- 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. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
A template with only one link Yellow Dingo ( talk) 23:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unuseful/premature, with nothing to navigate —PC -XT + 05:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- delete, only one link. Frietjes ( talk) 20:23, 8 July 2016 (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).
- 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 per BU_Rob13's cogent analysis of the situation. I encourage the editors who feel that {{ Destroyers of the Indian Navy}} is poorly constructed to improve the template further. (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Kolkata-class destroyers ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Delhi class destroyers ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Rajput class destroyers ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for just three ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - standard for every ship class, shows which class comes before and after, and is higher quality than Template:Destroyers of the Indian Navy. Derekbridges ( talk) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Original discussions merged as they were identical.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Original discussions merged as they were identical.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - as per Derekbridges. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per my comments on the related Indian submarine templates TfD. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Rather than just saying "standard", which is an
argument to avoid, let's focus on policy and guidelines.
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states {{
Submarines of Indian Navy}} should be placed on all of the pages linked in the nominated templates. Since the links on the nominated templates are wholly a subset of the links on that template, they are all redundant. Per
WP:TFD#REASONS, this is a reason for deletion. Per
WP:NAVBOX, "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia", but the fact that these templates contain a subset of links of another navigational template shows that these templates do not provide any benefit to "facilitate navigation between ... articles". The weight of the relevant guidelines are strongly on the side of deletion here. Other stuff existing is not a rationale to keep. ~
Rob13
Talk
17:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- As a side note to this, this discussion should be closed together with the below discussion. They are identical in content, and so it doesn't make sense to keep one and delete the other. ~
Rob13
Talk
17:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Problem solved.
Parsecboy (
talk)
10:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, no, we're not going to make another template actively less helpful for navigation just to justify keeping these templates. I've reverted that. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Problem solved.
Parsecboy (
talk)
10:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- As a side note to this, this discussion should be closed together with the below discussion. They are identical in content, and so it doesn't make sense to keep one and delete the other. ~
Rob13
Talk
17:46, 15 July 2016 (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).
- 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 per BU_Rob13's cogent analysis of the situation. I encourage the editors who feel that {{ Submarines of the Indian Navy}} is poorly constructed to improve the template further. (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Shishumar class submarines ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Vela class submarines ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Kalvari class submarines ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:TFD #2. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 10:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep standard practice in ship articles, see pretty much any military ship out there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - the articles are all one-line stubs and probably need to be upmerged or redirected anyway, so there's no reason to keep this. MSJapan ( talk) 04:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - standard for every ship class, shows which class comes before and after, and the overly complicated Template:Submarines of Indian Navy can be kept as well. Derekbridges ( talk) 18:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have merged these three nominations into one; the original discussions are almost identical
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I have merged these three nominations into one; the original discussions are almost identical
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - as per Derekbridges. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - per Ed and Derek. If anything needs to be changed, the overarching submarines of the Indian Navy template should be cut down to just the classes, not the individual ships. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Rather than just saying "standard", which is an argument to avoid, let's focus on policy and guidelines. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states {{ Submarines of Indian Navy}} should be placed on all of the pages linked in the nominated templates. Since the links on the nominated templates are wholly a subset of the links on that template, they are all redundant. Per WP:TFD#REASONS, this is a reason for deletion. Per WP:NAVBOX, "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia", but the fact that these templates contain a subset of links of another navigational template shows that these templates do not provide any benefit to "facilitate navigation between ... articles". The weight of the relevant guidelines are strongly on the side of deletion here. Other stuff existing is not a rationale to keep. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:44, 15 July 2016 (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).
- 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. @ Frietjes: Please don't move a template to userspace in the middle of a deletion discussion, since it both confuses things here and technically moves the template outside the bounds of what's appropriate for TfD. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Link entity ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
only used in one article, should be substituted and deleted. due to the complexity, this system should be rewritten in lua if we need it. Frietjes ( talk) 18:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 02:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 02:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- update, now zero uses in articles after this set of templates were orphaned. Frietjes ( talk) 13:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unused, though it looks kinda fun —PC -XT + 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- update, now moved to user space. Frietjes ( talk) 16:57, 15 July 2016 (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).
