Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 2#Template:Albany Great Danes football navbox

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Duet Mania}}

This template is full of redlinks and doesn't need to be here. I have let the parent article Duet Mania through Afc but there's lots of unreferenced stuff that needs cleaning up before this can even be looked at. Ritchie333 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused and not one related article exists beyond the artist --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:33, 3 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Fb stadium}}

Unused. Purpose/usage unclear (to me). DH85868993 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Leeds Carnegie L.F.C. squad}}

Has not been updated since 28 May 2010‎ and Leeds Carnegie L.F.C.#First team squad does not feature a single linked player currently. Kq-hit (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|London Underground Tube Stations & Rolling Stock}}

• Delete as whilst I undertsand the intention, all of the info is adequately covered in each line template, which are more up to date. This template is also unused. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 11:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The template appears to have been lurking unused for years.--DavidCane (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete other (smaller) navboxes exist which are overlapped: those areas not covered by the line navboxes mentioned above are covered by {{tlx|London Underground rolling stock}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - seems too unwieldy for a template, even if it wasn't unused! Sunil060902 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Kavala F.C. squad}}

:{{Tfd links|Kavala F.C. Squad}}

List of players outdated after club dropped from 1st to 4th division one year ago. Current squad features no notable players. Page Kavala F.C. does not contain a current squad either. Kq-hit (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Not needed. --Tot12 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Tampere United squad}}

No current squad, club was dissolved in 2011, see Tampere United. Kq-hit (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like an uncontroversial delete then.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 2 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete all. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Angling}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Australian Football}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Ballooning}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Boules}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Bowling}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Budo}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Cannon Shooting}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Cycle Polo}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Fire Fighting}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Gaelic Football}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Gliding}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Glima}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Kite Flying}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Kaatsen}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games La Canne}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Life Saving}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Longue Paume}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Motor Racing}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Pesapallo}}

:{{Tfd links|Olympic Games Pigeon Racing}}

These sports were only ever played at one Olympic Games, so these navboxes are unnecessary. I realised too late that I can only bundle twenty templates, but I'm also nominating the following:

• Template:Olympic Games Savate
• Template:Olympic Games Water Skiing
• Template:Olympic Games Bandy
• Template:Olympic Games Sled Dog Racing
• Template:Olympic Games Skijoring
• Template:Olympic Games Speed Skiing
• Template:Olympic Games Winter Pentathlon

DoctorKubla (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as not useful for navigation. They look a bit silly, so the articles will be better off without these templates. – Fayenatic London 17:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If they're not useful for navigation then they should be removed from the articles, but I've spot-checked several and they're in use where possible. As a reader, I would expect a chronologically-named article that's part of a set (even if it's a set of one) to have a navigation box. I might skip over the intro and miss that it was a one-off. As a template creator, I think it's wrong-headed to delete templates which are in use simply because they're ostensibly "not useful." The template namespace isn't all that special, and nothing stops an editor from manually encoding a navigation template on an article. This isn't the proper forum to handle this question, especially since closing this debate as delete would foreclose any attempt to reintroduce said templates. I would also note that the nominator removed these templates from at least one article (Longue paume at the 1900 Summer Olympics) just prior to creating this nomination, which may give an inaccurate sense of their usage. This should be resolved with discussion on the articles in question, not here. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

::Okay, let me explain in a little more detail. There were two articles for each of these one-time events. One at "X at the [year] Olympics" (eg. Longue paume at the 1900 Summer Olympics) and one at "X at the Olympics" (eg. Longue paume at the Summer Olympics). It makes sense for most Olympic sports to have a general "X at the Olympics" article, but for one-time events, it's redundant, so I merged each of these pairs into one article (after checking with WikiProject Olympics). The navboxes were simply linking the two articles together - once the articles were merged, the navboxes were even more useless than before, so I removed them. Seriously, look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longue_paume_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics&oldid=505390818 Longue paume at the 1900 Summer Olympics] and tell me that navbox is useful. It has a single link, which redirects back to Longue paume at the 1900 Summer Olympics. That's the situation with every one of these templates. Yes, some of them are in use, that was an oversight on my part. They shouldn't be. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• These could adequately be merged into a single {{tl|one-time events at the Olympics}}. Olympics articles are plagued by silly navboxes-as-decoration. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

::They're already covered by Template:Sports at the Olympics. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NENAN. Absolutely redundant to {{tl|Sports at the Olympics}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. A navbox with one circular link makes no sense. This seems like consistency for consistency's sake. {{tl|Sports at the Olympics}} is a much more useful template for navigation purposes. Jafeluv (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|CBAteams}}

