The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 22:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the previous TFD about blocks. Global locking is something that can easily be verified by checking their account contributions and by checking CentralAuth. The only case where a global lock template might be appropriate is when their account is banned by the WMF (since it relies on information WMF T&S only has access to), we already have a template for that ((WMF-legal banned user)). Thus this template is not serving much purpose other than gravedancing. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary template that provides no more information (probably less in fact) than can be easily accessed at Special:CentralAuth. There are specific templates that are used when there is something speciifically relevant about the lock (eg ((Banned user)), ((WMF-legal banned user)) and built into ((Sockpuppeteer)) and ((Sockpuppet))). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY and the information can be viewed with the CentralAuth link on the user contributions link and we have a separate template for WMF bans (that should be kept) Qwv (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was going to !vote keep, but, now that I think about it, this is just like ((Blocked user)), and we should deny. ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 02:48, 17 April 2023 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 22:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per the current convention for Olympics and Paralympics articles, the game and standings templates should be hosted in the parent article, and not in individual templates. if consensus changes over LST vs templates, we can always put all the matches and standings into a single template with a switch so we don't need to watch 29 templates per event. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be consensus for these changes now. CRwikiCAtalk 18:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: Thought I give you a heads up that Template:2020 Summer Paralympics women's goalball game D3 and Template:2020 Summer Paralympics women's goalball game D4 were missed if you were planning on nominating all of them. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, thanks, now added. Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2023 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 22:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per the current convention for Olympics and Paralympics articles, the game and standings templates should be hosted in the parent article, and not in individual templates. if consensus changes over LST vs templates, we can always put all the matches and standings into a single template with a switch so we don't need to watch 39 templates per event. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be consensus for these changes now. CRwikiCAtalk 18:20, 14 April 2023 (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).
Template:2020–21 NBA team standings
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 22:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFrietjes, is there anything about these standings that cannot be handled by Module:Sports table? Because of the complexity of that module, it would in my eyes be much preferred to have one module to handle sports tables than to split it over separate ones that diverge over time. CRwikiCAtalk 18:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as there is a template wrapper, that template can call the generic module. CRwikiCAtalk 18:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CRwikiCA, the main features of ((NBA team standings)) are (a) compact input format and (b) different views of the same data. For example, Template:1995–96 NBA East standings has all the data, but only a subset of the data is shown in the main view. but, Template:1995–96 NBA Central standings shows only the teams in the central division with more detailed statistics. directly replicating (a) with module:sports table would be hard and not really that important. directly replicating (b) with module:sports table is definitely possible, but has not been done yet, and would probably require a new "style". if we were to implement a wrapper, I would suggest a module wrapper over a template wrapper to avoid explicitly writing each row, but both would probably work. Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes, the design here is very similar to the design of football standing templates before the conversion to the sports table module. And eg, the WDL style has had switches for different columns since inception. The biggest issue with keeping it as a separate structure is the maintenance load and possible differences with different sports. I think the biggest change to the generic would be the ability to select a subset of teams from an existing table (beyond the few before/after a certain team), but there could be many use cases for that in many different sports. CRwikiCAtalk 19:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of the discussion above, I do support deletion of the outdated templates. CRwikiCAtalk 17:35, 17 April 2023 (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).
Template:Imagemap American liberals
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 22:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, takes up too much room in the navbox, and arbitrary subselection of individuals. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete navboxes are not for decorations. CRwikiCAtalk 18:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments at ((Imagemap American conservatives)) discussion. How does an imagemap of 9 pretty random people aid navigation? Nigej (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2023 (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).
Template:User dle
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Not used. Created by indef-blocked user Учхљёная for an apparently non-existent language: Danterian. The template uses language tag dle. That tag is not known to ISO 639. Trappist the monk (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need Babel templates for one disruptive user's made-up language. – Uanfala (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2023 (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).
