Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 11
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 February 11)
February 11
[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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Template:EAGL coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Nav template which includes one linked article. Being a college gymnastics coach isn't a case for inherent notability either, so it's not as if these articles should and will be created in the future. fuzzy510 (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete (for now at least) - There is little point in having a navigation template that doesn't link to pages other than those already included in the relevant articles. If a reasonable amount of the other articles linked in the template are created, then the template itself can be recreated as it will then be useful. Richard0612 23:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Richard0612 above. Robofish (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 08:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Campaignbox Expedition to Port Royal Sound (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only has one event in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmcmull (talk • contribs) 07:22, February 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep created by active editor, and may well have further use. This is, I believe, a Civil War battle, and I suspect the editor intends to link it to other battles in the expedition. Collect (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unless it is confirmed that there were other notable battles during the expedition to Port Royal Sound. The template should be judged on its own merits, rather than on the activity status of its creator. It was created nearly three months ago and still contains a link to just one article. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- A cursory look shows the USS Pawnee was involved and should be listed. As also Hilton Head etc. Quite expandable in fact. [1] etc. might also be of interest. Collect (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but the template is supposed to be a campaignbox of engagements during the expedition (which doesn't even have an article at this time), not just a general navigation box for articles related to it. Are any of these incidents sufficiently notable to merit separate articles? –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hilton Head could certainly warrant an article (it has several paragraphs in the Hilton Head article) , and the one on USS Pawnee could stand a bit more flesh. I am, moreover, curious that a template on a campaign would be restricted to named battles -- it strikes me that articles of direct connection to the campaign would be worthwhile indeed. Collect (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's largely due to the type of template this is: a campaignbox. Were it just a general navbox, then it could and should link to all types of related articles; however, that being said, a general navbox is rarely ever justified for a topic with just 2-3 subarticles. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hilton Head could certainly warrant an article (it has several paragraphs in the Hilton Head article) , and the one on USS Pawnee could stand a bit more flesh. I am, moreover, curious that a template on a campaign would be restricted to named battles -- it strikes me that articles of direct connection to the campaign would be worthwhile indeed. Collect (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but the template is supposed to be a campaignbox of engagements during the expedition (which doesn't even have an article at this time), not just a general navigation box for articles related to it. Are any of these incidents sufficiently notable to merit separate articles? –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- A cursory look shows the USS Pawnee was involved and should be listed. As also Hilton Head etc. Quite expandable in fact. [1] etc. might also be of interest. Collect (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. No need for such a template when there's only one article; if and when other articles related to this battle are created, then the template can be created. Robofish (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.