Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 20



Template:Star Trek: Enterprise novels

 * 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) sst✈  05:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC) I merged all of the related content to List of Star Trek: Enterprise novels, leaving this template devoid of its purpose in navigation between articles. Izno (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Star Trek: Enterprise novels
 * Redirect to template:Star Trek: Enterprise ( I don't see why this was ever a separate template) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The template is mostly unused. Deletion should be preferred in this case. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - we don't need this as a separate template, and it's completely unused except for a single sandbox. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's my sandbox. :) I've removed this from there too now, since it's all been compiled into the list article this template is simply defunct. Miyagawa (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 08:05, 25 February 2016 (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:Urban Book Circle

 * 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) sst✈  05:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC) I'm not often at Tfd, but I believe WP:EXISTING applies here, in the sense that the main article Urban Book Circle has just been deleted as non-notable at Articles for deletion/Urban Book Circle. Category:Urban Book Circle appears to be on its way to deletion as non-defining, as well, at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_5. All were created by the same editor, in what seems to me to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform to help promote a non-notable (at this time) business venture owned by one Djuradj Vujcic, whose bio article, also created by the same editor, is now also at Afd.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Urban Book Circle
 * Delete - the supporting article has been deleted as a non-notable organisation. The category has also been deleted. All of these edits associated with UBC have been created by a single editor, suggesting they are promoting the group. Membership of the group is only ever cited to the group's own website. Time for the template to go too. Sionk (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:EXISTING, Urban Book Circle has been deleted. --N Jordan (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:NAVBOX, at least in that it no longer has a supporting article, and following the precedence of the other discussions —PC-XT+ 08:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. Tempo21 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2016 (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:Morgan State Bears bowl game navbox

 * 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) sst✈  05:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Morgan State Bears bowl game navbox
 * Delete as unused. It only links to two articles, including the main one. One link is a redirect. We don't need a template to link two articles. It's not transcluded in either article. —PC-XT+ 08:24, 25 February 2016 (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:Smart 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 delete both. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Pages like Bhopal already have a number of navboxes. Adding navboxes for particular characteristics the city has is unnecessary (this is a bit like WP:DNWAUC but with template). DexDor(talk) 07:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 2nd template added. DexDor(talk) 21:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Smart cities
 * Cities in India to be or developed as Smart Cities
 * Delete per nom. These cities are only loosely correlated, which means they fail WP:NAVBOX. --Izno (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment there's a similar template named Template:Cities in India to be or developed as Smart Cities, which could probably be included with this nomination. Cmeiqnj (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Urghh that's even worse. DexDor(talk) 21:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that the Template:Smart cities has been put up of deletion.

Recently I had created the Template:Cities in India to be or developed as Smart Cities without noticing that a similar Template:Smart cities was already existing (although it was incomplete at that time). My template is complete in full sense and I have already inserted it in almost 40% of the pages mentioned in the template, on the other hand Template:Smart cities in not inserted on any city pages mentioned in it.

You gave example of Bhopal, asserting that it has got too many templates, but I want to tell you that nor all the million plus urban agglomerations in India are included in the Smart Cities Mission (eg. Bengaluru/Bangalore) neither all the cities to be developed as smart cities are million plus agglomerations (eg. Pasighat). Thus, I think it is okay that both the templates are present on that page.

Why the Template:Smart cities should be deleted instead of Template:Cities in India to be or developed as Smart Cities: Wiki.Gunjan (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The template in not present on the pages of the cities to be developed as smart cities.
 * After completing the list of qualified cities it once again list them in phase-wise manner which means all the hundred cities will be listed again in three rows (phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3), which is pointless!
 * Most of the cities have no internal wiki link or have disambiguation links.
 * Details are wrong. The title of the template mentions "Proposed smart cities in India - Phase 1 (98 cities)" but only 20 cities have been qualified for phase 1 not all. The last two rows tries to list them the first phase in haphazard manner!
 * Delete both Templates created in good faith but this information has no business existing in navbox form. Also, the term 'Smart Cities' is arguably little more than hype put about by the current Indian government (note that the parent page Smart Cities Mission has a side navbox which states 'This article is part of a series about Narendra Modi'). As such, the template may break wp:npov and wp:undue, by appearing to endorse the government's description of these cities. Cmeiqnj (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There's also Category: Smart cities in India, which may need to be deleted or repurposed, for the reasons given above. Cmeiqnj (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2016 (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:SDSU College of Professional Studies Fine Arts

 * 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) sst✈  05:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC) WP:EXISTING -- Navigates in two articles (San Diego State University College of Professional Studies & Fine Arts & Sycuan Institute on Tribal Gaming). Hard to navigate. The Sycuan link has been merged into Template:San Diego State University and has been removed from articles... making this template orphaned. 🇺🇸 Corkythe hornetfan  🇺🇸 05:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SDSU College of Professional Studies Fine Arts


 * Delete per nom. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2016 (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:SDSU College of Arts & Letters

 * 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) sst✈  05:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC) WP:EXISTING -- Navigates in five articles (three of which were merged). Hard to navigate. The links have been been merged into Template:San Diego State University and has been removed from articles... making this template orphaned. 🇺🇸 Corkythe hornetfan  🇺🇸 05:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SDSU College of Arts & Letters
 * Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2016 (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).