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. czar 00:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at
WT:FOOTYFrietjes (
talk) 14:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Simply not needed after being merged with parent articles. Might be even a speedy delete per previous similar nominations made by Frietjes.
Ben5218 (
talk) 15:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 11:00, 16 November 2019 (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).
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 11:00, 16 November 2019 (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. czar 00:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at
WT:FOOTYFrietjes (
talk) 14:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
No problem at all with these three templates being deleted. Thank you, @
Frietjes:, for embedding them within the parent article.
Drawoh46 (
talk) 14:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 11:01, 16 November 2019 (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).
Redirect Gizmodo template to G/O's. They're not exactly the same as the subjects are separate entities. If the overlap is significant enough to warrant a merged template, I'd go with G/O. czar 23:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge per nomComment: Not seeing why
Czar is proposing to redirect with no transclusions on
Template:G/O Media. I assumed Gizmodo Media Group renamed itself? Nevertheless, I think we should keep
Template:Gizmodo Media Group since it was created first, merge the two, and the consider a rename, without leaving a redirect, to
Template:G/O Media.--
Doug MehusT·C 22:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Because there's nothing to merge—what else from the GMG navbox should be included in G/O's? GMG didn't rename itself. It's a different entity that combines GMG's assets with other properties. czar 02:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirects preserve edit history. It's the simplest way to "merge" the two. czar 00:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Czar, Oh, my understanding is that we can also do a talkpage history preservation, but yes, if you're concerned with preserving attribution, I'd have no problem with that. In terms of attribution, I look at how substantive, though, the template is. A simple navbox likely does not need edit history preserved (admins can still restore revisions, as I understand it) whereas a complex template like
Template:Archive box should have its attribution preserved.
Doug MehusT·C 00:35, 23 November 2019 (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).
Keep: Please refrain from just giving delete statements or suggestions without explanation. In accordance to
WP:AADD and more specifically to
WP:JUSTAPOLICY while merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy. If you really think it has to be deleted, in order to meet the above rules, please explain what part of
WP:NAVBOX is not being met here? After you explain your reasons, also please explain why, in accordance to
WP:VAGUEWAVE and most specifically please take a position on this sentence "Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected"
You seems to have no understanding of
WP:NAVBOX. Please familiarize yourself with guidlines before introducing your vague/arbitrarily-defined criterias.
Störm(talk) 13:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
delete, the criteria for inclusion is complete
WP:OR.
Frietjes (
talk) 15:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:NAVBOX#3: The articles do not refer to each other to a reasonable extent. Navigation between unrelated fashion bloggers is already sufficiently covered by
Category:Fashion journalists. If there needs to be a subcat for bloggers, break it out, but I don't see the need right now. czar 23:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete though I disagree it fails
WP:NAVBOX#3. I suspect this is just a case of a Wikipedia editor(s) not knowing the correct documentation format. Let's not be too
bitey, I think. Still, I don't see a use case for this.--
Doug MehusT·C 22:50, 18 November 2019 (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 keep The keep side's arguments are better supported by policy, since navboxes and categories should not be considered in conflict with each other per
WP:CLN. While the advantages and disadvantages section of
WP:CLN was cited as an argument to delete there are also arguments to keep in the same section making those arguments largely equivalent.
(non-admin closure) ‑‑
Trialpears (
talk) 13:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
No need for a navbox, when all the links are accessible straight through one article; basically a duplication (in template format) of
List of Humans episodes. -- /
Alex/
21 00:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: I don't follow this rationale. The navbox means that when I'm on
Series 1, Episode 6 (Humans), in one click I can get to
Series 1, Episode 2 (Humans). I don't want to go to
List of Humans episodes, wait for the page to load, scroll down roughly the right amount, have to adjust, and then click on the header link to the right episode. What exactly of
WP:NAVBOX is not being met here? It's a "small, well-defined group of articles".
WP:NAVBOX lists some criteria which most navboxes meet a couple of and this one meet almost all of them: it "relate[s] to a single, coherent subject [...] mentioned in every article", it's true that the articles "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" and there's a page on the main topic. — Bilorv (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Nice way to dramatically expand on moving between two articles; go to one article, go to another. That's it. What does this template do that
Category:Humans (TV series) episodes does not? Note the Disadvantages section: If simple, can often be replaced with a category. Note that navboxes are not accessible on mobile, so your rationale only applies to desktop users. Navboxes are not necessary for episodes of only a single season. Can you cite similar examples? -- /
Alex/
21 09:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It's not that simple unless you're intimately familiar with WPTV standards, which 100% of readers (to the nearest whole number) are not. — Bilorv (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It is that simple. Episodes linked all through a single article? Category. -- /
Alex/
21 23:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Appropriate use of a navbox. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
delete, the succession links in the infobox are enough.
Frietjes (
talk) 14:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Some people prefer navbox navigation to category navigation. We're not in an either/or situation here, both are appropriate and both service the reader.
212.135.65.247 (
talk) 13:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Per my comment
here. -- /
Alex/
21 13:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
There is a link to this discussion at the other one.
212.135.65.247 (
talk) 13:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑
Trialpears (
talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep These episodes should probably be merged, but that's another matter. I see a use case for this template as each link goes to a separate article.
Doug MehusT·C 22:52, 18 November 2019 (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 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).