Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 17 March 19 >

March 18[edit]

Template:US executive actions introduction[edit]

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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is meant to be a transcluded lead section of articles about the executive orders issued by various presidents. Transcluding prose appears to be discouraged, and leads, of all things, should definitely not be boilerplate. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Speedy Delete. Original justification for prose transclusion stands: The pages involved were already headed by boilerplate prior to me creating this template.
Each article that uses this template is conceptually identical in concept: they are each a list of executive decisions (currently, those by Donald Trump, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, with applicability likely to be extended to other presidents as the series of lists continues to be overhauled). As a result, they all had essentially the same lead. In the process of editing the heading for one of the lists, I realized the same edits would be applicable to the other lists, so moving the already-identical text to a common file seemed like an obvious idea that would simplify the work of future editors, which would in turn improve the experience for future readers.
...but as discussed below, a template is the wrong tool: The idea for doing this as a template came from seeing a similar idea in play in other series of articles. The specific example that had been in my head was the header template for articles related to calendar years (such as 1968, as a random example): {{Year article header}}.
I read the referenced 2005 discussion on transcluding prose, and it doesn't look like anything like a consensus on a policy or guideline was ever reached.--NapoliRoma (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question: This certainly looks doable, and the content of this help page implies that transcluding prose is not unheard of.
Maybe I'm misreading the concern here: is it that content should be in mainspace, not template namespace? That was not at all clear to me from the kickoff to this discussion. If that's the primary concern, than switching from a template to LST makes sense.
Otherwise, it seems like either approach has about the same advantages and disadvantages.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first sentence of the first bullet point of WP:TMPG, which says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. Pppery 23:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very direct applicable guideline -- thanks! I will convert to LST.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the articles per the above discussion (specifically, they now use section transclusion per WP:LST); the template is no longer in use and can be deleted.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure why this has been relisted. I created the template; someone above pointed out why I should have used another method to achieve my intended result; I've done so, and deleted it from all articles; it's no longer being used, and is extremely unlikely to ever be used again. Shouldn't it just be nuked?--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:43, 18 March 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).

Template:Bemani series[edit]

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) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All contents of this template have been replaced by the navigational boxes {{Konami franchises}} and {{Konami Holdings Corporation}}. All links to the Bemani template have been removed on the respective articles. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 18 March 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).

Template:Footlights presidents[edit]

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) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many unlinked entries for this to be a useful navigation tool. Best left to list and category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the list of presidents is already provided in the main article Footlights and the template is excessive / not needed, plus the non-article issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 19 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 82nd ID[edit]

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) 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 18 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 94th ID[edit]

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) 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 18 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 96th ID[edit]

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) 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only one blue-linked article remains; pls see prior version. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 18 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 98th ID[edit]

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) 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 18 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 100th JD[edit]

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) 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 18 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 102nd ID[edit]

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) 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 18 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 116th PD[edit]

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) 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 18 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 134th ID[edit]

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) 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 18 March 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).

Template:Pink Grand Prix: 1991[edit]

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) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: only two listings are articles: Kazuhiro Sano & one of the movies. Going by the state of AfDs/PRODs in the related area, the non-link subjects are highly unlikely to be considered notable in the future. Thus the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 18 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the HPBs[edit]

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) 23:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two actual articles remain (one of the links listed is a redirect); pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 18 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 294th ID[edit]

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) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only one article remains; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future. Thus the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as insufficient use being made of the template, Better off deleted. –Davey2010Talk 17:22, 21 March 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of TPA[edit]

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) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as insufficient use being made of the template, Better off deleted. –Davey2010Talk 17:23, 21 March 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).

Template:Pink Grand Prix: 1990[edit]

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) 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation -- only two blue linked entries, after non-links and red-links have been removed prior version. Going by AfDs/PRODs in the related area, these removed entries are unlikely to be deemed notable in the future, and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 18 March 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_18&oldid=1073610349"