Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

March 15[edit]

Template:Taste of Chaos[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. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This navbox template is no longer serving its original intended purpose, since practically all of the articles it originally linked to have since been deleted, it is now linked to only one article, the BLP of concert producer Kevin Lyman, and it contains too few topics to be useful. It currently only serves to list three concert tours produced by that person. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 1#Template:Uproar Festival for a previous suggestion to delete it by Woodensuperman. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a suitable topic for a navbox. --woodensuperman 09:46, 16 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).

Template:McEvoy Group[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 relisted on 2018 March 22. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 22 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).

Template:SCRIPPS NET[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 relisted on 2018 March 22. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 22 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).

Template:Footer Olympic Champions Women's mass start[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 no consensus. People wished to discuss both the men's and women's together; there were options of merging and deleting given, no consensus for either (and for merging you'd have to add the men's template to the nomination); @Woodensuperman, Dissident93, Bellezzasolo, Frietjes, Primefac, and Plastikspork: if they want to renominate both templates for merging/deletion. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. Only transcluded in two articles, so its navigational function is negligible. Useless. --woodensuperman 14:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See WP:OSE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 07:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • keep per WP:BIAS Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into the "male" template - I don't think it's "bias" to keep one template that doesn't navigate anywhere and delete a second; it just means that a different group of editors turned up. In four years when there are two winners, I have no issue with this template existing, but this template is effectively navigating nowhere and can easily be recreated/restored in four years. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC) See below. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    • then discuss them together if you don't think there is bias. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Primefac generally I respect your judgement calls, but I have to disagree on this one. BIAS covers precisely this scenario - a systemic issue with less interest in Women’s topics than Men’s (broadly). A deletion here has the effect of a sexist judgment, no matter the causes. A merge vote would violate the previous TfD discussion (with much engagement). Hence the only conscionable result here can be keep. Generally OSE arguments are dubious, but in this case, the templates are otherwise identical. Bellezzasolo Discuss 16:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      A merge request would not "violate" the previous close, as there were calls for a merge that were mostly unanswered. I think a merge would be acceptable, and so closing this with a re-listing as a proper merge request would be perfectly fine.
      As to the "systemic bias" for these pair of templates going for the men and against the women, as a long-term TFD closer I do not think that is the case. There have been tons of nominations (and I can specifically think of two cases right now) where a half-dozen similar/identical templates had been successfully deleted previously and then all of a sudden one or two templates caused a huge uproar (one of which was closed, re-opened after DRV, and then re-closed with the same result). There's no telling who will show up to a TFD, and I genuinely think the "men vs women" argument here does not hold - this is more of a "really obscure topic" issue and there were simply more people who saw and wanted to keep the "male" template vs this one.
      I've also amended my !vote above to reflect this. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, either discuss them together, or keep both of them. Unless you join the other template to the discussion, then we really shouldn't have an outcome that includes it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Hmm, fair point, and I concur. I've stricken my vote above, though obviously I still feel the templates should either be merged together or deleted. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, but I think a re-nomination to merge the two templates together is in order. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Woodensuperman and Dissident93:, as the two delete !voters, I’m inviting you back. Discussion moved since your !votes, and I think the best way to deal with this is get it closed and start a merge discussion. Bellezzasolo Discuss 13:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I still think they should both be deleted. They are separate competitions and do not have any crossover. However, maybe readers who are interested in one would be interested in the other, so a merge could be acceptable, but I really don't think they are needed. Even merged, there would only be half a dozen links, as the countries should not be linked in either template. --woodensuperman 13:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Even in a merge discussion "delete both" is still an acceptable !vote, provided the rationale is sound. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 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).

Template:Now United[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 relisted on 2018 March 22. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 22 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).