Template:Largest cities in ASEAN
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Template is being transcluded as navbox which this one isn't but also not needed as there other cities templates that can replace the ones listed here. But also, Largest cities templates are for countries, not countries that are members of some international organization. Hence why, for instance, a template for "Largest Cities in the United Nations" or member states of the UN isn't necessary. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Arbitrary grouping by organization. Nigej (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2023 (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).
Template:Largest cities of the East African Community
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Keep but rename to "of the East African Federation", which is a proposed, ongoing political union and as such could be used in the article(s) of it and the participants involved. Respublik (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (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).
Template:Georgia-Russia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
If replaced then redirect if the footer navebox replaces all instances of the sidebar, just redirect it to the navbox -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (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).
Politburo templates
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 22:50, 21 April 2023 (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).
Template:GTEP/PH/Userbox/Preload
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 22:50, 21 April 2023 (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(s) or module(s) 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).
Keep. This proposal should be withdrawn since the /doc page is needed so that the template is sorted to [[Category:Country data templates of provinces of Spain|Ciudad Real]]. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 13:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a standard notice template for this kind of blank subpage for adding categories should be created -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already done - please see Template:Documentation subpage. When a country data template has a separate /doc subpage, then at the bottom of the main documentation page it reads "This template has a /doc subpage for the purposes of categories and documentation specific to this template." Some of these are not just blank pages and are used for more than categorizing, for example, Template:Country data United Kingdom/doc, which adds important information to the main documentation page. This specific template /doc page plays the important role of categorizing the Province of Ciudad Real's country data template page. Template:Country showdata serves as the main doc page for all the country data templates, so please see Template:Country showdata#Categorization. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 17:14, 29 April 2023 (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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 12:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
((Poll bottom)) is another one that is supposed to be subst'd. So just looking at transclusions doesn't tell you whether or not it is in use. Also, if you are nominating ((poll bottom)), I assume the same thing should be done to ((poll top))? --B (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was substed, there are no more than 120 potential uses. Many of those will have obvious overlap with the other templates in this vein. Izno (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno I get over 200 hits, and some are from this year, clearly still being used... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge, used recently as evidenced above. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 13:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is natural to pair ((poll top)) with ((poll bottom)) and pairing ((poll top)) with ((archive bottom)) would only cause confusion regarding its usage and documentation (as has recently been the case with another template). --TadejMmy talk 09:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TadejM, what about redirects? That's what all the templates I cited in my !vote use. ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 00:08, 17 April 2023 (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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 12:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was designed to be customizable, where ((closed rfc top)) doesn't appear to allow for custom applications (it will always state it was a closed RFC discussion). Not to say it can't be updated to enable that, but perhaps it would be better if these various archive top-style templates were just meta templates that called into a main template similar to how infoboxes work. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we do not need the customization, as evidenced by its dis-use. Izno (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over 200 uses, with some from this decade so clearly not in "dis-use". —Locke Cole • t • c 17:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it would need to merge into ((poll top)) as not all polls are formal WP:RfC requests -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I picked closed rfc top out of a hat as the closest in intent. Ultimately, we do not need the "fine-grained" intent of this template when we have ((discussion top)). Polls, as with any other discussion on Wikipedia, are not votes, so the use of discussion top instead should not be an issue. Izno (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would specifically mislead people into thinking that the Wikipedia defined WP:RFC process were used, when it wasn't. That is in my opinion a bad idea, if it discussion in question was not an RfC. Therefore, if it is to be merged, it must merge into ((poll top)) if we are just merging these two templates together. If we are merging everything into ((discussion top)) that is a different question, and would not face the specific issues that this particular merge is facing. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a different merge target. Izno (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge. It's an old template that is infrequently used, but the functionality provided by a highly customizable template is quite nice. I also don't think that the existing uses should be replaced with a template that would render it as if it were an RfC when the original discussion was not an RfC. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge per above, still in use. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 13:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with Locke Cole that a) this template provides additional functionality and has its own specific purpose and b) there should be a core template and these templates should be its upgrades. --TadejMmy talk 09:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not all polls are formal RfCs. ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 00:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a different merge target. dated 7 April 2023 (UTC) Izno (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2023 (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).