- 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. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
A template with only one link Yellow Dingo ( talk) 23:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unuseful/premature, with nothing to navigate —PC -XT + 05:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- delete, only one link. Frietjes ( talk) 20:23, 8 July 2016 (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).
- 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 per BU_Rob13's cogent analysis of the situation. I encourage the editors who feel that {{ Destroyers of the Indian Navy}} is poorly constructed to improve the template further. (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Kolkata-class destroyers ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Delhi class destroyers ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Rajput class destroyers ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for just three ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - standard for every ship class, shows which class comes before and after, and is higher quality than Template:Destroyers of the Indian Navy. Derekbridges ( talk) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Original discussions merged as they were identical.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Original discussions merged as they were identical.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - as per Derekbridges. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per my comments on the related Indian submarine templates TfD. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Rather than just saying "standard", which is an
argument to avoid, let's focus on policy and guidelines.
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states {{
Submarines of Indian Navy}} should be placed on all of the pages linked in the nominated templates. Since the links on the nominated templates are wholly a subset of the links on that template, they are all redundant. Per
WP:TFD#REASONS, this is a reason for deletion. Per
WP:NAVBOX, "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia", but the fact that these templates contain a subset of links of another navigational template shows that these templates do not provide any benefit to "facilitate navigation between ... articles". The weight of the relevant guidelines are strongly on the side of deletion here. Other stuff existing is not a rationale to keep. ~
Rob13
Talk
17:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- As a side note to this, this discussion should be closed together with the below discussion. They are identical in content, and so it doesn't make sense to keep one and delete the other. ~
Rob13
Talk
17:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Problem solved.
Parsecboy (
talk)
10:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, no, we're not going to make another template actively less helpful for navigation just to justify keeping these templates. I've reverted that. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Problem solved.
Parsecboy (
talk)
10:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- As a side note to this, this discussion should be closed together with the below discussion. They are identical in content, and so it doesn't make sense to keep one and delete the other. ~
Rob13
Talk
17:46, 15 July 2016 (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).
- 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 per BU_Rob13's cogent analysis of the situation. I encourage the editors who feel that {{ Submarines of the Indian Navy}} is poorly constructed to improve the template further. (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 03:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Shishumar class submarines ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Vela class submarines ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Kalvari class submarines ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:TFD #2. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 10:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep standard practice in ship articles, see pretty much any military ship out there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - the articles are all one-line stubs and probably need to be upmerged or redirected anyway, so there's no reason to keep this. MSJapan ( talk) 04:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - standard for every ship class, shows which class comes before and after, and the overly complicated Template:Submarines of Indian Navy can be kept as well. Derekbridges ( talk) 18:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have merged these three nominations into one; the original discussions are almost identical
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I have merged these three nominations into one; the original discussions are almost identical
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - as per Derekbridges. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - per Ed and Derek. If anything needs to be changed, the overarching submarines of the Indian Navy template should be cut down to just the classes, not the individual ships. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Rather than just saying "standard", which is an argument to avoid, let's focus on policy and guidelines. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states {{ Submarines of Indian Navy}} should be placed on all of the pages linked in the nominated templates. Since the links on the nominated templates are wholly a subset of the links on that template, they are all redundant. Per WP:TFD#REASONS, this is a reason for deletion. Per WP:NAVBOX, "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia", but the fact that these templates contain a subset of links of another navigational template shows that these templates do not provide any benefit to "facilitate navigation between ... articles". The weight of the relevant guidelines are strongly on the side of deletion here. Other stuff existing is not a rationale to keep. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:44, 15 July 2016 (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).
- 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. @ Frietjes: Please don't move a template to userspace in the middle of a deletion discussion, since it both confuses things here and technically moves the template outside the bounds of what's appropriate for TfD. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Link entity ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
only used in one article, should be substituted and deleted. due to the complexity, this system should be rewritten in lua if we need it. Frietjes ( talk) 18:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 02:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 02:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- update, now zero uses in articles after this set of templates were orphaned. Frietjes ( talk) 13:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unused, though it looks kinda fun —PC -XT + 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- update, now moved to user space. Frietjes ( talk) 16:57, 15 July 2016 (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).