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 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.
Delete per nominator's rationale. There are ample precedents that team roster navboxes should be restricted to teams in major championships, and in most cases, to the champion teams only (although exceptions exist).
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
14:00, 16 July 2015 (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.
But is it necessary? I think not. Is it redundant to the category system? I think so. None of the board game awards are related to each other. Why make a navbox when they are not related by association but by categorization?
96.52.0.249 (
talk)
23:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
All navboxes are unnecessary, but we keep them because they are useful. you don't think it's useful. I think it's useful. it's all just opinion at this point.
Frietjes (
talk)
13:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
The line is drawn through the relationship between linked articles. It would be creep to navboxes for every topic simply because they are trivially related, as in this case.
68.148.186.93 (
talk)
22:02, 16 July 2015 (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.
(a) Yes, it is redundant, irrespective of any "movement"; it's performs the exact same function as the other two templates. (b) The movement must've got long claws, because their aim is - in fact -
part of the MOS. (c) Did you think that said movement's adherents would care what the template is called?
Alakzi (
talk)
17:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Please watch your tone. Please don't misrepresent the MOS like that, as I just noted elsewhere. It is usable where the others are not. --
Elvey(
t•
c)17:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Thank you for interested in this template. It was originally created to resolve the issue of too long captions on an article "
Mandolin" (see an
example; this issue was discussed on the
talk page), although I didn't yet reflect it on the article due to the several reasons; a major reason is that all templates using
css class "collapsibleCollapsedTH" (including {{Hidden}} (protected), {{Collapse}} (semi-protected), and the current version of {{Read more}} (editable)) are not workable on the mobile view. (cf.desktop view) I think this issue (unsupport of mobile view) should be resolved with more simple way such as
css selector:target or similar technique, instead of
jQuery-based implementation currently used. However I don't know how to propose it on the Wikipedia jungle, thus the improvement of this template have been temporally pending. If you want to delete this template, probably it may be rational. However, this template may be later re-created with a more sophisticated code & behavior. thanks, --
Clusternote (
talk) 19:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC), [improved major reason]--
Clusternote (
talk)
04:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, because other similar templates ({{Hidden}}, and {{Collapse}} families) are hard to improve the behavior on the Mobile View pages (because
jQuery used on these templates is intentionally filtered on Mobile frontend). We need useful testbed templates ({{Read more}} family) to resolve this problem (support on Mobile View page). --
Clusternote (
talk)
07:36, 16 July 2015 (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 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 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.
Delete per nominator's rationale. There are ample precedents that team roster navboxes should be restricted to teams in major championships, and in most cases, to the champion teams only (although exceptions exist).
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
14:00, 16 July 2015 (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.
But is it necessary? I think not. Is it redundant to the category system? I think so. None of the board game awards are related to each other. Why make a navbox when they are not related by association but by categorization?
96.52.0.249 (
talk)
23:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
All navboxes are unnecessary, but we keep them because they are useful. you don't think it's useful. I think it's useful. it's all just opinion at this point.
Frietjes (
talk)
13:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
The line is drawn through the relationship between linked articles. It would be creep to navboxes for every topic simply because they are trivially related, as in this case.
68.148.186.93 (
talk)
22:02, 16 July 2015 (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.
(a) Yes, it is redundant, irrespective of any "movement"; it's performs the exact same function as the other two templates. (b) The movement must've got long claws, because their aim is - in fact -
part of the MOS. (c) Did you think that said movement's adherents would care what the template is called?
Alakzi (
talk)
17:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Please watch your tone. Please don't misrepresent the MOS like that, as I just noted elsewhere. It is usable where the others are not. --
Elvey(
t•
c)17:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Thank you for interested in this template. It was originally created to resolve the issue of too long captions on an article "
Mandolin" (see an
example; this issue was discussed on the
talk page), although I didn't yet reflect it on the article due to the several reasons; a major reason is that all templates using
css class "collapsibleCollapsedTH" (including {{Hidden}} (protected), {{Collapse}} (semi-protected), and the current version of {{Read more}} (editable)) are not workable on the mobile view. (cf.desktop view) I think this issue (unsupport of mobile view) should be resolved with more simple way such as
css selector:target or similar technique, instead of
jQuery-based implementation currently used. However I don't know how to propose it on the Wikipedia jungle, thus the improvement of this template have been temporally pending. If you want to delete this template, probably it may be rational. However, this template may be later re-created with a more sophisticated code & behavior. thanks, --
Clusternote (
talk) 19:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC), [improved major reason]--
Clusternote (
talk)
04:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, because other similar templates ({{Hidden}}, and {{Collapse}} families) are hard to improve the behavior on the Mobile View pages (because
jQuery used on these templates is intentionally filtered on Mobile frontend). We need useful testbed templates ({{Read more}} family) to resolve this problem (support on Mobile View page). --
Clusternote (
talk)
07:36, 16 July 2015 (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 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.