Template:Slamball teams
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 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).
Template:Hamiltonian path dodecahedron
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 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).
Template:CL returneditingrights
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. "editing rights will soon be returned to you" mentioned probably means that the user's block is about to expire and are welcome to make useful contributions. AFAIK, en.wp doesn't remove editing rights, instead, blocks or sanctions are placed on editors. Also, seems redundant to the standard block templates. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to be unused, unless someone has a active use case in favour of this template. CRwikiCAtalk 13:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Never used by the look of it. Nigej (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2023 (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).
Template:Barnalt/usagenote
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:01, 21 April 2023 (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).
Africa Games Basketball Schedule
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:TMP: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." No good reason for any exception here. Nigej (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2023 (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).
Template:University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of Weston General Hospital, everywhere that this Template is displayed, it is displayed alongside ((Healthcare in Bristol)). All of the links in the former are also in the latter, again with the exception of Weston. I see little point in such duplication. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point If I rearrange slightly to list hospitals by trust then Weston can be slipped into the trust row. Not technically in Bristol but part of a Bristol-based trust so tenuously acceptable. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2023 (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).
Currie Cup log templates
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:06, 21 April 2023 (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).
Template:2023 Men's Premier Cup Group A
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:2023 Men's Premier Cup Group A and Template:2023 Men's Premier Cup Group B are both used only on the page 2023 ACC Men's Premier Cup and can easily be substituted with an in-line table similar to most other cricket tournaments. Bs1jac (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if ever needed on other pages, can also be transcluded from those pages. Bs1jac, in the future, you can combine similar templates in one entry as well for easier discussion. CRwikiCAtalk 13:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my bad. Bs1jac (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2023 (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).
Template:Johnny Weir series
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 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(s) or module(s) 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 No consensus. There was fundamental disagreement (among other things) whether or not All articles within [this navbox] relate to a single, coherent subject. (non-admin closure) –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary navbox that lists the games released for the short-lived Nintendo console Virtual Boy. There's already List of Virtual Boy games and Category:Virtual Boy games and a separate Category:Cancelled Virtual Boy games. It's not needed, since these games have different gameplay elements, different developers and publishers (see List of Virtual Boy games#Games), failing the point of a navbox. The only reason why this navbox has been around so long is because of its relative small size, but we simply don't have navboxes that list every game released for a platform (and in this case, also unreleased).
IIRC, there was also a discussion of a navbox with games listed for a 1990s handheld console that also resulted in deletion, but I'm having a hard time finding it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this archive at the Wayback Machine (archived 2021-01-15), it was Atari Lynx. However, these templates significantly differ in that games in the Lynx templates were mostly ports which makes them pretty unrelated, while all the Virtual Boy games were developed specifically for and only released on that console due to its unique mechanics. Thus, it satisfies all of WP:NAVBOX, and I believe we shall keep this. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, yeah, these were ports. But all the rest released games weren't (Water World was developed for VB)and even these are different enough in the VB port that they received completely different reviews. That constitutes enough to warrant a navbox. Good find, but you were right that it didn't change my mind. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, better served by lists and categories. WP:CLT. --woodensuperman 08:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodensuperman I don’t see how this falls short of WP:NAVBOX. It’s a small group of articles that were mostly virtual boy exclusives, which is a pretty strong relationship. If this should be deleted we would delete the majority of all the navboxes out there. Plus, CLNT also includes WP:NOTDUPEAaron Liu (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on what Nigej says below, imagine if this was a navbox showing every PlayStation game (for example). --woodensuperman 13:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, most PlayStation games aren’t exclusives. Secondly, unlike this niche piece of history, readers likely won’t want to read all released games on it, as it is not niche. