Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|35 Greatest McDonald’s All Americans}}

Navbox cruft. This is a superfluous distinction among McDonald's All-American players that doesn't even have a stand-alone list article to accompany it; this "35 greatest" distinction only warrants a subsection of McDonald's All-American Game. Yet another unnecessary, banner-hanging navbox that only serves to clutter articles. Also, this "award" is not a major achievement to these players, it's just another distinction among the hundreds they've gotten throughout their careers. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - McD's All American is not a major distinction or award, and the template simply adds to navbox clutter. -- Whpq (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete It's mention at McDonald%27s_All-American_Game#35_Greatest_McDonald.E2.80.99s_All_Americans is sufficient. It's unlikely to have it's own standalone article, and the articles generally would not refer to each other, failing WP:NAVBOX points 3,4, and 5. Finally, this honor is minor for each of the recipients, and not worthy of the clutter.—Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The McDonalds All-American is notable enough to have a template for their 35 greatest basketball players. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 14:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

:— Note to closing admin: JoeJohnson2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• That rationale doesn't address the issue. Why is it notable enough to have a template? WP:NENAN specifically addresses why this isn't notable enough, and two of the main criteria for navboxes are (a) a stand-alone article should exist for the navbox - which this topic wouldn't satisfy per GNG; and (b) all articles must refer to each other to a reasonable extent - they don't. Being arbitrarily selected as a "35 Greatest McDonald's All-American" player is a very trivial honor to all of these players, whose college and/or professional careers vastly outshine and are more important than a superfluous high school distinction. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Notable enough to be mentioned in the article, not notable enough to have its own navbox.—Chris!_c/t 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Navbox clutter. Non defining. Someone's arbitrary list. Not useful for navigation as it links unrelated players from differing eras. Resolute 19:27, 11 April 2013 (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) 23:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Mexico state navigation box}}

very weak frontend for {{tl|navbox}}. it's better to just use navbox directly here, as it requires less typing ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AState_of_Mexico&diff=548848553&oldid=538299206 see here]). I will revert my conversion of State of Mexico if this closes as keep or convert the rest if this closes as delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2013 (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) 23:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Largest Metros of North Carolina}}

Unused broken template Kumioko (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2013 (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 wrong venue, userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|User USCOTM}}

No longer needed. US Collab has been defunct for more than a year. If this is needed in the future it can be recreated Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep; 3 users, no reason to delete userbox unless they choose to remove it. – SJ + 05:03, 5 April 2013 (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) 00:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Years in Taiwan|type=merge}}

:{{Tfd links|ROC year nav|type=merge}}

Propose merging Template:Years in Taiwan with Template:ROC year nav.

This new navbox template appears redundant to Template:Taiwan year nav. This one was proposed in AfC and I mistakenly accepted it before noticing the other template. As proposed, this would have encompassed years in Taiwan during several periods from 1662 to the present. However, the articles from before 1949 do not exist, and WP:NAV says "navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles" (emphasis in original) so I changed the template to only show those from 1949 on--unwittingly making the scope of this template identical to Template:Taiwan year nav. —rybec 01:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

edit: I just added the word "on" now, for clarity. —rybec 01:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep revert {{lt|Taiwan year nav}} to {{tl|ROC year nav}} which it was a few days ago, and contained much more content [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Taiwan_year_nav&oldid=542479774], since that was navigation by government, and complemented {{tl|PRC year nav}}, which is separate from {{tl|China year nav}}. Also :category:Country year navigational boxes contain many templates that are 99% redlinks, so I don't see why this cannot also feature redlinks for the 1662-1949 period [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Years_in_Taiwan_navbox&oldid=543142159]. The template {{tl|Taiwan year nav}} is still being used as ROC year nav, so the removal of all the links was unwarranted, since it doesn't match the usage on articles which are NOT Taiwan articles. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've reverted the content of {{tl|ROC year nav}} back to the way it was last week, before it was moved and stripped of content. A BRD WP:RM request was also filed to dispute the move of the template. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've restored the 1662-1949 links to allow a fuller comparison of the two templates -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge While that's not the topic of this discussion, I agree with removing all the pre-1949 links from {{tl|Taiwan year nav}}. If anything, they should have pointed to Year X in China, not to Year X in the Republic of China, but we don't have many of those articles either. If they're removed outright, that makes Template:Years in Taiwan navbox a needless duplication. Having the template cover 1949-present seems better than having it change scope from all of China to Taiwan in the middle. Huon (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment we have separate articles for Years in China and Years in the Republic of China and {{tl|ROC year nav}} was for navigating the topic "Years in the Republic of China" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment if these two templates are merged, then {{tl|ROC year nav}} should redirect to {{tl|China year nav}} ; if these are not merged then {{tl|Taiwan year nav}} should redirect to {{tl|Years in Taiwan navbox}} ({{tl|ROC year nav}} being separate) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I've adjusted the links to point to {{tl|ROC year nav}}, where the template sits now, per reversion of the bold content revision. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

:*{{tl|ROC year nav}} now navigates 1912 in the Republic of China. Of the existing articles that are linked, that is the only difference. The section of WP:NAV that I went by when hiding the red links says {{quote|Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first.}} Since there's not even one article about a year in the history of Taiwan before the ROC government fled there, {{tl|ROC year nav}}, which focuses on the ROC government, seems adequate and I don't see anything that should be merged from {{tl|Years in Taiwan navbox}}, which focuses on Taiwan as an island. I think it's okay to just delete {{tl|Years in Taiwan navbox}}. Sorry about all this! —rybec 21:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

::* There's a 1924 in China which isn't being linked to from the ROC template at the moment. Further 1949 in the Republic of China is not a Taiwan article either, since the ROC was still on the mainland that year. {{tl|Years in Taiwan navbox}} does not focus on Taiwan as an island, it focuses on Taiwan as an autonomous entity, the period when it was a separate kingdom, republic, or as a colony, or after the evacutation to Taiwan by the KMT. At any rate, both titles should be retained as redirects. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

:::*Thanks, I've added 1924 in China to {{tl|ROC year nav}}. Both templates navigate to the same 1949 article (there's a redirect). So as it stands, for existing articles, {{tl|Years in Taiwan}} (moved from Years in Taiwan navbox) provides navigation to a strict subset of the articles covered by {{tl|ROC year nav}}, the difference being the 1912 and 1924 articles. If there are no articles about Taiwan as "a separate kingdom, republic, or [...] colony" before the Chinese Civil War there's no need for {{tl|Years in Taiwan}}. —rybec 21:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

::::*1949 in Taiwan is not the same as 1949 in the Republic of China, it is a subset of 1949 in Republic of China, which can conceivably be separated into a separate article. And putting out more Taiwan (or ROC) year articles through AfC takes a whole lot of time (if this template is any indication, any submission I make will not be published until May) so I'd like the template to exist if the articles are published. Since ROC year nav navigates the year the entity known as ROC exists (hence its companion list article), it should continue to navigate such. With the pre-Civil War links being divergent between the two templates, any links to pre-1950 articles are not compatible between the two scopes. The likelihood of pre-1950 ROC articles is reasonable, considering we have three already, so that should remain as an ROC template. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

:::::*Currently 1949 in Taiwan is a redirect to 1949 in the Republic of China. That's what I meant by "the same 1949 article (there's a redirect)." —rybec 05:32, 11 April 2013 (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) 23:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Infobox OK Constitution}}

navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Navigation consists of red links. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as a malformed navbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 9 April 2013 (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.