Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 8



Template:Can't retire

 * 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn (I've nominated instead). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Can't retire

Unused little used; redundant to. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with  – of the two Can't retire is actually the better version. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't look "unused" to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's odd; reports zero transclusions. Nevertheless, the templates are near identical in meaning and can be merged. (There are in fact 35 transclusions, of which seven are in archives one in a sandbox, one tracking page and three in transcluded header templates, meaning only 23 user/ user talk pages actually use the template.  has just three transclusions, one in an archive and the other two by one user)  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 10 February 2020 (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:Attempting school wikibreak

 * 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 2020 February 17. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Attempting_school_wikibreak
 * 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:Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album

 * 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Defunct award since 2011. Not an award in the general field. See Template:Latin Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Album which was also deleted. Erick (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The template groups together the 12 works which won this award for the 12 years the award was running. The list-article on this award is a featured list: Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album. SilkTork (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2020 (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:Scott Frank

 * 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC) I think WP:PERFNAV applies to this navbox. Bsherr (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Scott Frank
 * delete, you could cut it down to only films directed, but there wouldn't be enough left for a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Even though I (re-)created this template, I don't see it as any different from other writer-director-creator templates, such as Tony Gilroy and Billy Ray, or even producer-etc. templates like Leonardo DiCaprio. - DoubleCross (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment PERFNAV talks about people in production navboxes, not productions in writer/director/creator navboxes. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Category:American film director navigational boxes, Category:Film writer navigational boxes and Category:Television creator templates. It's absolutely pointless in hacking at this one by one. If you think these are violating the guideline then the group should be discussed. --Gonnym (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not seeing how WP:PERFNAV applies here, as that is talking about adding performances/contributions to an existing nav box for the production in question. So, for example, don't add Scott Frank to Template:Wolverine by creating a writer's section. But I'm not voting keep as I'm wondering the usefulness of duplicating information that is already in the article under Scott_Frank. I think the principle of this type of navbox is acceptable, though in this particular case it may be redundant as the article is fairly small, and mainly consists of the list of productions which are repeated in the template. SilkTork (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2020 (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:Too much further reading

 * 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. But replace with Further reading cleanup before deletion. I'll leave the possibility of a redirect to editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Duplicative of Further reading cleanup, which already encompasses further reading sections that are overly long. This template has very low usage in comparison. Logan Talk Contributions 05:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Too much further reading
 * Delete – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need for a separate template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Further reading cleanup as a functional alternative title; though no objections to deletion. SilkTork (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Replace and delete per above. no need for an additional template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2020 (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).