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 both, because the category will become empty after template deletion. (The template is the only member of it.) The category can be recreated if necessary.
Ruslik_
Zero08:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all – Locations of the ACC Tournament are found in the tournament's article in a list format. It does not necessitate a navbox. I am also nominating the related category for deletion along with it.
Jrcla2 (
talk)
15:50, 4 November 2013 (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). 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.
Oppose deletion, although I admit it will only be used in 2 articles. The template serves the purpose of providing a brief overview of 32 court trials, giving a summary of each case by a single sentence. If the reader of the
Silvio Berlusconi article (in which the template is used), has a desire to read about all case details, he can then visit the
Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi split off article, where the same template serves a navigational purpose for the reader - followed by 32 fully detailed case chapters. The idea by also having the template visible at the
Silvio Berlusconi main article, is for the purpose of avoiding to have 31 case summary chapters for those cases in which Berlusconi for various reasons did not receive any final judgment, while still keeping all those vanished court cases visible to readers by the brief template format.
Danish Expert (
talk)
07:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
If there is consensus to delete the template and merge its content with only 1 article, it would be far more appropriate to merge it with the
Silvio Berlusconi#Legal Problems main article, and then remove it from the
Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi article. As per my argument in the first reply, I however still support to have the template visible at both articles. In the main article it serves the purpose of providing a brief overview of all Berlusconi's legal problems during his career (instead of writing some more bulky 27 summary subchapters for the 27 completed trials without final punishment), and the chapter already has a hat-link to the
Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi article if readers want to learn all details about each of those cases. Removing the "overview template" from the
Silvio Berlusconi main article, would mean important Wikipedia content about his legal problems would be missing from the main article (conflicting with the content criteria goal for the article to be "all inclusive"). Please note, the legal problems in the template are written in summary style, and "written content in summary style" is normally evaluated as being appropriate to be featured by "main articles".
Danish Expert (
talk)
10:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Frietjes: I was not aware of the LST option for transclusion of sections. Thanks for informing me. I have now removed the introduction paragraph from the template, and instead transcluded it by the LST code between the two articles. Do you prefer that we now also LST transclude the table itself between the two articles, or is it okay to keep the template alive - now when it no longer include written "section text" but only a table?
Danish Expert (
talk)
10:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep template for the same "summary content" to be displayed in both the main article and spin-off article, also seems to be a reasonable decision, if you check how the Italian Wikipedia display the same content. The Italian Wikipedia have created almost two completely identical "case summary tables" at the
main article and the detailed
spin-off article. The two Italian tables are as good as identical, meaning that both of them need to be updated when new developments occure, which is the main argument why its better to have one overall template used for both articles.
Danish Expert (
talk)
11:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
According to
WP:TEMPLATE: A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of articles or pages. As we actually deal with 1:1 identical content to be displayed in two articles, the purpose of using a template seems to be highly appropriate. It both saves editors time only to edit one table instead of two, and ensure that editors do not forget to update the second identical table each time they upload new info to the table. If the content displayed by the template at the main article and spin-off article is 1:1 identical and accepted as such, I see no reason why we should prefer to delete the template and copy-paste the identical content into each of the two articles.
Danish Expert (
talk)
16:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
merge to a section to be transcluded per Frietjes - better to transclude a section in one more article than to make a new template page for use in only two articles -PC-XT+08:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Consensus reached for deletion: As per the replies by @
Frietjes: and @
PC-XT:, and my own consent, I have now merged all of the template content into the main article, and the two articles previously using the template no longer uses it (but share the content through the #LST command). The template is now ready for deletion.
Danish Expert (
talk)
01:57, 16 November 2013 (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). 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.
Support unless expanded – This navbox previously included some basketball rivalries, but with VCU and Old Dominion having departed the conference, only football rivalries remains and it is now essentially an incomplete version of {{Colonial Athletic Association football rivalry navbox}}. If there is a push to expand this navbox to include other notable non-football rivalries for CAA schools, that would be okay with me, but as-is this navbox does not need to exist.
WildCowboy (
talk)
05:53, 4 November 2013 (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). 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.
This was an idea for a template to coordinate discussions across multiple pages of a WikiProject. It was never used except for the example posted on a Talk page (now archived). The archived example should be subst-ed out and this aborted template deleted.
