Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 23

< September 22	September 24 >

September 23

Template:Infobox Olympic games

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 keep, but there appears to be no substantial objection to rewriting the template as a "thin wrapper" for the more generic template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Olympic games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly complicated (see its talk page). Redundant to {{Infobox games}}. Only 69 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My oh my! Somebody has been busy. We have a page full of nominations from one editor? He must not like templates. The Olympics have a specific template that applies to the specific needs of their main pages. The Olympics, particularly when the games are happening, are extremely high traffic pages. There have only been 51 Olympic Games, with a few more being planned, so "only" 69 transclusions makes sense. I've made plenty of page specific templates, because they help with the layout of complex information. The number of transclusions is not important. Templates are not normally seen by the search engines, there is little chance of confusion to the public and a lot of help to making articles look professional. So your proposal is to just strip all these templates off of high traffic professional looking pages for an inferior, non-specific template is based on what? Are you going to do the work to change all these pages into a new, less tailored template? Just so we can delete a template? I see no benefit and a lot of work caused. So yes, a cumbersome, difficult template might need some editing. If you don't like it, I suggest you use your function as a skilled editor to clean up the problems. Templates are complicated, beyond the abilities of most wikipedia editors. They need help. That would be a far superior use of your time, rather than wholesaling the nomination for deletion process. Trackinfo (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confident that my track record in maintaining and improving - and indeed, removing redundant - templates speaks for itself, so you can keep your irrelevant ad hominem comments. In your lengthy and rambling reply, you do not address the similarity between the nominated template and {{Infobox games}}; you do not say why latter is not adequate for articles about Olympic games; and you do not address the unnecessary complication in the nominated template. and no when a redundant template is delete, we do not just strip it from articles, we replace it with the more generic version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy; Who cares if they are redundant, even totally redundant would not be a disaster. What you are proposing is deleting this small template in favor of another more generic template and thus forcing (I assume) other editors to then replace that work. Work that already serves the needs of those articles well. Are YOU going to do that work? Or will it take time away from your busy schedule of proposing templates for deletion? Trackinfo (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Template is used on the articles that require it in a prominent way. Doesn't appear that complicated to me as a user, and given the importance of these articles to the project involved and their general thoroughness, it is unlikely many people will need to be editing them more anyway. --LauraHale (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The complication is describe on the nominated template's talk page; it is such that the template, or its undocumented sub-templates, must be edited for each new games; that's not how infoboxes are supposed to work. You don't say why this template is required, above the more generic one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. {{Infobox games}} was created nearly one year after {{Infobox Olympic games}} (Who copied who?), and if not for the Commonwealth Games' baton option, it would be a precise copy of the latter, so not that much more "generic". Plus, whereas the second has had a continuous history of editing and improvement, the first was edited a mere 24 times... in six years. Regarding the non-editable parameters encoded in sub-templates, they are explained (and their links given) in the documentation sub-page. I can understand that the sub-templates might complicate the structure of the main template for the naive editor, but by the time he/she wants to edit, an experienced editor has done the job for them. If it is decided that the content of the sub-templates should be manually added to the main-level template in each transclusion, I will not object it and can even volunteer myself to do the changes in the template and pages in which it is transcribed. However, I see no need to delete the template altogether. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh FFS. The age of the templates, and their numbers of edits, are immaterial - this isn't a popularity contest, nor a pissing contest. What matters is deciding the best fit templates for articles, without unnecessary redundancy. In any case, {{Infobox games}}, as it now is, is a recently-created amalgam of several older, also redundant, games templates. The only reason the Olympic template wasn't included at the same time was the aforesaid complexity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see nothing "overly complicated" about this template (a few #exprs and sub-template transclusions...?) The divergence from the more generic {{Infobox games}} is useful: it ensures naming consistency (e.g. "Games of the XXX Olympiad") and it automatically generates links to articles such as 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony If there is objection to the use of sub-templates such as {{Olympics infobox/Stadium}}, then the contents of those templates can be placed back in here again. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Are you fucking serious? 81.149.223.179 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the replies above are of absurdly poor quality. Arguing that "even totally redundant would not be a disaster" (if it were totally redundant then deleting it would have absolutely no effect) or that it should be kept because it is "used on the articles that require it in a prominent way" (did anyone say it wasn't?) doesn't help the discussion at all, and the less said regarding the anon comment the better. From quick inspection, {{infobox games}} was an attempt to create a more inclusive template that could be used for not just the Olympics but also for the multitude of similar events that take place. It's been very successful in that regard, being used on seven times as many pages. Unless there is a compelling reason to believe that it cannot be used for the Olympics then at the very least {{infobox Olympic games}} should be rewritten as a thin wrapper around that template so that the code logic is kept in one place and the layout is normalised. At that point, substitution would be trivial and the Olympics template could be deleted as a T3 candidate. I'm happy to work on this myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
refactor as a wrapper per Chris Cunningham's suggestion. once it is refactored, we can debate the redundancy, but this will at least provide for uniformity in the appearance. history issues could always be solved with a history merge if the wrapper is eventually substituted. Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andy's goal is to reduce the number of overlapping templates when possible, since needless duplication is a bad thing. He's quite concerned with building the Semantic Web, and reducing the number of extra templates helps with that goal, because computers attempting to gather metadata from our articles will have a harder time if we have more templates. Of course, he's not suggesting that everything be merged into a single massive template :-) No opinion on whether the overlap between this template and Infobox games be big enough to warrant deletion, but please don't think that Andy hates templates. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template does its job. We dont need to outright delete it.Swordman97 (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a proposal to "outright delete" anything; It is proposed to replace an overly specific template with a more general one, which is equally suited to the task. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andrwsc. Do like the idea that the lack of tranclusions should be a factor. Do you propose we have more Olympic games to make up for that fact? Narom (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2012 (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.

