Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 20

[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 2017 May 27. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 27 May 2017 (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 delete per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to merit a navbox. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I understand the fact that I couldn't able to provide sources like cricinfo. I accept this deletion nomination. User:Abishe (talk)
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 delete per author request Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many redlinks. The creator of this template appears to be creating more pages, but given that there aren't any other Ultimate seasons, I'm doubtful those pages will be sticking around. Basically, pages first, template later. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2017 (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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 20th Waffen GD as all of the names on the template under discussion appear on the other template. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:44, 20 May 2017 (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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Pink Floyd}}, to which any missing names should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:33, 20 May 2017 (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 delete per majority view that the navigation provided is redundant to navigation provided by {{Alexandre Dumas}}.. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "characters" originate from the novel, and are in fact real-life historical people. Therefore navbox is only transcluded on five articles, four of which are included at {{Alexandre Dumas}}, rendering the navigational benefit of this navbox negligible. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As I recall, in general the minimum number of blue links for a subject to be considered a valid template subject is 3. Even without the characters, this subject clearly has three relevant blue links. I am not familiar with a limit to a reason to discount historical characters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These relevant blue links are included at {{Alexandre Dumas}}, which renders the navigational benefit of this navbox negligible. As far as the characters go, only characters which Dumas originated should be included. Historical characters could turn up in lots of works. Imagine if Queen Victoria or Abraham Lincoln were included in every navbox for every fictitious work they showed up in, for example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historical characters belong in the navbox although the navbox does not belong on their pages. You have been shown to not be in the majority in regard to this dichotomy in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't, and no I haven't. And to not transclude a navbox on a page doesn't allow a navbox to perform in its usual navigational capacity. --14:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Robsinden I think what you are saying is that you have tried over and over again to have WP:BIDIRECTIONAL expanded to support your claim that subjects like historical characters should only be included in templates if the template is included in that historical character article and that over and over again this has not been supported and you don't understand that it has not been supported and thus still believe yourself to be correct even though you are not allowed to include such language in BIDIRECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, this is a navbox, not an infobox, so unless it provides navigation, it shouldn't be here. Linking to the historical characters can be done from the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robsinden, Isn't that the same argument that you have made in your repeated unsuccessful attempts to expand WP:BIDERECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:33, 20 May 2017 (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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

only connects two articles Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2017 (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 2017 May 27. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:56, 27 May 2017 (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).