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Woodensuperman. The only thing connecting this list is that are played on a particular piece of hardware. I'd have thought that that was a pretty weak relationship. If this was a list of a thousand games (or every CD) we'd think it was crazy to have a navbox for it, so the only thing in its favour is that it's a manageable size, 30-odd. Is there really a strong connection between 3D Tetris and Mario Clash that means that someone reading one article wants to navigate to the other? Seems doubtful to me. Nigej (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone learning about the virtual boy would be very likely to navigate al released games on it. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely such a person would use the List of Virtual Boy games article. If they're not then that article is useless too. Nigej (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to its bidirection and natural position at the bottom of articles, navboxes are way easier to navigate than lists. Additionally, WP:NOTDUPE protects different types of article collections coexisting. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How would the articles be improved by removing this navbox? I understand the argument that we don't do this for like any other console but the Virtual Boy is different in two important ways. First and most obvious we only have 29 games here instead of several hundred making this a lot more practical. The other way is that your much more likely to want to look at other Virtual Boy games than say other PS2 games after looking at one. I believe all these games are exclusive to the virtual boy and you couldn't make a similar experience anywhere else at the time. An important part of all these articles is how the games were made to fit with this brand new concept. The first thing I would do after reading our Virtual Boy article and wanting to learn more would probably be to open a bunch of articles from this very navbox. A category is not a replacement for most readers who wouldn't even consider that option and have probably never used our category system while a navbox is a much more familiar tool. List of Virtual Boy games isn't really a subsititute either. You would then need to either go back and forth or open a whole bunch of tabs which I at least find to be a less comfortable way to check out a topic than using a navbox. --Trialpears (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make the exact point I've made: the only reason why we kept it for so long is because of its short size. Why not make a navbox for the thousands of PS2 games that are out there, just so readers wouldn't have to check a category or a list of PlayStation 2 games? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. My point is that there aren't any size issues like there would be for essentially all other consoles which is one of the reasons why there is a significant difference between the Virtual Boy and other consoles in terms of navbox suitability. I also gave you reasons why these articles are significantly more connected than those for other consoles. --Trialpears (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the weakness of your argument is that it could be applied to almost anything. Why not have a template for People from Tadcaster? After all there's only 19 of them, a suitable size. Obviously we wouldn't have one for People from Leeds because it would be much too big. Someone reading an article about one person form Tadcaster might well want to read about other people from Tadcaster so why not provide a navbox? Is the connection between e.g. 3D Tetris and Mario Clash, really that close as to justify a navbox? Personally I'm still not convinced. Nigej (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nigej That's fair the arguments can be applied to a wide range of things and the only thing that would separate them is how likely someone is to visit other articles in the navbox, but isn't that kind of the whole point of the navbox? To be a useful tool for navigation. Reading about someone from Tadcaster is unlikely to have you thinking "wow that sure is a unique place wonder how the town affected other people from there" but reading about a Virtual Boy game getting curious about how other games were impacted by being for the Virtual Boy is completely reasonable. --Trialpears (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trialpears "we only have 29 games here instead of several hundred making this a lot more practical." Your words. Size is the only reason this was kept around. They are different games, different gameplay elements, different developers. "I believe all these games are exclusive to the virtual boy and you couldn't make a similar experience anywhere else at the time" is highly OR. Now we're making navboxes based upon... experiences at the time? And like I've stated, the games listed aren't all exclusives. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide evidence that size is the only reason this was kept around. I and a couple of other editors here seem to find this template useful and that is to me more than enough to keep it if there isn't an actual argument of why we need it more than it's not necessary and in similar situations we don't have one. The games may be different but by visiting any of these articles you would see screenshots of games looking unlike anything you've ever seen, read about it's reception and see that it's deeply tied with the system it's on and after that it's completely reasonable to want to learn more about the virtual boy. One of the things I would be most interested in when learning about the virtual boy would be the screenshot, which means visiting since that's the only place we can have them due to fair use. I don't need to prove that all users would starting hopping around between different Virtual Boy game articles, just that some would benefit from this article and it doesn't do any significant harm being there. I think that standard is quite clearly met, especially when you consider why someone may be visiting an article about a Virtual Boy game in the first place. I think the likelihood that someone visits a Virtual Boy game article just because it's a Virtual Boy game is significant.
