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 merge, looks like these have already been merged, with no objections, so closing as merge. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Lacrosse was notified of this pending TfD merge discussion: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 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.
WP:SPAM. instead of external linking in the ordinary way, the main object seems to be to promote the brand name Longines. Could be solved by removing language identifying the source. The source is not so much in question as the content which receives scant attention. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination based on a mistaken assumption. Student7: I think you are confused. A link to the Internet Archive is not spam for Longines by any stretch. This nomination for deletion seems to be related to this edit of yours (which you reverted ten minutes later, apparently by mistake). The clip in question is taken from a television show called the Longines Chronoscope. Stating this fact is not spam. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Film has been notified of this TfD discussion: [2]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not spam and gives readers access to films in the public domain. Thanks for your reseach הסרפד. MarnetteD|Talk 01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Internet Archive is very useful as an external link.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing that promotes "Longines" in the coding of the template. Did you read the template? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, this template is about keeping entries brief, using a standard format rather than cluttering articles up with long lists. The archive is not commercial and spam has nothing to do with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 19 March 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.
mostly redlinks. articles can be connected by other methods. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Frietjes' nomination rationale. No navbox should ever have a majority of links to non-existent articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) !vote amended to "delete all" following addition of multiple templates for deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Lacrosse has been notified of this discussion: [3]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 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 result of the discussion was reformat as list articles. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 21:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Past 20 light-years distant from us, the distance from the sun is not an especially-noteworthy property of a star, thus these subjects are only loosely related to each other. These fail multiple criteria of navboxes as well. Per WP:NAVBOX, there should be an article on the subject of the navboxes, which there isn't in this case. The subject of the template is also not mentioned in each article. For these templates, the vast majority of articles contained within the navbox are also non-notable, which is an absolute no-no for navboxes. These also require near-constant maintenance to keep up-to-date due to the rapid-pace discoveries of new objects. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Astronomy has been notified of this TfD discussion: [4]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there are thousands of star systems in those distance regimes, having nav templates is useless, since they are enormous, thus not helping navigation. And distance away from Earth is only defining for those very closest to us, such as less than 20ly per the nom (or 5pc or similar distance) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the splits aren't arbitrary, the stars included seem to be so. Primefac (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. The majority of the navigation links on these templates serve no useful purpose. The criteria for such navboxes needs to be significantly narrowed down. Praemonitus (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make any sense to convert these to lists? —Cryptic 23:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We already have lists of stars based on Constellations that provide more information about each of the stellar members. (For example, see List of stars in Andromeda.) There are also List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs and List of nearest bright stars, which show the more notable nearby stars. So no, converting these templates to lists would not add anything of value. The list would also grow to be very long; at a density of 0.004 stars per cubic light year, that would mean ~7,000 stars within 75 light years. Praemonitus (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now): Agree with Cryptic here: If these could be converted into lists (i.e. a list of stars by distance to earth), they would be much more useful, and having the majority of redlinks that exist here wouldn't be as much of an issue; with a navbox, they are seen as a major problem, whereas with lists, links to any articles are secondary to displaying ordered information. Until a list or lists can be made from these, I propose that they be maintained in some way or another so that they can be fully replaced in the (hopefully) near future. Jacob S-589 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now): They do the job and provide a list at the bottom of the page, however a list system that Cryptic has proposed is probably the best. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, as these don't really fit the navbox model —PC-XT+ 20:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the navboxes past a certain distance should be limited to more noteworthy celestial objects instead of all.Omega13a (talk) 05:12, 31 March 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 result of the discussion was merge. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 11 April 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.
