Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 22



Template:Ashéninka languages

 * 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) 02:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Unused navbox, and all its links are redirects to the same article — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ashéninka languages
 * delete, provides no navigation between articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2015 (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).

Template:Footer European Champions 10km Open water swimming Men

 * 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. Note that the other templates listed are not part of the nomination. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Navbox that provides no assistance in navigation. Sole use is as a vanity embellishment on Ferry Weertman. Contrary to WP:NAV. Bazj (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Footer European Champions 10km Open water swimming Men
 * Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * See also:
 * Template:Footer Pan Pacific Champions 50m Breaststroke Women
 * Template:Footer Pan Pacific Champions 50m Breaststroke Men
 * Template:Footer Pan Pacific Champions 50m Backstroke Women
 * Template:Footer Pan Pacific Champions 50m Backstroke Men
 * Template:Footer Pan Pacific Champions 50m Butterfly Women
 * Template:Footer Pan Pacific Champions 50m Butterfly Men
 * --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - No need for a navbox with one navigational link. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2015 (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).

Template:Cricketers who played 100+ Tests & 300+ ODIs

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Unnecessary template that only causes bloat to articles. Besides navigation issues, this non-standard statistic provides little or no value to the readers. &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 15:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cricketers who played 100+ Tests & 300+ ODIs
 * The user had created quite a number of similar templates (based on non-standard statistics) before. &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 15:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't think it to be an unnecessary template that will cause bloat to any article. &mdash; Swastik Chakraborty (User talk)  15:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Collects players based on arbitrary criteria.  Fails WP:NAVBOX.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrary cross-section across two formats. Harrias talk 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has become a habit now. See these discussions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). All the deleted templates are created by user Swastik. Besides, 1st half of this template already exists in these 6 templates of 100+ Test caps, which are created by him as well. He should be warned for using all kinds of statistics as templates. Chris8924 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Just arbitrary stats. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2015 (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).

Template:Shooting Stars

 * 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 relist to Dec 30. Primefac (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Standard practice not to have cast and crew in navboxes. Remove the cast, and all we are left with is a link to a list of episodes. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Shooting Stars
 * Sure you doing right by our readers by impeding navigation all over the place?  WP:ADVICEPAGE -- Moxy (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's long standing consensus regarding cast and crew in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your right it only makes sense that we dont link cast and crew ever...why would people want to navigate those articles...the people that makes those articles dont want people to find them.  What a waste of editors time.-- Moxy (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a reason for this consensus. Over-proliferation of navboxes.  Someone who has been in twenty television series would have twenty navboxes on their article.  And the connections are tangential.  The only thing linking the actors therein would be that they happened to be in the same television series.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * look at Elizabeth Taylor.....yes full of navboxes ....but not one that is usefull to the topic at hand...why because your projects odd belief that relevant navboxes should be deleted. Get to work on stooping the navbox spam of losslly related topics over deleting main topic navboxes. Your project needs to sit down and talk about  doing what is best to navigate the topics....not go out of your way to imped navigation because you dislike  lots of boxes..work on removing the useless ones....not deleting every link you see.  The people that make these articles would like others to be able to find them like you would any other article....no on has the right to go out of there way to orphan theses articles from templates  in this manner...your doing wrong by our readers...and is why this type of action is noted in the guideline above!!!!-- Moxy (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd welcome getting rid of the awards navboxes too, but that isn't what's being discussed here. Also, I don't have a project...  I assume you're talking about the prior consensus at WP:ACTOR regarding cast and crew in navboxes   --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2015 (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).

Template:Nigel Lappin Trophy

 * 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) 02:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Second place in an award shouldn't have its own navbox, it's not notable. Flickerd (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nigel Lappin Trophy
 * Comment I'm not going to vote on this because I created it, but the reason I did create it is that the Brisbane Lions give an award out for it, with an official title and etc. Jjamesryan (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thanks for doing this, the excessive Collingwood ones probably need to go to. Anyway, this navbox fails criterion #4 of WP:NAVBOX: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2015 (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).

Template:Alastair Lynch Trophy

 * 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) 02:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Third place in an award shouldn't have its own navbox, it's not notable. Flickerd (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alastair Lynch Trophy
 * Delete. Fails criterion #4 of WP:NAVBOX, topic does not have a Wikipedia article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2015 (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).

Template:Anarchism in Europe

 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Delete, redundant template that has been orphaned and replaced with -- Tavix  ( talk ) 05:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Anarchism in Europe
 * delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2015 (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).