I should perhaps tackle the ports you mention Waterworld and Bomberman:_Panic_Bomber both mention the reception of the virtual boy version seperetly just because the experience of playing the games are so different there and talk about the games suitability for Virtual Boy. The Waterworld Virtual Boy port is so different from the other versions that it is a contender for the worst video game of all time while the gameboy version gets a quite favorable 83% rating from another reviewer. --Trialpears (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need to provide evidence that's why it was kept for so long? What are you talking about? That's not what is required in any XfD whatsoever and we simply do not have navboxes based upon video games for a particular system. "Unlike you've ever seen"? Gimme a break, your own personal analysis of the games in question shouldn't matter. If there were, I dunno, 500 games released for the Virtual Boy, this wouldn't be an issue. You're just stating WP:ITSUSEFUL (find this template useful) and WP:DOESNTHURT (doesn't do any significant harm being there, so it does some harm?). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The navbox has a reasonable navigational purpose and should be added to all of those entries, not deleted. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 02:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which, besides being video games released for the same platform, is...? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions that establish we don't do video-game-by-platform navboxes. Doesn't matter how large or small the list is, that is category and list material per WP:CLT, not navbox material. oknazevad (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what other discussions there were besides Atari Lynx? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all of the video game console-specific navbox templates do not include specific games but links to accessories, hardware aspects, and lists of games (eg ((Nintendo Entertainment System)) or ((Wii))). Nor is that navbox tagged on the articles for games for that console, for the most part. This template would be reduced to just pointing to a list of games, and that's not a good reason for the template. --Masem (t) 12:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox is on all the articles for games on virtual boy though? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are all listed in the MacBook, which would be correct if this was a good navbox. But it isn't, you would not navigate game lists this way. Masem (t) 13:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I got you, what does this have to do with which computer I use? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a phone typo. "Because they are all listed in the Navbox." Basically, you're saying "we should keep the navbox because the games populate the navbox and are used on the game pages", which is circular reasoning. Masem (t) 15:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was arguing. I was pointing out that your observation Nor is that navbox tagged on the articles for games for that console is false. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does WP:NOHARM apply to this discussion? It’s not an article so it doesn’t mean anything can go here. The template is harmless. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for that doesn’t apply though. In fact it has two paragraphs that say it is a valid argument in MfD and RfD. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure sure I follow. We're not talking about miscellany or a redirect. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the section itself claims it isn't universal for all types of deletion discussions, and that the rationale seems to only apply for AfDs and definitely not in this TfD. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Like last time with the Lynx template, I'm neutral. It's hard to defend the need for the template when the list article covers it all and more in better form. But when it comes to this specific library - which is a short, small subset of games for a single platform by just a handful of developers - I do believe that a reader could use it to navigate across the games to get a feeling for the overall trajectory of the platforms software. And allowing it to exist does not make it compulsory for other ones to exist. Logistically speaking, most game libraries wouldn't even work. Even low-to-medium sized platforms like the Saturn or N64 have far too many games to even attempt this. So I really feel like we can judge this on its own merits without fear of setting a bad precedent. Sergecross73msg me 13:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Virtual Boy was an unusual case that isn't like a standard video game console. I agree it would be ridiculous to have an "Xbox 360 games" navbox for example, but exceptions can be made for areas of specific interest. All Virtual Boy games had notable things in common due to how they were made for the 3D goggles. See also WP:BATHWATER. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Virtual Boy library is a small tightly knit family of exclusives that are often discussed together. Lynx comparison isn't fair because many Lynx games are inferior ports of arcade or Genesis games and the like, so it didn't make sense to link those articles together. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are discusses together, how does having a navbox that lists the individual games help? The comparison isn't fair, because the Lynx games were inferior? They are both handheld systems with a relative small library of games. That the Virtual Boy games are somehow "more special" shouldn't matter in this discussion at all. