Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 30 January 1 >

December 31[edit]

Template:Infobox fictional creature[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 with NPASR. It should be noted that the parameters are almost identical, making it a possible wrapper, thereby making everyone happy/less grumpy? Primefac (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox fictional creature with Template:Infobox character.
Largely overlapping parameters and similar purposes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:AlexTheWhovian? Lad, I opposed it, I didn't support it. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:38, 6 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:Importance-inline[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) Primefac (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text that this template is next to should be completely removed along with the template, so it should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2015 (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:CATA[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) 00:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Navbox (except for the main article) with no valid links for navigation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2015 (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:Asian mosques[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) 00:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Hardly used and where it IS used, it is redundant to the much less "invasive" and easier navigable {{List of mosques}} navbox.
  2. The "Architecture" section is covered in the {{Islamic art}} navbox.
  3. "Mosques in the World" covers more than just Asian mosques.
  4. The listed architectural styles are not exclusive to mosques.
  5. The links in "other" seem rather random.

- HyperGaruda (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a clunky vertical stack of sidebars and infoboxes is even worse, e.g. Kubrawiya. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Frietjes (specifically the suggested replacement {{List of mosques}}). Also, its use is probably going to predominantly be on list pages, which causes an uncomfortable scrunching of the tables seen on a number of these lists with the inclusion of the sidebar. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 5 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:Former US Reps by age[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) 00:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the eventual goal of this template is, as I can see no articles that were created (I'm also not clicking on 226 links to confirm this), and there appears to be nothing in the way of progress towards doing so in the almost eight months since it was created. Maybe the creator can chime in and let me know what they want to do if they are still interested, but this might be better off in their userspace at this time, just because it seems to not really be doing anything in the mainspace. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Transcluded to only one page, no other bluelinks at all. Creator has been completely inactive for eight months, so the chance of a response here is small - as is the chance of development. I suspect that prior to this TFD being raised, I was the only active person aware of the navbox in question. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And that one is my doing, as I added it back in when I reverted an unexplained removal by an IP, so it never has been used beyond that page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think about it, this navbox goes against WP:REDNOT because that says "Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template." --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Navbox boxes are for navigation. What is there to navigate between when there are no links?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WilliamJE. Completely useless navbox without links and it doesn't look like the creator is going to fix it any time soon, seeing that his/her last edit was in April 2015. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless —МандичкаYO 😜 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The navbox is clearly useless as an aid to navigation when it include 100% red links, but even if all included links were to existing articles, I would seriously question the notability and validity of multiple lists for members of the U.S. House of Representatives cataloged by birth year and age. These types of templates and articles are of seriously questionable value, and the knowledge included of a trivial character. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 3 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/2015_December_31&oldid=1087978485"