Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23

Template:Jim Carrey sidebar

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 per precedent of these sidebar nav templates Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jim Carrey sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only three links that all appear in the main article, this template is redundant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use summary style instead. Fleet Command (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, per nom. APerson (talk!) 19:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seemingly useless and redundant. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 17:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent —PC-XT+ 01:21, 4 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Serbian Royal Regalia

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 as a navbox that doesn't navigate anywhere. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serbian Royal Regalia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of the entries have a standalone article, but are included in the Serbian Royal Regalia article. Zoupan 23:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those should be created? All are important... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They are not even section links. And no, they definitely must not be individual articles. I used to refer to "Sailor Moon's left shoe" as an example for article's lacking both notability, due weight and sufficient volume to sustain a full article. Never I imagined to see something comparable. Fleet Command (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need a template gathering together piped links to one target article. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree: the template is useless. It does not link different articles, which should be the purpose of such a template. Anastan, if you create those articles, the template should be undeleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:32, 12 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:LVPosseRoster

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, preserving edit history. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LVPosseRoster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox should be deleted because (a) approximately two thirds of the included links are red links, and navboxes exist to navigate among existing articles, (b) there is a long established consensus among the sports WikiProjects that only championship teams merit a navbox (and then only for the season roster of the championship), and (c) most all-time rosters for sports teams are prohibitively large. This navbox is a bad precedent all around. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this navbox also violates one of the basic criteria of WP:NAVBOX: there is no stand-alone article or list regarding the specific navbox subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 1994 Las Vegas Posse season. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EJ, the 1994 Las Vegas Posse season article does not include a list of team players, nor this template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, here is the list Las Vegas Posse all-time results and roster. Thanks WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WO-9. That certainly alleviates the issue regarding the navbox being supported by a stand-alone list. So what is this navbox? An all-time roster list -- which we don't do? Or a season roster list -- which we only do in the case a championship season? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it's an inaugural season roster. All the other teams that have one are currently playing (All NFL teams and BC Lions). I don't know if you can set a certain number of seasons to have one though. The Brooklyn Dodgers of the NFL were around longer than the Houston Texans have been so that franchise could probably have one too lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, it's an inaugural season roster navbox, which, as of right now, is a well established practice on Wikipedia for gridiron football teams (Template:1960 Boston Patriots, Template:1954 BC Lions, Template:2002 Houston Texans, Template:1920 Decatur Staleys, etc.). Whether or not these inaugural season roster navboxes ought to exist at all is really a separate issue, and can (and should) be dealt with at a later time and a more visible location. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The navbox in this example is excessive. Summary style and links within the prose are enough. There is also {{Las Vegas Posse}}, which makes this one totally implausible. Fleet Command (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Template:1960 Denver Broncos, Template:Denver Broncos. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename to Template:1994 Las Vegas Posse. See discussion here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good work here, someone did some digging, not even the CFL sites online have this info.70.26.51.28 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nav template, but retain the information. A stand-along list article could be created from it instead. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge/delete with Las Vegas Posse by, (1) moving to article space without redirect, (2) moving the content over to the main article with property attribution edit summaries, and (3) redirecting to the article. Frietjes (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge according to Frietjes' method of preserving attribution —PC-XT+ 10:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As nominator, I endorse Frietjes' proposed resolution of this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:47, 6 February 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Integrated development environments for .NET

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 merge, which has already been done Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Integrated development environments for .NET (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:.NET Framework (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Integrated development environments for .NET with Template:.NET Framework.
Actually, Wonderfl has already added the main entries of this template to {{.NET Framework‎‎}}. I thought perhaps it is a good idea to complete the merger. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added all of the items to .NET Framework. Wonderfl ^(reply) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging. Yes. Looks plausible. Fleet Command (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All links have been merged in. APerson (talk!) 19:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as merged —PC-XT+ 09:25, 31 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:A.C. Siena squad

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 as unused and unneeded Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A.C. Siena squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since the company folded (as well as team from the same town is in amateur level, the template was no longer needed. Matthew_hk t c 09:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not sure what the nominator is talking about but I visited the template, and unless I am really missing something, its not something usable. Speedy delete as uncontroversial maintenance. Fleet Command (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Unused current roster template for now defunct sports team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hidden multi-line

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 as redundant to the multiline option in {{hidden}}. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hidden multi-line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed after I added the |multiline=y option to {{hidden}}. you can find the articles where I replaced it here. Frietjes (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant, as I argued in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 3#Template:Hidden multi-line. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. One of these should be enough. Fleet Command (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as merged —PC-XT+ 09:21, 31 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.