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It helps because readers may want to jump from VB game to VB game because they are so often discussed together. That question can be applied to literally any video game series navbox. "If Nintendo consoles are often discussed together, why do we need a navbox listing the individual consoles?" That is the same mindset. What I mean with the Lynx is, the navbox listed games like Paperboy and Joust which were arcade games first and foremost. Their articles had only trivial mentions of the Lynx ports, so a navbox linking those articles didn't make sense. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NAVBOX, our navbox guideline, as the items do not "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" such that they would, for example, otherwise be in the "See also" sections for each other. It's a small category as a navbox. czar 19:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why "It's a small category" is an argument towards deletion and believe the relation said by Zxcvbnm is enough to include most of them under the see also. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless template, something I would consider useful, and I think there's a non-trivial subset of people who would find value in ease of navigation from game to game, since VB games are so often discussed as a collective. Further, the slippery slope arguments don't really hold water because there are logistical issues that would prevent this from happening. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel most people vote keep because of the supposed specialness of the Virtual Boy, that is was unique case for its time and unlike they've ever seen. Or even that the games for the Atari Lynx were inferior. But this is a navbox based upon games for the system. Let's tackle WP:NAVBOX:
1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
That subject would be Virtual Boy. But this is navbox that just lists the games. Compare with ((Game Boy)), which lists models, accessories, developers, etc. Or ((PlayStation)), which lists the different lines of consoles, technology, media, etc. This navbox just lists the games released for the system. Is the topic Virtual Boy, List of Virtual Boy games or "Virtual Boy game"?
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
List of Virtual Boy games is already linked in the see also sections of the games listed. And there's the category of course.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
It's games released for the same system, they do not refer to each other, except for some cases with the same developer. Different gameplay, different developers. Same system, that is for sure.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
See No. 1: The template's title is Virtual Boy and it lists the games released. There's Virtual Boy and List of Virtual Boy games, there's no such thing as Virtual Boy game.
5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
1. If anything, only including games makes the subject more coherent. Plus VB is just a single console without any lines, accessories, famous devs, prominent media, etc., so there's nothing else to list.
2&5. Firstly this doesn't address 2 (which is already satisfied in the lede). Secondly that demonstrates that editors would be inclined to link every article if it weren't for the list, so it satisfies 5 (which is a more specific version of 3), and cements the other games' importance to each other, as some random PS game wouldn't have List of PS games linked.
I'm sorry, Aaron Liu, I do not understand what you're trying to say. How does "only including games make the subject more coherent"? So what is the topic of the navbox? Virtual Boy, or games released for the Virtual Boy? How does only listing games on a navbox make the subject of Virtual Boy more coherent for the reader? What lead do you mean and what is satisfied? We're discussing this navbox. Why would editors "be inclined to link every article if it weren't for the list"? Where would they link from and to? Why would they be inclined to do so? There is a list and it wouldn't make sense to randomly list all the games released for the platform, because that would fail WP:SEEALSO. And again, see also is covered by List of Virtual Boy games. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only including games narrows down the topic and strengthens the relations between its elements, thus by definition making it more coherent. The topic of the navbox can be interpreted as either, and both have their own articles (List of VB games counts as the article for VB games). Virtual Boy (game) is mentioned in every article that has the navbox in the lede. It makes sense to list the other games in the see also if it weren't for the list per above, due to how readers would be inclined to learn about every released VB game, especially the exclusives, just like how if it weren't for the list one would be inclined to link to other notable "messiahs" under a messiah claimant. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it's useful. Doesn't clutter articles too much, and it's very plausible that the reader might wish to find information on other games on the same console in this instance. J947 † edits 08:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful navigation box that allows readers to jump from one Virtual Boy game to another. I fail to see how it violate anything outlined at WP:NAVBOX.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:08, 30 April 2023 (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).
Template:Canadian premiers, 1920s
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 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).