Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4

[edit]

Template:Red Rose Speedway

[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 relisted on 2019 May 8. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:39, 8 May 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:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round table

[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary fork of template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round Group A table, ... note that separating these sports tables from the articles is deprecated per this thread. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:56, 5 April 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:1996 S.League table series 1

[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merged with article with attribution per this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:56, 5 April 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:Apostles

[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 keep. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Apostles with Template:New Testament people.
Dublicate entries. Redundancy? PPEMES (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - redundant as all entries of {{Apostles}} are placed in {{New Testament people}}. No need for merging. --Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template delineates the single most important group of New Testament people and makes a simple, recognizable tool for navigation. There are many instances where we don't put full, general, and distracting templates in place of narrower, more specific ones. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the point that every single link in that template is also in the bigger one, which means that both templates appear on the same set of articles. That is not how we use navigation templates. --Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your point is "redundancy": I saw. However, there is nothing in WP:TG that says that's a reason for deletion. Compare the redundancy between Template:WWII history by nation and the larger Template:World War II, for example. SteveStrummer (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually see WP:T3. After re-checking, it seems the last bullet point in WP:TG does in fact say it: Templates that misrepresent policy or substantially duplicate or hardcode the same functionality of established templates may fit the criteria for speedy deletion, "substantially duplicate" is what happens here. --Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wrong venue for that argument. T3 is one of the criteria for speedy deletion: It's meant to get rid of obvious errors of template duplication. This is a unique template for a notable standalone topic. The actual TG rules are pretty inclusive of anything helpful to the reader. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I agree with SteveStrummer, both templates are useful to readers who are looking to find other articles. Apostles are distinct from the other people in the larger template. Again, why delete it? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 21:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially since the Apostles are not just figures of the New Testament but of historical interest during the Apostolic Age which goes far beyond the New Testament. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Apostles template. Any redundancy can be dealt with by removing the Apostles from the bigger template or by a template withing the template. Str1977 (talk) 08:54, 4 May 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:List of world's fairs in Nordic countries

[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 relisted on 2019 May 20. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 20 May 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:Kim Dong-ryool

[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This musical artist's navigational template consists of two English Wikipedia articles, their article and one album. There are not enough links to justify a template per WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 03:51, 4 April 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).

Athletic program head coaches navboxes

[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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These navboxes provide navigation between the current head coaches of various sports teams at a given school. The connection between coaches of different sports, even at the same school, is rather tenuous. Furthermore, footers of coach bio articles tend be very crowded already with other more meaningful navboxes. These navboxes seem like unnecessary clutter and should be deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle on the athletic program navboxes but they have been suggested to merge in the past to the universities' navboxes because they typically link program articles anyway. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 24#Template:Rhode Island Rams navbox.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rikster2, yes, I've added the Texas A&M navbox to the nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 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:ŠKF Sereď squad

[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:ŠKF iClinic Sereď squad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:ŠKF Sereď squad with Template:ŠKF iClinic Sereď squad.
Duplicate templates. The "ŠKF iClinic Sereď squad" template uses the teams current name. DannyS712 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:57, 4 April 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_April_4&oldid=897968395"