infobox Russian governorate}} 40
{{Infobox Scotland council area}} 35
{{Infobox Scotland county}} 23
{{Infobox Singapore neighbourhood}} 119
{{Infobox South African municipality}} 296
{{Infobox South African town}} 2,114
{{Infobox St. Louis neighborhood}} 79
{{Infobox Town AT}} 2,411
{{Infobox townlands}} 87
{{Infobox UAE community}} 83
{{Infobox Ukrainian oblast}} 26
{{Infobox Ukrainian raion}} 400
{{Infobox Uruguayan Department}} 19
{{Infobox Venezuelan municipality}} 216
{{Infobox Venezuelan state}} 23
{{Infobox Vienna District}} 27

78.54.117.60 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : tens of thousands of pages about items in the Americas use {{Infobox settlement}} directly.
In the Americas, except for 1) USA : 50 states and the counties 2) Canada : 10 provinces, 3 territories - all of the articles about territorial entities use {{Infobox settlement}} directly, i.e. also thousands of US and Canadian articles use {{Infobox settlement}} directly. By switching 13(!!) articles to direct usage of {{Infobox settlement}} Canada could join the one-template-independent-of-type setup of Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, Africa [except Cape Verde islands]

77.11.201.49 (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin note - closer please note that the various IPs in the 77.11.x.x, 78.5x.x.x, and 89.14.x.x ranges, are all very likely being used by one editor to badger this discussion with graphics about the situations in other geographic areas and similar unrelated points. See [3] for more info. Please weight accordingly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thomas A. Simone Award

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) 22:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs a navbox. Only 10 entries out of 36 have articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per Muboshgu's reasoning.-- Yankees10 20:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove non-links. It's a common practice that articles on awards can have a navigation template for the award winners. 10 + the award are quite a few links. --Gonnym (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the list in the article Thomas A. Simone Award is more apt. No need to have a navbox for a metro-area high school football award. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need a navbox for every highschool football award. Frietjes (talk) 12:52, 16 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:Confucius Peace Prize

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) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial template that fails WP:NAVBOX guidelines; basically nobody has actually accepted this prize, it's solely the pronouncements of one insignificant group. Only transcluded on one page now (disclaimer: after I removed it from some of the "winners"). Originally created by a now-banned editor. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_21#Category:Confucius_Peace_Prize . SnowFire (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and use. It actually does not fail the guidelines and is in fact an accepted practice to have a navigation template for winners of an award notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. See {{Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture}} as an example of an award that no one (or mostly no one) "accepted" and yet it has an article, a nav template and is placed on all articles. I have no idea how notable the Confucius Peace Prize is, but if you think it isn't, then nominate it at AfD and if it gets deleted, this will follow. --Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym: It's notable enough for an article, but its notability is not exactly as a prize if that makes any sense. I suggest you read the main article. The Confucius Peace Prize was notable as a reaction to the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobao and the "empty chair" and all, that China might set up a rival prize and was unhappy with the result there. Basically every "prize" post-2010 was a non-notable continuation that, to the extent it received any coverage, was considered a "news of the weird" ha-ha type thing. The Golden Raspberries... okay, to be honest, I think that template is borderline too, but the Golden Raspberries are very notable and legitimately are mentioned in retrospectives on movies, and they're also the kind of award you'd expect people not to accept. That's not the case here; this award is far less notable than the Raspberries (absolutely nobody will write a retrospective on Fidel Castro saying he won this award at age 88, by which we mean a statue was handed to a random Cuban student in China. I am not making that up. [4]) Basically, "has an article" is not a good standard here, this is closer to a political party that won a few seats in 2010 and still technically exists, but gets <1% of the vote ever since, they shouldn't have their later pronouncements subsisting on the fumes of legitimate older notability from 2010. SnowFire (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nominator says, it poorly adheres to the criteria at WP:NAVBOX. 1: Yes, it's a coherent subject. 2: No (only about half of recipient articles mention the prize) 3: No, these articles mostly don't refer to each other. 4: Yes there's an article on the prize. 5: No, if not for this navbox, it's not the case that editors would be inclined to link many of these articles in the "See also" sections of the articles. Such a navbox puts WP:UNDUE attention on an award that, for most of these winners, is not a remotely noteworthy aspect of their career. Colin M (talk) 01:20, 16 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:WikiProject Australian law

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 redirect to Template:WikiProject Australia. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law, users are supposed to use {{WikiProject Australia|law=yes}} to assess articles. Therefore, this template serves no technical purpose.

It's currently existing uses could potentially be served by making this a wrapper, but I would say the safest bet is just to make it a redirect to {{WikiProject Australia}} as to avoid the redundancy. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, a redirect doesn't require TFD. you can just "be bold" and do it. Frietjes (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frietjes: I know, but I wanted to get feedback in case there was objections. Sometimes these things can go either way, and I wasn't 100% sure. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:48, 16 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_16&oldid=908563627"