Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 4

[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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to have this template when all links take you to various sections of a single page; List of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Proposing deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 4 August 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).
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 no consensus to deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary template Joeykai (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 4 August 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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 03:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering the question. Maybe next time you'll include it in your rationale. Hmlarson (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EXISTING is an essay; it explains precedent, but it isn't a policy/guideline, so I generally don't link to it in a rationale. This one as everything to do with common sense. Navigational boxes are for navigating, so a box that fails to navigate shouldn't be used in articles, obviously. ~ Rob13Talk 21:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you created the articles (and they weren't immediately nominated for deletion or slapped with a notability tag, of course), I'd withdraw my nomination, yes. This isn't useful as-is, and it shouldn't remain in articles while it isn't useful for navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 02:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:50, 4 August 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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 03:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:49, 4 August 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).
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 no consensusPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 03:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh, I'm kind of on the fence because it's almost good enough... if the one red link is notable, I'll say weak keep; if not, I'll say weak delete —PC-XT+ 19:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PC-XT: It's hard to say. On one hand, he was inducted into the North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame. On the other hand, it was mostly for his contributions in high school sports, which is what he appears to have exclusively coached since leaving Wake Forest. At the very least, we can probably say that no-one is going to rush to write an article on a high school sports coach. See here for the relevant article so you can make your own judgement. It's probably on the fence of notability. ~ Rob13Talk 01:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, in that case, I'll strike my weak keep !vote, because I don't think we want it kept like this long-term, but if someone did establish the article, I would support restoration of this template. Thanks for the reply and link. —PC-XT+ 02:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, connects a sufficient number of articles (and here is the HOF article for Kennedy). Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 4 August 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).
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 no consensusPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 03:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:50, 4 August 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).
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 relisted on 2016 August 13Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:57, 13 August 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).
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 no consensusPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template created in 2007. Still only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 4 August 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).
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 keep, and feel free to rename it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, created in 2008. Only six transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:44, 4 August 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).
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 no consensus. Please feel free to renominate if the situation hasn't changed in a few weeks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user test. If still needed, userfy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It serves as an example of something that can be done (even if not currently used), and I anticipate using it in future discussions. Userfying would require changing a bunch of links, and make it more tedious to use. There does not appear to be any harm in retaining it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with JJ. It was only created a few months back and though there is not consensus for its deployment (which hopefully would result in a change to Module:Citation/CS1) it seems a bit early to recommend deletion (there are plenty of stubs in article space that are considerably much older). In terms of whether to userfy or not, I too lean towards leaving it as it presents no harm (if there were something akin to {{stub}} or {{expert needed}} for templates I would recommend such). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What, precisely, is unclear about Keep and Keep? I think Andy's listing of this was just routine question of something that is currently on-hold; there has been no indication of any particular reason for deleting this. A "more thorough discussion" is a pointless waste of time and cpu cycles. And disk space. as now we have a discussion to archive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One keep is from the author and the other is from an unregistered IP. So, if you are counting, that would be 2 keeps to 1 delete. Not what I would call consensus. I see no problem with letting the discussion run for another week. If you find it a waste of time, you don't need to participate further in the discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:26, 7 August 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).