Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 5

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) 00:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

The years are red links and the name of the template is confusing. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Every other sitting SCOTUS justice has this table, and the format was modeled off of Antonin Scalia's template, which also has plenty of red links. I oppose deletion as he will issue opinions soon. JocularJellyfish (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

).

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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )
• Template:Uw-poorlysourced1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )
• Template:Uw-poorlysourced2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )
• Template:Uw-poorlysourced3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )
• Template:Uw-poorlysourced4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging: Uw-poorlysourced templates are not (yet) officially part of

• Comment: I don't understand how to get consensus in Wikipedia and get these templates to be officially part of the User Warnings or User Talk Namespace Templates. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Why were these created?

Uw-poorlysourced1

Uw-poorlysourced2

Uw-poorlysourced3

Uw-poorlysourced4

They are almost completely identical to the well-established Uw-unsourced templates, except for the minor change of inserting "poorly". In my opinion, this is completely unnecessary. Calling a source poor is a negative way of saying the source is unreliable. The distinction being made can

bite newcomers, whether intentional or not. These should be deleted if anything, as they fail to enhance the unsourced templates. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

•  Comment: (Disclosure: I am the nominator, 80.221.152.17.) I don't oppose deleting these templates, per User:GoneIn60's suggestion. 84.250.0.185 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose, if you want to delete the poorly sourced templates, then nominate those for deletion, but there is really nothing to merge here. Frietjes (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I feel they may be distinctly different from unsourced and poorly sourced. And some protection descriptions show about "addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content", yet we don't show about "poorly sourced" on the templates. And I don't even understand how to bring consensus in Wikipedia, even with two-years experience. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

).

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

).

• Template:Politics of Vatican City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )
• Template:Politics of the Holy See (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

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

).

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Beware of Darkness (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three valid links: two albums and one single. Everything else was redirected. Delete per

• Keep for now - While it is possible that only three of the works are notable, three of the works were unilaterally redirected by
  TFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak keep, since the redirects were by the nominator. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

).

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) 22:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Association football positions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unhelpful template that mixes together entirely different sorts of "positions" - the tactical on-field positions (e.g. midfielder) with positions in the sense of job roles. Many of the latter link to non-football specific articles, such as general sports ones (e.g. coach) or ones on much more general topics, such as physician, which doesn't even mention sport. Cutting it down to the playing positions would make logical sense, but would leave too few links for it to be worthwhile. Jellyman (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a problem with the combination of playing and non-playing roles. It is clearly marked and types of positions are important roles in soccer. --SuperJew (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Layout is as expected for sports, similar to Template:Baseball positions for example. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball template is useful in that it includes a significant number of playing roles, and – while I'm not a fan of mixing the on- and off-field roles in this way, as I said – at least the off-field ones mainly link to baseball-specific articles. What value is a template that mixes together "midfielder" and "physician"? These articles don't relate to each other in the slightest, which is what articles in navboxes are supposed to do. Jellyman (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a valid argument for improving it via

WP:BOLD

, not a reason to entirely break cross-navigation between the positions -a convention which seems to exist in every similar team sport-position article. 05:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - a 'position' in association football refers to playing, and there are four - not enough for a template. See also
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 18:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Serves no useful purpose. JMHamo (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a useful aid to navigation, the non-player role element is confusing, and not relevant leaving only a minimum of valid blue links

• delete, and replace with see also links for the directly-related positions. Frietjes (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

).

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 2017 May 13. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

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

).