Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11[edit]

Template:XBIZ Foreign Female[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation. The template duplicates XBIZ Award for Foreign Female Performer of the Year, which appears to fail WP:LISTN itself, and is unneeded. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 11 June 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:NFL lore[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) 23:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAVBOX #4, a navbox should have an associated article. This one doesn't and National Football League lore was deleted last year (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Football League lore (2nd nomination)). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template has nothing to do with the NFL lore article. These links were taken from the respective team navboxes (e.g. {{Buffalo Bills}}, {{New England Patriots}}, {{Chicago Bears}}, etc...), which each have culture/lore section(s). It makes sense to have a centralized listing for all of these links. I did this relatively quickly so I'm sure there are areas that need cleanup and additional targets that can be added; each grouping could be listed in chronological order for example. There is currently no centralized location that groups these links together and they are all related parts of NFL history, each notable enough to have a wikipedia article. That is why I created a navbox for it. The "associated article" for the template is NFL history so WP:NAVBOX#4 is satisfied. - PaulT+/C 19:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, while I am not conceding the point, is there technically a requirement for "#4" to be met in all cases? From WP:NAVBOX: Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines: note the inclusion of "some". To me that reads at least two of the five guidelines need to be met. I would argue at least three (#1, #3, and #5) are easily met (if not all five with a small amount of squinting). At the end it states: If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related and there is nothing there *requiring* all five *must* be met. Again, I argue that all five *are* met, but unless I'm missing something I don't see anything specifically stating that it is necessary. - PaulT+/C 19:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To this point, it looks like every single navbox in this category, strictly speaking, does not satisfy #4: Category:NCAA Division I women's basketball coach by conference navigational boxes. (To be clear, I am not suggesting that each of these navboxes should be TfD'd.) - PaulT+/C 19:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, poor layout and inclusion criteria appears to be WP:OR. Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The layout is an existing standard for NFL navboxes; see {{NFL}} and {{NFL rivalries}}. I agree that there is definitely room for improvement, but that is not a reason for deletion. Also, as I explained above, there was no OR when I created the list. Each link was taken from the existing listings in the culture and lore sections of {{Buffalo Bills}}, {{Miami Dolphins}}, {{New England Patriots}}, {{New York Jets}}, {{Baltimore Ravens}}, {{Cincinnati Bengals}}, {{Cleveland Browns}}, {{Pittsburgh Steelers}}, {{Houston Texans}}, {{Indianapolis Colts}}, {{Jacksonville Jaguars}}, {{Tennessee Titans}}, {{Denver Broncos}}, {{Kansas City Chiefs}}, {{Los Angeles Chargers}}, {{Oakland Raiders}}, {{Dallas Cowboys}}, {{New York Giants}}, {{Philadelphia Eagles}}, {{Washington Redskins}}, {{Chicago Bears}}, {{Detroit Lions}}, {{Green Bay Packers}}, {{Minnesota Vikings}}, {{Atlanta Falcons}}, {{Carolina Panthers}}, {{New Orleans Saints}}, {{Tampa Bay Buccaneers}}, {{Arizona Cardinals}}, {{Los Angeles Rams}}, {{San Francisco 49ers}}, and {{Seattle Seahawks}} and was not something that I came up with independently or on my own. - PaulT+/C 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    in that case, I will also add delete as redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it is not redundant, because as I mention above: There is currently no centralized location that groups these links together and they are all related parts of NFL history, each notable enough to have a wikipedia article.
    For example, where can you find links to each of Music City Miracle, Monday Night Miracle, Miracle in Miami, Mile High Miracle, Miracle at the Meadowlands, Miracle at the New Meadowlands, Miracle in Motown, Minneapolis Miracle, and Miracle at the Met; Immaculate Deception, Immaculate Reception, Immaculate Deflection, Immaculate Redemption, and Immaculate Interception; and/or The Guarantee, The Comeback, The Drive, The Fumble, The Catch, The Tackle, and The Helicopter?
    There are similar groupings for names of groups of players like defensive and offensive lines (Electric Company, New York Sack Exchange, Steel Curtain, Sacksonville, Bruise Brothers, Orange Crush Defense, Doomsday Defense, Crunch Bunch, Big Blue Wrecking Crew, Purple People Eaters, Monsters of the Midway, and The Hogs); "bowls" (Snow Bowl (1985), Snow Bowl (2017), Freezer Bowl, Bounty Bowl, Porkchop Bowl, Harbaugh Bowl, Fog Bowl, and Ice Bowl); and "gates" (Spygate, Deflategate, Bottlegate, and Bountygate).