Template:Infobox Ottawa ward

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 no consensus. It may be that this template is redundant to infobox settlement, but it's not clear exactly how the data would be translated. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ottawa ward (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 23 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, pending a demonstration of how it is redundant (i.e., a diff showing the conversion, or some analysis of parameters to be added and information that would be removed). Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2012 (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.

Template:Infobox Discworld novel

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 delete or redirect after replacement with the standard book infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Discworld novel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox book}}. Only 50 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose:~~ 1. This infobox has parameters which are not in {{Infobox book}}, and which are (I presume) relevant to this series of books but not to others. 2. 50 books using this template is plenty. Richard75 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which parameters, and why are they needed? If needed, could they not be in {{Infobox book}}? 50 instances does not, in itself, justify a separate infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motifs, locations and other notes; but since I don't know much about Discworld I am probably the wrong person to deal with this one, so I'll butt out. Richard75 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only fields I see that are unique are "location", which does not seem important enough for an infobox on any novel, and "motifs", which seems to be universally used for OR across the Discworld books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As TPH suggests, the unique fields here do not provide sufficient value to warrant maintaining this fork, and indeed should probably be excised entirely as in-universe or original research rather than being merged to the parent template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan and then redirect to the book infobox. Won't hurt to keep it for historical reasons, and this solution will prevent its future use. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2012 (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.

Template:Infobox Ranger's Apprentice book

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ranger's Apprentice book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox book}}. Only 11 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only unique field is "Book no" which could be added to {{Infobox book}} if it is truly needed. --J36miles (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely redundant to {{infobox book}}. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2012 (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.

Template:Infobox Brotherband book

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Brotherband book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox book}}. Only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this is largely redundant to the idea of the book infobox and is unnecessary when you figure that it's only three books. If I can be as bold as to suggest "other things don't exist", nobody has really seen the need to create one for Stephen King's works or for the Wheel of Time series, so I don't see where it particularly needs to exist here- especially since the usual series/book templates work so well already. It looks nice, but ultimately that is all it has going for it. The book template already has a place for series info, so a specialized one is largely unnecessary.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2012 (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.

