Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 6



Template:Frederik Du Chau

 * 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 Keep.  — fetch ·  comms   02:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Only directed three films. WP:NENAN. Three is almost always too small for a navbox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Imzadi  1979   →   03:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep three films (with probably more to come) is enough for a template.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Templates are a great way to easily link to other relevant pages. Although this director has thus far only done 3 films, they should be readily available to any reader.  There is no need to delete this page.  Adding “see also” or something like that just seems silly when the director template is so accessible.Donmike10 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it may only link to three films, but it has four links overall. I would say it is easier than putting a "see also" section. Airplaneman   ✈  04:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral There's already a table within the director's article linking to all the movies. I would also note that if the table is right, the template is incomplete.  On the other hand, which articles actually need the box?  All the movies either do or should link to the director; the director appears to link to every movie, so why do we need the navbox?  On the third hand, WP:NENAN's rule of five suggests that five movies (plus the director's article) is enough.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @207, i.e. 03:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Template was expanded, so it is not only 3 now. -- Tadijaspeaks 15:32, 12 August 2010 (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.

Template:UEFA 5-star stadia

 * 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. Navigation template based on an obsolete classification. RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

UEFA no longer uses the five-star rating system, as shown at UEFA stadium categories. This navbox is therefore obsolete. – PeeJay 11:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 11:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename/Repurpose to the new classification system.  Imzadi  1979   →   03:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, with no prejudice to the possibility of a new navbox for the highest category stadia. --WFC-- 14:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - To those of you who are suggesting that the navbox be altered to link to the stadia in the highest new category, this would be quite infeasible as the highest category covers quite a lot of stadia. After all, the minimum capacity required for a stadium to be in the highest category is now only 30,000. – PeeJay 02:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then my previous comment stands, delete if not renamed and repurposed.  Imzadi  1979   →   03:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checking ;-) – PeeJay 18:18, 8 August 2010 (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.