Seems pointless, only one bluelink and the league is defunct. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:Delete - not useful, seems to be a template someone started then walked away from. Rikster2 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_10#Template:Jamiroquai_singles--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Jamiroquai singles}}

Redundant to {{tl|Jamiroquai}}. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure. I was the creator of this template and I did so as Jamiroquai has many singles. Therefore I believe that the singles deserve their own template. See examples on Template:Beyoncé Knowles singles and Template:Rihanna singles. However, since User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has brought this discussion up, I assume that I'm not updated about any amendments regarding the use of templates in the English Wikipedia as I am not very active in Wikipedia than I've used to. Anyways I will leave this discussion for other Wikipedians who are more updated than me and hopefully, we'll reach a consensus. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete (or remove singles from artist template) The templates are inconsistent with one another, as many singles are missing from the singles template. That being said, either the singles template should be deleted, or the artist template should not have the singles listed at all. The artist template should probably list the names of the musicians. My 2 cents.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Bethune-Cookman Wildcats baseball coach navbox}}

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:WilliamJE, who attempted to nominate this template for deletion but mistakenly sent it to AfD instead of TfD. His rationaile follows: Navbox which with one exception, is totally composed of redboxes. What navigational purpose does it serve? WP:NENAN. I personally am neutral. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. For the millionth time, Division I coaches are notable. Red links encourage article creation. I don't know how many times us editors at CBB, CFB and CBBALL have to regurgitate that. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

::Might it be worth adding a note to that effect into the template documentation for all the Division I coach navboxes, to discourage future TfDs? DH85868993 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:::What purpose does a navbox serve when there aren't two points to travel to and from?...William 23:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Jrcla2. Also I see two blue links, and the nabox is an excellent quick chronological overview of head coaches in this sport at this institution. Surely utility is an editorial question anyway. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• For the millionth time, WP:NAVBOX has far firmer consensus behind it than whatever random deviations the various college sports WikiProjects have cooked up this week. They should not be creating navboxes in defiance of that consensus, and should not be wasting the community's time defending them for bogus reasons when they are taken to TfD. Write the articles first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I do not assume blanket notability for NCAA division 1 baseball coaches like I do for football and men's basketball. College baseball just flat out doesn't get the same level of coverage that those two sports get. Rikster2 (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Albany Great Danes football navbox}}

Two seasons and a football field. I don't see the need for a navbox to connect them. WP:NENAN ...William 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:Strong Keep See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 11#Team_navboxes; Per WP:CFB, this is what all NCAA football team navboxes are supposed to look like. It's standard formatting. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

::Comment I also feel it's worth pointing out that WP:NENAN, cited in the deletion rationale above, is an opinion essay, not Wikipedia policy. See WP:NBFILL for a counterpoint opinion essay. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:Keep. Navbox serves useful navigation and it's per WP:CFB. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

::Keep Member of established class of navboxes that provides backbone for content development. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:Comment. I have been a strong proponent of these CFB team navboxes with standard formatting, but I must admit that this one raises some legitimate TfD concerns . . . . This particular navbox has a total of three active links, together with several dozen red links, which everyone knows is contrary to established precedent. It would appear that perhaps the creation of this navbox was premature. Please consider carefully. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

:Keep. Navbox also indicates, usefully, which seasons Albany has played and which might need articles. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• The college sports WikiProjects do not get to circumvent the strong consensus that navboxes are for navigating existing content, and that there should be an adequate navigation purpose to the templates before they are created. When the articles are already sufficiently interlinked and there are less than a handful of them, we do not need a navbox. It's disconcerting that the pile-on above suggests that members of these projects are still vote-stacking at TfD after being repeatedly admonished for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Two points - first, I agree with Dirtlawyer that while this type of template is useful, applying it to a subject without a high profile football history may be premature if the bulk of the articles aren't written. It simply isn't a given that Albany's football seasons are notable or that anyone will ever write the articles for those missing. My second point is that Chris Cunningham's assertion that there is "strong consensus" that redlinks shouldn't be in navboxes isn't altogether correct in my opinion. The WP guideline merely suggests it and further the current practice of templates (not just in sports) and more recent discussion says the issue is split on Wikipedia. Personally, I think it is an issue worth re-looking at and coming to a true consensus, but those discussions never seem to end all that well. Rikster2 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep standard navbox. Other articles will most likely come over time. While I would not have made the navbox just yet were I enthusiastic about this particular topic/team, I am not opposed to it and it should be kept since we now have it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.