Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 11



Template:Corvette timeline

 * 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.. Overall consensus is for the template to be retained. Discussion about a conversion, which would require for the template to be retained in order to be performed, or a name change, can continue on the template's talk page. North America1000 12:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC) I don't personally see the need for this. We only have a few basic articles (as in, most of these simply link to sections within the same articles), and it's not general practise to have individual model timelines either. The existing company templates serve the purpose more than adequately, so this is a tad redundant. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Corvette timeline


 * Convert into a graph for use in Chevrolet Corvette. Alakzi (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a pretty good idea actually; such a thing hadn't occurred to me. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion, keep as it is or under some other form as suggested above. It is informative and I've consulted it a few times myself. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep If I'm looking for Corvette-related pages, it saves searching them all individually, if it does nothing else. Plus it encapsulates the history more/less at a glance.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment this needs to be renamed, its not about corvette, either to Chevrolet Corvette timeline , Chevy Corvette timeline , Vette timeline ; because this is not a timeline of the development of corvette warships, and should not be confusable for such a template -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * weak keep, seems no worse than any of the other ones. Frietjes (talk) 21:09, 14 July 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Football League Apprentice of the Year

 * 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC) This is a non-notable award given to apprentices (i.e. schoolboy youth players) in the 2nd-4th divisions of English football, and does not merit navboxes. GiantSnowman 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Football League Championship Apprentice of the Year
 * Football League One Apprentice of the Year
 * Football League Two Apprentice of the Year
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Agreed that not automatically notable as an award, maybe if in a tier 1 league or a federation such as UEFA. Paul    Bradbury  15:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – As per nom. Not notable enough for a template. Qed237&#160;(talk) 16:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom, a series of non-notable awards don't really justify a template here. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 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). No further edits should be made to this section.