April 2
Template:Baltimore Ravens Hall of Famers
- 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) 01:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only causes clutter and is unneeded. This is the type of thing we should put in the infobox. Also, some of the guys in these templates played only a few games for the team. RoyalsLife 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TCREEP. Inductees already have non-team specific HOF navboxes. Team-specific ones add to the clutter, moreso in the common case where they played for multiple teams.—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2018 (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:New York Jets Hall of Famers
- 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) 01:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only causes clutter and is unneeded. This is the type of thing we should put in the infobox. Also, some of the guys in these templates played only a few games for the team. RoyalsLife 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TCREEP. Inductees already have non-team specific HOF navboxes. Team-specific ones add to the clutter, moreso in the common case where they played for multiple teams.—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2018 (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:New Orleans Saints Hall of Famers
- 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) 01:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only causes clutter and is unneeded. This is the type of thing we should put in the infobox. Also, some of the guys in these templates played only a few games for the team. RoyalsLife 19:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TCREEP. Inductees already have non-team specific HOF navboxes. Team-specific ones add to the clutter, moreso in the common case where they played for multiple teams.—Bagumba (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (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:Miami Dolphins Hall of Famers
- 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) 01:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only causes clutter and is unneeded. This is the type of thing we should put in the infobox. Also, some of the guys in these templates played only a few games for the team. RoyalsLife 19:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TCREEP. Inductees already have non-team specific HOF navboxes. Team-specific ones add to the clutter, moreso in the common case where they played for multiple teams.—Bagumba (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, replaceable by ((PD-USGov)) FASTILY 00:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, better to use the more precise tags than the general USGov tag. Given the large number of image files on en:wp, I find it extremely unlikely that we don't have any images where this would be useful. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to
((PD-USGov)), but have the redirect retain its category. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2018 (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 redirect to Template:Kings of Shang. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really used, redundant with Template:Kings of Shang. Timmyshin (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2018 (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 draftify. L293D has expressed an interest in creating articles based off of the redlinks provided. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serves no purpose with almost entirely red links GalatzTalk 21:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify no use for now, but I speak fluent French and I would like to use this template to create the articles by translating the French articles. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Contains 7 useful blue links in the header and footer (not counting the main article) and 3 blue links to diplomatic missions in the body. As L293D said, more links can become blue by translating the French articles, so the number of blue links will grow. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Contains 21 blue links to diplomatic missions in the body, and all other links are Interlanguage links referring to French articles, and this is a common procedure in Wikipedia. As L293D and Luis150902 said, more links can become blue by translating the French articles, so the number of blue links will grow. Zouaoui16 (talk | contribs) 21:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why WP:EXISTING says you should create the pages before creating the navbox - GalatzTalk 20:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have an example of this "common practice"? I have never seen them on any other template, and I just spot checked 5 other diplomatic mission templates, none of links to another language and none have red links. - GalatzTalk 20:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is clear that the issue with active links has diminished since nomination, and I presume it will continue to do so. WP:EXISTING has an important caveat (my emphasis): "Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles". Dorsetonian (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reading: "Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result." Yes, editors are still reminded to write the article first, but this sentence applies to this situation, since the set of diplomatic missions in Palestine is well-defined and can easily be made complete. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, further reason why redlinks in the template were not a problem ...
- ... However, I have struck my !vote because it is clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Germany in Palestine that the articles being created to remove the redlinks were problematic and are likely to be removed again. Given that the creating editor is blocked and won't be resolving either the article problems or the remaining redlinks, my reasons for opposing deletion no longer apply. Dorsetonian (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; there are a decent number of articles linked now, and I suspect that the nominator wouldn't have nominated it had it been in its current condition two days ago. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please note that the information in the created articles in factually inaccurate - starting with the labeling of these as "embassies", and the supposed (copy-pasted) founding date of 1.1.1989 (as well as quite a few other details in the rather short articles). Sourcing in the articles themselves is sketchy. Also, it is my understanding, that the template creator created these both on enwiki and on frwiki - in the past month - and that the frwiki seems just as factually inaccurate and with the same problems (and I'll note that was is particularly telling here is the lack of an arwiki article - which is these first place you'd expect these). The ensemble here may rise up to WP:HOAX (on the article level). A more accurate page is List of diplomatic missions in Palestine. The only one that seems accurate is Pontifical Mission for Palestine which was pre-existing to these recent creations.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also just a note the user who created all these pages has since been blocked indefinitely. - GalatzTalk 13:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Embassy_of_Germany_in_Palestine it appears that almost all of these articles will get deleted 07:23, 31 March 2018 (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).