- 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) 01:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Template:HIMYMWiki ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template links to an external site that cannot be linked to. Darrenhusted ( talk) 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Orphaned and useless: delete! mabdul 18:22, 2 June 2011 (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, better served by a category, or by more specific (and smaller) templates, since all concerts with WP articles are notable. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Notable Concerts ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The scope of this template is ostensibly all "notable popular music concerts and festivals". As you can tell from looking at Category:Music festivals and Category:Concerts, the number of articles this scope covers is in the hundreds. I propose that there is an upper limit on the number of articles a navigational template can have before it stops being a useful resource for readers, and that if the scope of {{ Notable Concerts}} were consistently applied, this template would far exceed it. I don't think the scope can be narrowed to "only the most notable of concerts" in a way that isn't arbitrary or subjective. Rather, the best thing to do with this is to split it into smaller templates of different scope, perhaps based on geography, era, activity status, music genre or similar factors, but I'm open to suggestions. Please feel free to shout if this is the wrong forum, but proposed splits don't seem to be covered by the guidelines above. Skomorokh 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment why have a template at all? The idea of needing a navigation template for all "benefit concerts," for instance, strikes me as strange. People don't jump from Live Aid to Concert for New York or a concert for Diana or whatever. What I'm saying is that for a template, they should have more in common with each other than just being a "benefit concert." A list in benefit concert, yes; a template, I don't see the need. hbdragon88 ( talk) 05:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Is it just me or are only Anglosphere concerts listed? Curb Chain ( talk) 07:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. This does badly (in a crufty, hard to maintain, inherently subjective, visually aggressive manner) exactly what categories do well. Navigation boxes should not be indiscriminate collection of links. No such user ( talk) 14:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete First off, I think anything that is just a sea of blue links is utterly useless for navigation. Second, it is indiscriminate. Putting aside the POV nature of "notable", the template is simply a dumping ground for random concerts that have no relationship to each other. Perhaps useful as a list (at a neutral title), useful as part of a category structure. Not useful as a template. Reso lute 01:49, 4 June 2011 (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) 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Redundant, superseded by {{ 16TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds-Byes}}. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 09:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, didn't realize {{ 16TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds-Byes}} actually supported seeds. Adanner —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC).
- Merge, per no,
mabdul
18:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment actually there is nothing to merge as {{ 16TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds-Byes}} has more parameters. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 20:06, 4 June 2011 (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) 01:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Template:HIMYMWiki ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template links to an external site that cannot be linked to. Darrenhusted ( talk) 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Orphaned and useless: delete! mabdul 18:22, 2 June 2011 (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, better served by a category, or by more specific (and smaller) templates, since all concerts with WP articles are notable. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Notable Concerts ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The scope of this template is ostensibly all "notable popular music concerts and festivals". As you can tell from looking at Category:Music festivals and Category:Concerts, the number of articles this scope covers is in the hundreds. I propose that there is an upper limit on the number of articles a navigational template can have before it stops being a useful resource for readers, and that if the scope of {{ Notable Concerts}} were consistently applied, this template would far exceed it. I don't think the scope can be narrowed to "only the most notable of concerts" in a way that isn't arbitrary or subjective. Rather, the best thing to do with this is to split it into smaller templates of different scope, perhaps based on geography, era, activity status, music genre or similar factors, but I'm open to suggestions. Please feel free to shout if this is the wrong forum, but proposed splits don't seem to be covered by the guidelines above. Skomorokh 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment why have a template at all? The idea of needing a navigation template for all "benefit concerts," for instance, strikes me as strange. People don't jump from Live Aid to Concert for New York or a concert for Diana or whatever. What I'm saying is that for a template, they should have more in common with each other than just being a "benefit concert." A list in benefit concert, yes; a template, I don't see the need. hbdragon88 ( talk) 05:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Is it just me or are only Anglosphere concerts listed? Curb Chain ( talk) 07:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. This does badly (in a crufty, hard to maintain, inherently subjective, visually aggressive manner) exactly what categories do well. Navigation boxes should not be indiscriminate collection of links. No such user ( talk) 14:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete First off, I think anything that is just a sea of blue links is utterly useless for navigation. Second, it is indiscriminate. Putting aside the POV nature of "notable", the template is simply a dumping ground for random concerts that have no relationship to each other. Perhaps useful as a list (at a neutral title), useful as part of a category structure. Not useful as a template. Reso lute 01:49, 4 June 2011 (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) 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Redundant, superseded by {{ 16TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds-Byes}}. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 09:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, didn't realize {{ 16TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds-Byes}} actually supported seeds. Adanner —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC).
- Merge, per no,
mabdul
18:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment actually there is nothing to merge as {{ 16TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds-Byes}} has more parameters. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 20:06, 4 June 2011 (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.