RL0919 (
talk)
01:13, 4 November 2013 (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). 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 both, because the category will become empty after template deletion. (The template is the only member of it.) The category can be recreated if necessary.
Ruslik_
Zero08:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all – Locations of the ACC Tournament are found in the tournament's article in a list format. It does not necessitate a navbox. I am also nominating the related category for deletion along with it.
Jrcla2 (
talk)
15:50, 4 November 2013 (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). 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.
Oppose deletion, although I admit it will only be used in 2 articles. The template serves the purpose of providing a brief overview of 32 court trials, giving a summary of each case by a single sentence. If the reader of the
Silvio Berlusconi article (in which the template is used), has a desire to read about all case details, he can then visit the
Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi split off article, where the same template serves a navigational purpose for the reader - followed by 32 fully detailed case chapters. The idea by also having the template visible at the
Silvio Berlusconi main article, is for the purpose of avoiding to have 31 case summary chapters for those cases in which Berlusconi for various reasons did not receive any final judgment, while still keeping all those vanished court cases visible to readers by the brief template format.
Danish Expert (
talk)
07:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
If there is consensus to delete the template and merge its content with only 1 article, it would be far more appropriate to merge it with the
Silvio Berlusconi#Legal Problems main article, and then remove it from the
Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi article. As per my argument in the first reply, I however still support to have the template visible at both articles. In the main article it serves the purpose of providing a brief overview of all Berlusconi's legal problems during his career (instead of writing some more bulky 27 summary subchapters for the 27 completed trials without final punishment), and the chapter already has a hat-link to the
Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi article if readers want to learn all details about each of those cases. Removing the "overview template" from the
Silvio Berlusconi main article, would mean important Wikipedia content about his legal problems would be missing from the main article (conflicting with the content criteria goal for the article to be "all inclusive"). Please note, the legal problems in the template are written in summary style, and "written content in summary style" is normally evaluated as being appropriate to be featured by "main articles".
Danish Expert (
talk)
10:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Frietjes: I was not aware of the LST option for transclusion of sections. Thanks for informing me. I have now removed the introduction paragraph from the template, and instead transcluded it by the LST code between the two articles. Do you prefer that we now also LST transclude the table itself between the two articles, or is it okay to keep the template alive - now when it no longer include written "section text" but only a table?
Danish Expert (
talk)
10:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep template for the same "summary content" to be displayed in both the main article and spin-off article, also seems to be a reasonable decision, if you check how the Italian Wikipedia display the same content. The Italian Wikipedia have created almost two completely identical "case summary tables" at the
main article and the detailed
spin-off article. The two Italian tables are as good as identical, meaning that both of them need to be updated when new developments occure, which is the main argument why its better to have one overall template used for both articles.
Danish Expert (
talk)
11:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
According to
WP:TEMPLATE: A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of articles or pages. As we actually deal with 1:1 identical content to be displayed in two articles, the purpose of using a template seems to be highly appropriate. It both saves editors time only to edit one table instead of two, and ensure that editors do not forget to update the second identical table each time they upload new info to the table. If the content displayed by the template at the main article and spin-off article is 1:1 identical and accepted as such, I see no reason why we should prefer to delete the template and copy-paste the identical content into each of the two articles.
Danish Expert (
talk)
16:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
merge to a section to be transcluded per Frietjes - better to transclude a section in one more article than to make a new template page for use in only two articles -PC-XT+08:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Consensus reached for deletion: As per the replies by @
Frietjes: and @
PC-XT:, and my own consent, I have now merged all of the template content into the main article, and the two articles previously using the template no longer uses it (but share the content through the #LST command). The template is now ready for deletion.
Danish Expert (
talk)
01:57, 16 November 2013 (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). 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.
Support unless expanded – This navbox previously included some basketball rivalries, but with VCU and Old Dominion having departed the conference, only football rivalries remains and it is now essentially an incomplete version of {{Colonial Athletic Association football rivalry navbox}}. If there is a push to expand this navbox to include other notable non-football rivalries for CAA schools, that would be okay with me, but as-is this navbox does not need to exist.
WildCowboy (
talk)
05:53, 4 November 2013 (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). 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.
This was an idea for a template to coordinate discussions across multiple pages of a WikiProject. It was never used except for the example posted on a Talk page (now archived). The archived example should be subst-ed out and this aborted template deleted.
RL0919 (
talk)
01:13, 4 November 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.