    This isn't redundant navigation because there currently is no way to easily navigate between and among these articles because they are broken up into separate templates by team. - PaulT+/C 15:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Psantora, please read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Football League lore (2nd nomination), specifically regarding the fact that NFL lore is inherently an indiscriminate list with no clear criteria for inclusion. Also note that the purpose of a navigation is to help navigate between articles that involve a larger subject. I.e. {{Green Bay Packers}} helps readers navigate through articles about the team with the larger subject being the Green Bay Packers article. Since there is no article on NFL lore, we can't have a navigation template for it. Also, just because articles have some similarity doesn't mean there has to be a navigation template. We don't need {{Things that are green}}, even though someone could put a good list of common articles covering green things. And lastly, the lists in the team templates are because they involve that team. There is a clear connection from the article to the subject of the template. All of the articles you listed are just generally linked as being more notable plays/games/things and don't have a larger subject article that provides explains the link between them. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The "parent" article for the template is NFL history and each of these articles are directly related to that subject. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information any more than the culture and lore sections of the team templates are. I have nothing to do with the NFL lore article and if I had had the foresite I wouldn't have used the term "lore" in this template at all. - PaulT+/C 19:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonzo_fan2007 Not to get excessive, but see {{shades of green}} and shades of green – basically the exact opposite of the point you made. WP:OSE and all that, but I think I've made my point. - PaulT+/C 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately for you, your point isn't convincing anyone. {{Shades of green}} makes absolute sense. The common link is that these articles are all various, well-defined shades of green. My example was {{Things that are green}}, which would be an indiscriminate list of articles about subjects that have something to do with green, but otherwise don't have a clear connection. If anything, you made my point for me. I.e. {{Shades of green}} has a clear scope, {{Things that are green}} doesn't; just like {{NFL team history}} has a clear scope, but {{NFL lore}} doesn't. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Even if there were an article National Football League lore, the organization of this navbox by division doesn't make a whole lot of sense since most of the items are associated with specific teams. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The main article for the template is NFL history so WP:NAVBOX#4 is taken care of. Not liking or understanding the layout of a navbox is not a reason for deletion, but could be a reason to improve it. For example, maybe it would be better to group these articles as I did above by "type": 'Miracle's, 'Immaculate's, 'Play's, 'Nickname's, 'Bowl's/'Game's, 'Gate's, etc.? - PaulT+/C 21:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prior to this TfD, the template was originally titled "National Football League culture and lore", with back-to-back links to National Football League and Category:National Football League culture. The template creator changed it to National Football League history at 20:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC), after they had made comments in this TfD.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. National Football League lore was deleted via AfD. Seems like it's gaming the system to change the title of the template to another (unrelated) subject while this TfD is ongoing. Moreover, Template:NFL already has a "History" section. At any rate, this template is currently an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of "lore", now under the guise of "history" after that mid-TfD template change.—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have this both ways. There currently is no template that focuses on NFL history exclusively. Yes, {{NFL}} has a minor history section, but it is missing the majority of articles about the history of the NFL (specifically regarding the teams but also other areas). I attempted to expand the {{NFL team history}} template to include these pages (inclusive of both {{NFL lore}} being discussed here but also {{NFL rivalries}}, which is also directly about each teams' histories). These changes were unilaterally reverted despite a request for adding these kinds of articles (specifically the history of previous locations for current franchises) by Dale Arnett on that templates's talk page. (See the multiple variations I created to try and accomplish this.) It looks like you prefer keeping {{NFL team history}} focused narrowly on specific team history. That is fine, but then that template will stay focued on teams, which leaves room for a template on NFL history more broadly (and not to nit pick, but the team template would then fail WP:NAVBOX #4 as well if you wanted to get super pedantic). It doesn't preclude a separate NFL history template that lists *in one place* all the articles dealing with the history of the NFL broadly (including "Miracles"/"Bowls"/"Plays"/etc.), which I am suggesting that {{NFL lore}} turns into. This is not "gaming the system" as you are unfairly suggesting – it is an attempt to improve the template while under discussion here, which happens routinely and is in fact *encouraged* while here. Having a template focused on this topic is *not* indiscriminate any more than keeping these articles is indiscriminate – if any article is inappropriate for the project then the solution is to simply bring it to AfD. Having a navbox cannot in and of itself be indiscriminate. The policy refers to article notability – all a navbox would do in this context is allow for navigation between articles. Again, if there is an issue with any specific article having indescriminate information then take that specific page to AfD. If the page exists and is part of a family of topics there is nothing wrong with having a navbox grouping those related articles. The proposed navbox specifically deals with NFL history, which is not currently something that exists and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. If no one sees any value in having the links I listed above then this whole conversation is moot, but I think it is clearly beneficial to see these kinds of groups/events/articles listed together. - PaulT+/C 17:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to make my intentions here clear, this and this are the original states of {{NFL team history}} {{NFL rivalries}} prior to my edits (and my creation of {{NFL lore}}, with the header that Bagumba noted above) when trying to merge them all into a single navbox for NFL history broadly that I linked above. Content concerns/debate notwithstanding, I believe these templates are clearly improved from their original states. - PaulT+/C 17:35, 13 June 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:Carolwood Pacific Railroad[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route-map template. The article it links to Justi Creek Railway, uses {{Justi Creek Railway}} instead. Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 11 June 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:Capdenac - Rodez railway diagram[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. Added to articles after nomination Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route-map template for a redlink article. Gonnym (talk) 08:41, 11 June 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:Cape Main Line route diagram[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 move to userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route map template. Says its a railway in South Africa, while the link Cape Main Line redirects to a railway in Massachusetts. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's for an article I never got around to writing. No objection to removing it from template-space but if you do please could you move it to my userspace? I might still write the article one day. - htonl (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Htonl. This is clearly required for the draft user:Htonl/Cape Main Line, so the move should be without prejudice to a move back to template space when the article is finished. As for the title, the South African railway seems to be the primary topic for the name, but the Massachusetts railway should be mentioned in a hatnote. Until the article is finished though the redirect is fine as is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 12 June 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:Caprock Chief[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route-map as Caprock Chief uses a different version. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was subst'd into the article in 2015; not sure why. I'm going to revert that and integrate any subsequent changes. Mackensen (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not unused. Useddenim (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete single-use templates like this one do not fulfill the stated purpose of the template namespace, to contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages (emphasis mine). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 18 June 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:Category TOC (Hebrew)[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Category ToC template with Hebrew letter support. Can't see this ever being used, as titles are supposed to be in English. Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 11 June 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:Category scope Caribbean[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 11 June 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:Cathead wwi corvettes of[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 11 June 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:Cathead navy ship names[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 11 June 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:Cathead korean war military equipment of[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 11 June 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:Cathead cold war ships of[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 11 June 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_June_11&oldid=1086088846"