- 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems a pointless exercise especially as there have been international cricket seasons since 1859. Superfluous template given the WP:CRIC categorisation structure which amply covers international cricket by date. -- Jack | talk page 15:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If the competitions go back to 1859, the solution is to expand not delete. Secondly, categories and templates serve different purposes, and in this case it's appropriate to have both. Ego White Tray ( talk) 04:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No better solution for navigation between those articles and agrees with the purpose of navboxes. -- SocietyBox ( talk) 13:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep, but only if the structure that I've made the template into is kept. The old one was just obnoxious and a complete abuse of what a navbox is. -- Izno ( talk) 18:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)- If the "staggered format" is returned to (or another of similar variant), I'd like the closing admin to count my above !vote as a delete. There simply isn't space in a template to go back to 1859 if something like that format is used. --
Izno (
talk)
18:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- The solution for something being too big is split, not delete. --
SocietyBox (
talk)
03:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- My conclusion is not based on the number of links but on the horrible formatting of the template, which is basically an abuse of a navbox to represent information in a way it is not meant to. I have no objection to representing the seasons in a navbox. I have rather large objection in attempting to present them in the way which is done here. --
Izno (
talk)
03:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
-
WP:TFD#REASONS state: "Templates should not be nominated if they can be fixed by normal editing". --
SocietyBox (
talk)
06:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I attempted to fix it. You unfixed it. If you would like to revert yourself, please do so. -- Izno ( talk) 13:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
-
WP:TFD#REASONS state: "Templates should not be nominated if they can be fixed by normal editing". --
SocietyBox (
talk)
06:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- My conclusion is not based on the number of links but on the horrible formatting of the template, which is basically an abuse of a navbox to represent information in a way it is not meant to. I have no objection to representing the seasons in a navbox. I have rather large objection in attempting to present them in the way which is done here. --
Izno (
talk)
03:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why not format it similar to
Template:NCAA football bowl season navbox with the seasons listed like: 2000–01 • 2001 • 2001–02 • 2002 • 2002–03 • 2003. This way you can efficiently link (or readlink) to every season since the mid 1800s. I honestly don't see what the need is for having staggered seasons and multiple rows for the mid-year and end-of-year seasons.
Rubaisport (
talk)
02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- That is precisely the change I made, which was somewhat reverted. -- Izno ( talk) 03:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The solution for something being too big is split, not delete. --
SocietyBox (
talk)
03:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- If the "staggered format" is returned to (or another of similar variant), I'd like the closing admin to count my above !vote as a delete. There simply isn't space in a template to go back to 1859 if something like that format is used. --
Izno (
talk)
18:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I prefer that Izno's/Rubaisport's suggestions are further implemented to make it more like Template:NCAA football bowl season navbox. -PC -XT + 11:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- keep, but use this version. Frietjes ( talk) 16:00, 18 March 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) 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
more complicated to use than a standard navbox, with less flexibility for resolving redirects. Frietjes ( talk) 15:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Seems to have been deprecated by someone or another. Splitting from the current navbox makes no sense in this case. -- Izno ( talk) 22:43, 9 March 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 Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems a pointless exercise especially as there have been international cricket seasons since 1859. Superfluous template given the WP:CRIC categorisation structure which amply covers international cricket by date. -- Jack | talk page 15:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If the competitions go back to 1859, the solution is to expand not delete. Secondly, categories and templates serve different purposes, and in this case it's appropriate to have both. Ego White Tray ( talk) 04:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No better solution for navigation between those articles and agrees with the purpose of navboxes. -- SocietyBox ( talk) 13:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep, but only if the structure that I've made the template into is kept. The old one was just obnoxious and a complete abuse of what a navbox is. -- Izno ( talk) 18:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)- If the "staggered format" is returned to (or another of similar variant), I'd like the closing admin to count my above !vote as a delete. There simply isn't space in a template to go back to 1859 if something like that format is used. --
Izno (
talk)
18:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- The solution for something being too big is split, not delete. --
SocietyBox (
talk)
03:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- My conclusion is not based on the number of links but on the horrible formatting of the template, which is basically an abuse of a navbox to represent information in a way it is not meant to. I have no objection to representing the seasons in a navbox. I have rather large objection in attempting to present them in the way which is done here. --
Izno (
talk)
03:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
-
WP:TFD#REASONS state: "Templates should not be nominated if they can be fixed by normal editing". --
SocietyBox (
talk)
06:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I attempted to fix it. You unfixed it. If you would like to revert yourself, please do so. -- Izno ( talk) 13:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
-
WP:TFD#REASONS state: "Templates should not be nominated if they can be fixed by normal editing". --
SocietyBox (
talk)
06:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- My conclusion is not based on the number of links but on the horrible formatting of the template, which is basically an abuse of a navbox to represent information in a way it is not meant to. I have no objection to representing the seasons in a navbox. I have rather large objection in attempting to present them in the way which is done here. --
Izno (
talk)
03:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why not format it similar to
Template:NCAA football bowl season navbox with the seasons listed like: 2000–01 • 2001 • 2001–02 • 2002 • 2002–03 • 2003. This way you can efficiently link (or readlink) to every season since the mid 1800s. I honestly don't see what the need is for having staggered seasons and multiple rows for the mid-year and end-of-year seasons.
Rubaisport (
talk)
02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- That is precisely the change I made, which was somewhat reverted. -- Izno ( talk) 03:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- The solution for something being too big is split, not delete. --
SocietyBox (
talk)
03:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- If the "staggered format" is returned to (or another of similar variant), I'd like the closing admin to count my above !vote as a delete. There simply isn't space in a template to go back to 1859 if something like that format is used. --
Izno (
talk)
18:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I prefer that Izno's/Rubaisport's suggestions are further implemented to make it more like Template:NCAA football bowl season navbox. -PC -XT + 11:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- keep, but use this version. Frietjes ( talk) 16:00, 18 March 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) 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
more complicated to use than a standard navbox, with less flexibility for resolving redirects. Frietjes ( talk) 15:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Seems to have been deprecated by someone or another. Splitting from the current navbox makes no sense in this case. -- Izno ( talk) 22:43, 9 March 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.