March 28
- 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.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 00:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
Only causes clutter and is unneeded.
Royals
Life 22:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Not really a valid reason for deletion. Navigation templates are usually fine when they provide navigation between related articles (see WP:NAV). We have an article titled
List of Buffalo Bills in the Pro Football Hall of Fame that includes all of the players who have this honor for the Bills, thus a navigation template for those players is easily justifiable.
« Gonzo fan2007
(talk) @ 15:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete template as it causes
WP:TCREEP. –
Sabbatino (
talk) 16:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:TCREEP. Inductees already have non-team specific HOF navboxes. Team-specific ones add to the clutter, moreso in the common case where they played for multiple teams. Having a standalone article is necessary but not sufficient for having a navbox.—
Bagumba (
talk) 16:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I have no opinion whether this navbox should stay or go at this time, but I do want to state that, in my opinion, this template meets all 5 criteria of
WP:NAVBOX (the only one that some might consider questionable is #3).
Ejgreen77 (
talk) 19:52, 30 March 2018 (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).
- 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.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 00:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
Only causes clutter and is unneeded.
Royals
Life 22:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
*Notified
WP:PACKERS of this discussion.
« Gonzo fan2007
(talk) @ 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Not really a valid reason for deletion. Navigation templates are usually fine when they provide navigation between related articles (see
WP:NAV). We have an article titled
List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame that includes all of the players who have this honor for the Packers, thus a navigation template for those players is easily justifiable.
« Gonzo fan2007
(talk) @ 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete template as it causes
WP:TCREEP. –
Sabbatino (
talk) 16:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:TCREEP. Inductees already have non-team specific HOF navboxes. Team-specific ones add to the clutter, moreso in the common case where they played for multiple teams. Having a standalone article is necessary but not sufficient for having a navbox.—
Bagumba (
talk) 17:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I have no opinion whether this navbox should stay or go at this time, but I do want to state that, in my opinion, this template meets all 5 criteria of
WP:NAVBOX (the only one that some might consider questionable is #3).
Ejgreen77 (
talk) 19:52, 30 March 2018 (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).
- 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.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 00:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
Only causes clutter. It is unneeded along with the others.
Royals
Life 22:05, 28 March 2018 (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).
- 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.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 00:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
Only navigates between one season and one winner, which can be achieved through normal linking. --
wooden
superman 15:50, 28 March 2018 (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).
- 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 relisted on
2018 April 11.
Primefac (
talk) 14:55, 11 April 2018 (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).
- 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 relisted on
2018 April 11.
Primefac (
talk) 14:50, 11 April 2018 (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).
- 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 relisted on
2018 April 11.
Primefac (
talk) 14:51, 11 April 2018 (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).
- 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 relisted on
2018 April 11.
Primefac (
talk) 14:51, 11 April 2018 (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).
- 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 relisted on
2018 April 11.
Primefac (
talk) 14:54, 11 April 2018 (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).