Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 3



Template:ODI All-rounders

 * 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. kingboyk (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Self-crafted criteria, no reliable source to support the claim. It completely fails WP:NAVBOX purpose.
 * ODI All-rounders

i. It has no article on the topic, and isn't a coherent subject. ii. Subject of the template isn't discussed in every article. Störm  (talk)  22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have no understanding of cricket, the above list is not mentioned in All-rounder. As such it does indeed seem like a self-crafted criteria.
 * Delete - I agree: there are a number of similar templates, many of which seem to have been created out of some arbitrary criteria (I think there's a >140 strike rate one for T20Is or something - why 140 exactly?!!). Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Previously, we discussed about its deletion but somehow it was left out. Störm   (talk)  14:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Templates are not suited to these types of cross-categorisations. Ajf773 (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2019 (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:WNBATeam

 * 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Redundant to official and adds no extra functionality--there is nothing special about URIs associated with women's professional basketball... Additionally, official can draw from, so this is extra not-helpful. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WNBATeam
 * Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2019 (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:Real Maryland Monarchs squad

 * 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. kingboyk (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Team is defunct, so there is no 'current' squad (and we do not keep historical rosters), so no need for this template. GiantSnowman 15:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Real Maryland Monarchs squad
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and common practice. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2019 (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:California Breed

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC) With only one studio album to their name, this seems a bit pointless. -- wooden superman  14:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * California Breed
 * Delete Even if they had three albums, those would be pretty simple to navigate. Give me at least five links in addition to the main article and then you've got a navbox. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 3 June 2019 (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:Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series

 * 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) 23:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC) A sea of unlinked text. Not a useful navigational aid. Only two of the series (and not the series itself) appear to have articles. Other entries are largely tangential. -- wooden superman  11:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series
 * Comment: If this so urgently absolutely totally needs to be deleted, so be it. I have better things to do that engage with you again. I would have previously assumed that you also have better things to be doing, but now I'm not so sure: Nominating a second template I created for deletion while refusing to answer direct questions in an ongoing deletion discussion really stretches my ability to assume that you're acting in good faith. I am not watching this discussion; if anyone wants to ask me anything, they are welcome to do so on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Josh, I'm not sure what was your previous discussion with Wood, but I'll give my opinion on this. Navboxes are not articles, they have a single purpose and that is to navigate between different articles. When you create a navbox that is mostly plain text it fails that. Most of the ones that are links, are not even for the subject, but for individuals. If this template was created for your personal use, that's fine, but then it belongs in your userspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 June 2019 (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).