Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 17



Template:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities

 * 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 relisted on Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 19. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) This navbox is arbitrary. Navboxes are intended to allow quick navigation between pages that are closely related, but I cannot imagine a situation where one would want to navigate from the page of the mayor of Omaha, Nebraska to the page of the mayor of Oakland, California. Fifty is an arbitrary cutoff to the navbox, and the cities that make up this navbox will constantly change as populations shift. This seems like an attempt to include the fact that so-and-so is the mayor of the Xth largest city in an article, but that can and should be done in article text. ~ RobTalk 20:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mayors of the largest 50 US cities
 * Keep 50 is a cutoff that keeps the template to a useful size. The fact that the census updates every ten years is not that big of an issue. It is as useful as many political templates that span a cross-section of similar individuals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Shrink this template is overly large. It should be top 10, which while arbitrary, is a widely used cut-off, so we are not introducing a new or rare practice. Or Delete as being too large -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrary.  Fails WP:NAVBOX.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated - Nabla (talk) 22:06, 11 October 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:Hammer Film Productions crew

 * 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) BethNaught (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC) We don't encourage crew navboxes in the same way we don't encourage cast navboxes. Articles are only tangentially related to each other. See similar previous discussions Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hammer Film Productions crew
 * delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 21 September 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:Bulgarian cuisine

 * 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 redirect. There is prior consensus in favor of the navbox format for this series, and articles are currently using that format. For consistency, this title will be redirected to Cuisine of Bulgaria. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC) duplicates the navigation provided by template:Cuisine of Bulgaria, and per prior discussion, we are using the navboxes for individual dishes. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bulgarian cuisine
 * notifying Olsonspterom Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove the Bulgarian cuisine infobox template. Templates including individual dishes should be navigation bars to be placed at the bottom of the respective dish articles. Template:Cuisine of Bulgaria is just fine for that. --Off-shell (talk)
 * Keep presentation between sidebar and footer should be an option, so if possible merge the two with a way to choose sidebar and footer versions -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 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:All-Europe Player 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Bluesangrel's attempt to restore the relevant page appears to have come to nothing. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." The article was deleted per Articles for deletion/All-Europe Player of the Year. —Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All-Europe Player of the Year
 * How come ArmstrongJulian did not nominate this?Bluesangrel (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Routine work really, the main article has already been deleted through consensus for lack of notability, this template refers only to that article. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Not routine work at all. The article for this template that was deleted, an article created by me - is a deletion that I am currently contesting as to why it was deleted. And it was nominated by ArmstrongJulian, and Bagumba steadfastly argued to have it deleted, just for background on the issue. Once, hopefully that the article for this template is restored to the site, this template will be necessary. I do not want to have to go through the process unnecessarily of requesting to have this template restored as well. That is creating unnecessary busy work for site admin also.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Please provide the link to your request at Deletion review. Otherwise, I am not aware of any formal contesting, nor has the  ANI case you opened provided any details of any formal contesting.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did exactly what Wikipedia guidelines stated to do. Contact the admin that deleted the article and discuss it with them directly and do nothing else before you do that. I am following site rules, and I am not doing anything else other than that. So you will have to wait until me and the admin that deleted the article discuss it. I am not going to do anything at all to break what the site says to do. If I did, you would immediately report me for it.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 21 September 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:WikiProject Update Watch Template

 * 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. Duplicates WikiProject Update Watch (and has a poor name, which is not a reason to delete, but it is a pointer to delete this one. I note that there is a discussion about the other one too, so I'll make a note there - Nabla (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Unused template for a proiject whose last activity was in 2007. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus among other discussions of inactive wikiproject templates is that templates associated with inactive wikiprojects or collaborations are not automatically kept.
 * WikiProject Update Watch Template
 * Keep delete the wikiproject first. This is the wrong way around -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We tend to keep inactive wikiproject pages. However, this template is unused. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WPBANNERMETA has a setting for inactive wikiprojects. As long as the project exists, its project banner should exist. If you delete the project, then the project banner can be deleted. An alternative would be to merge the project into one of the other cleanup projects, which would also mean there wouldn't need to be a separate template. But as things stands, the template should not be deleted while the project exists. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To repeat: the template is unused. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikiproject exists. As long as the Wikiproject exists, it should have a banner template. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikiproject does not exist, in any meaningful sense of the word. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC).
 * WikiProject Update Watch is not a redlink, nor is it a redirect, nor is it just a taskforce/workgroup page. So it exists as far as necessary for having a project banner. Delete the project first, or merge it elsewhere. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a page about Father Christmas. He doesn't exist, ether. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Father Christmas is an article, this is not. Why don't you actually do something with the wikiproject? Afterall, many wikiprojects have been merged or subsumed into others, and their banner templates subsequently deleted. So, get rid of the project first -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: This case met CSD T3 speedy deletion criteria. There already exists WikiProject Update Watch. Sawol (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, unused and redundant. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 21 September 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).