Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18
December 20 >

December 19

[edit]

Template:CITWF

[edit]

No longer needed as both templates listed have been deleted. Disambiguation serves no purpose anymore. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heavy Moss

[edit]

Only one album and two notable singles to their name. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose still serves as a hub for all links for the band. Scuba 14:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article Heavy Moss does that job quite well already! And the articles are well linked, you can link to the band, the album and each of the singles from each and every article. This simply isn't needed. --woodensuperman 14:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brad Pitt

[edit]

Only three articles. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 13:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film writer templates

[edit]

This writer-specific navbox violates WP:FILMNAV, which says, "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question. This avoids over-proliferation of individuals' navboxes on each production's article, and avoids putting undue weight on the contributions of certain individuals over others." This navbox is causing exactly the problem that WP:FILMNAV warns about. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. I think that in the majority of these cases the writers concerned could be considered primary creators of the material in question. I don't think bundling these nominations together is helpful, as they should each be looked at on their own merit. I'd be more concerned with the producer navboxes, espectially these days when films seem to have about a dozen producers. I'm sure I've advocated for limiting this to director roles only in the dark and murky past, but I seem to recall that "primary creator" was the compromise. What is auteur theory anyway? ;) --woodensuperman 11:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at all the examples, and there were none where they were always the primary creator. Are you suggesting limiting it to works where they are only the primary creator? I feel like if we don't pay attention, editors will mindlessly fill out (or restore) all credits, like the now-blocked MolAnneFinnBall567 did. It seems to be better to be all or nothing. It's not like there is zero access to writing credits; their names are always in the infobox and ideally the article body too. It's about whether or not we need yet another navbox at the very end of the article, and writers and producers are rarely the exclusive sole drivers of creativity across all their works. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these have been concerns for nearly a decade! See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 11#RFC: Filmography navboxes. --woodensuperman 13:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think categories serve best than the navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Fusco navbox at the least, don't mind deleting the others. I've been following this discussion for a while, and considering the script is the second-most essential to a film (even more so than producers and actors), I feel a case can be made for keeping those who in almost all cases act solo, unlike guys like McKenna and Sommers (who would often be part of a team of six, thus cheapening their creative role too much to be primary). In Fusco's case, almost every work (save The Shack (2017 film), with two other writers) had him work solo - and there are 15 - so there is far less of an issue keeping him than the others. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi I’m finally back, now I just want to let everyone know that I created these templates because I wanted to add more variety with each Wikipedia navbox, so all I’m saying is just, please, don’t delete any of these. MolAnneFinnBall567 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look filmmaker is a very collaborative process, movies have a lot of different people working on them, so just crediting to directed works only is honestly just generic. I get that it violates WP:FILMNAV, but I didn’t know. MolAnneFinnBall567 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if we have navboxes for every production role, then we end up with WP:NAVBOXCREEP. We need to draw a line. Hence WP:FILMNAV calls for only primary creator roles. Picking Monsters vs. Aliens as an example, this has five writers and two directors. If each had their own navbox, we could end up with six navboxes for writers and directors alone (not to mention the other three). And with this many writers, could any of them be really considered a primary creator? Also, as only two of the writers have navboxes, this could be considered WP:UNDUE for the others without navboxes. --woodensuperman 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dice

[edit]

Very little use (only 8 mainspace transclusions in it's 14+ years of existence), and not clear why a specific template to write [[dice|die]] (one possible variant for the singular of "dice") is helpful, or whether edits from unregistered users are a problem actively needing this very specific solution. Can safely be substituted and left to, well, die. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International dollars/data/2005

[edit]

Data templates that are unused and also not present in the code of Template:International dollars, so can't be used. Gonnym (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peso

[edit]

This navbox groups currencies that share the name "Peso", but have no other relation beyond that. The article Peso already has a list of those currencies. Cambalachero (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole category of it. There are likewise categories for denominations. I just worked through a bunch of these because of WP:TEMPLATECAT but both the navboxes and the categories felt like they missed the point of those navigation tools. Izno (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Submit an edit request/core

[edit]

Unused after parent template was converted to use a module here. Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Franchise total episodes

[edit]

Unused TV module. Template:Franchise total episodes was merged last year. Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-isu

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Inscrutable template name. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template name likely means "implies shared use", a good equivalent of {{uw-username-coi}} without the "COI" part. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that was the intention behind it. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-shouting

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in March 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election results-STV

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Created in April 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Was only recently finally fixed so it was usable and is now in use. Some discussion prior to a nomination would be appreciated – this is the second time it's been nominated in the last couple of months. Number 57 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not used in mainspace during this TfD. Templates will get repeatedly nominated if they aren't being actively used. That's just how it goes. There is never a justifiable reason to create a template in mainspace and not use it for 8 months. If a template is not ready for active transclusions, it can be created in the draft namespace or in a user namespace. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International relations/Intro

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. This subpage appears to be independent of its parent page, and appears to be article content related to International relations (the prose looks similar to the lead of that article from 2013). – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_19&oldid=1264153550"