Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 24



Template:Brain limitation

 * 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) 03:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Vague concept (no clear criteria), no reasonable wikipedia subject (no article) - üser:Altenmann >t 15:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Brain limitation
 * delete per nom; no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 26 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:Sonshine Radio

 * 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) 05:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sonshine Radio
 * Delete. Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion 4. The subject of the template does not have an article. Sixth of March 07:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * delete per nom, no parent article and the navigation is already covered by region templates like Template:Laguna Radio. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 3 March 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:YouTube most subbed

 * 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Arguments for deletion - that the template is redundant with Template:YouTube navigation, that the template does not meet "criteria" of WP:NAVBOX - are successfully refuted. This template is not completely overlapped by the more general YouTube Navbox; though it may be possible to make it so. The points at WP:NAVBOX are not exhaustive criteria, but attributes which some good Navboxes may possess. The comment by w.r.t merges and/or a more general Navbox is intriguing; and this close should not be seen to prejudice either of these courses of action. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Redundant template, does not particularly suffice any navigational purpose — I B  [ Poke  ] 20:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * YouTube most subbed
 * Keep. No proper rationale for deletion. Not redundant to Template:YouTube navbox, useful for navigation among top subscribed channels (I was looking at Lonelygirl15 and was interested to see the other channels). Most subscribed YouTube channels is something that has received significant outside attention and is not just an invention of Wikipedia. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet criteria 3 and 5 of WP:NAVBOX.--JacktheHarry (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Has no purpose the Template:YouTube navigation already covers this, there is no need for more than one navbox. As above, it does not meet criteria 3 and 5. Kyle1278 (talk) (Ctb) (log) 09:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * comment, not really covered by Template:YouTube navbox, since the main navbox only has the link to the top article, and not to the subarticles. However, I see nothing wrong with deleting this and adding a link to the list article in the see also sections. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Template:YouTube navigation. If someone wants to look up most subbed there is a link right there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not redundant to Template:YouTube navigation. It contains many more links than Template:YouTube navigation. It is not redundant to List of the most subscribed users on YouTube, it has historical number ones, with links to Judson Laipply and Lonelygirl15. It is more than a navbox, it is succession boxes for both the current rankings, and the history of the holder of the number one spot, that can easily be edited to update. I believe it does meet criteria 3, but WP:NAVBOX says "some of these guidelines". Navboxes like 10 deadliest US tornadoes, Princes of Wales, and German elections don't meet criteria 5. 117Avenue (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are honestly comparing the amount of deaths from a natural disaster, a royal blood line, political elections, with youtube subscribers....? How inane.--JacktheHarry (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are all factors that people naturally rank notable things, so yes. How do you rank YouTube channels? 117Avenue (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge the list of #1s to the list of most-subscribed and subsequently delete. OTOH, there may be some room for a general "YouTube personalities" navbox. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * keep No proper rationale for deletion. 178.140.89.185 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Provides reasonable navigation between pages that are clearly related under a category that is not an invention of Wikipedia. All arguments for redundancy don't seem to pan out, as none include links to these specific pages. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. We can't just throw the general Youtube navbox on every article related to Youtube. This is a more specific template that provides links between content creators that fall within a clearly defined category rather than pages about the platform itself. ~ RobTalk 01:00, 10 April 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:Ojinaga TV

 * 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) 03:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC) No transclusions. There are just two TV stations in Ojinaga, neither of which have full articles, and the other items on this navbox do not make use of this template. Raymie (t • c) 08:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Ojinaga TV

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * delete per nom; unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 26 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:Lautoka F.C.

 * 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; no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Only two links. Not useful as a template. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lautoka F.C.
 * 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:Infobox Buddhist temple

 * 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. No opposition, and generally these have been merged as noted by Frietjes. ~ RobTalk 02:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox Buddhist temple with Template:Infobox religious building.
 * Infobox Buddhist temple
 * Infobox religious building

There is no need for a separate template. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  03:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * sounds reasonable, considering that other templates like infobox Jain temple and infobox mosque were merged there. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 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).