Template:Infobox convention center

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 no consensus. However, there may be support for a module, or to rewrite the template as a wrapper with a module. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox convention center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox building}} (into which required parameters, if any, could be merged). Only 77 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What are the required parameters that require being added? Have you done this yet in the eventuality the template will be deleted? Seems like, based on your comment, there are a number of required parameters specific to this template which argue for it being kept. --LauraHale (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There may or may not be required parameters; that's what were here to discuss. Since you're !voting keep on the basis that there are, perhaps you could tell us which parameters they are? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Andy, LauraHale is correct to take you to task for not performing at least the minimal level of homework required to identify the unique attributes. The list appears to be:

| classroom_cap    = 
| banquets         = 
| theatre          = 
| total_space      = 
| exhibit          = 
| breakout         = 
| ballroom         =

These aren't, on the face of it, unreasonable bits of comparative information to include in an infobox. However, what could be done is to modularise this as an {{infobox building facilities}} and to plug it into {{infobox building}} using the existing | embedded = parameter in that template. Not a great deal of work, but not so pressing as to require a TfD. I'll work on the relevant wrapper work myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Laura didn't "take me to task for not performing at least the minimal level of homework required to identify the unique attributes". She stated that it "seems like" there are required attributes. It's quite clear that there are unique attributes. Whether these are required is not clear, and she offered no argument for any of them being so. A cursory inspection of a handful of articles using those parameters suggests that few are used and those that are are unsourced. If they are deemed by consensus to be required, then they could either be merged into the parent template, or made a module as you suggest; but that could also contain many other parameters currently in the parent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is the same "redundant to" argument that has been used before in cases like "Delete Museum because it is redundant to Building" and "Delete Criminal because it is redundant to Person", and everytime the argument fails. The reason here, as before, is that there are, as it is being stated, features of a convention center that are unique to CC's and not to buildings in general. Some examples are: banquets, classroom_cap, meeting_cap, theatre, total_space, exhibit, breakout, ballroom. There may be times where the convention center is notable as both a CC and a building (for instance, because the building is of architectural importance). In that case two wikipedia articles are appropriate: one on the architecture of the building (using the Bldg Infobox template) and a second one on the convention center (using the CC infobox template and its various CC-specific parameters). Also, bear a mind that (for architecturally important buidlings) "once a building, always a building"; but the use being given to the building may change over time. That is, architecturally-prominent Building X could be used today as a convention center (Infobox CC) but in, say, 20 years outgrow its use and the CC moves out of there and it becomes a shopping mall (Hint: Infobox Shopping Mall), and after, say, 30 more years the mall tenants outgrow it and the building gets renovated as a hotel (Hint: Infobox Hotel), etc, etc. In any event, if anything, we should look not to deleting this template, but to adding more CC-specific fields to it, such as (1) Primary-use (trade shows, conventions, sporting events, etc) since some CC's today seem to cater to just certain types of events, (2) Parking (3,000/5,000/10,000/etc spaces) since almost no CC can exist without one integrated to the center, and (3)Supporting_adjacent_facilities (Hotel, Train Station, etc) for facilities that were build on the premises specifically to support that CC agenda/needs. If you are going to do that, for consistency, you would have to embark in a campaign to justify eliminating all the use-specific infoboxes that use a building as its residence (museums, theatres, churches, schools, hotels, etc.). My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
- While each case is - rightly - decided on its individual merits, the redundancy argument succeeds far, far more often than it fails. there is no basis in Wikipedia policy or practice for the "two articles" argument for convention centres or similar topics. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is still not an argument of any substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andy, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a Wikipedia policy. And it isn't a Wikipedia guideline either. As an essay, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is itself, --well, for lack of better terminology-- it is itself "other stuff". It is good that we ocassionally remind ourselves of that fact.

To expand on that, it seems you have missed my point altogether: no one is saying here that the CCIT should be kept *because* this is the same "redundant to" argument that has been used before for other similar cases. What is being said, is that there are fields unique to CC and which necessitate keeping CC. Extrapolated, what is being said is that the template that should be under Delete discussion is, if anything, the Building infobox template. If not, (don't miss the parallel here) why are there River, Lake, Ocean, Reservoir, etc., infobox templates, when they could --conceivably-- all merged into a new "Template Infobox Body_Of_Water"? The applicable question then is, "If other templates (such as CONVENTION CENTER, MUSEUM, CHURCH, SCHOOL, etc) are already able to accommodate in a very satisfactory manner the fields found in the template infobox Building, then why not consider for deletion the template infobox Building instead?" After all, it is the Template infobox Building, and not the Template infobox Convention Center (and the others), the one that fails the key KISS design principle. In other words, bigger (hint:Building IT) is not better. That is what is being said and as such your interpretation of my statements above is incorrect.

And, while the 2 article practice described above is -admittedly- not the focus of this TfD, I do point out that your statement above ("there is no basis in Wikipedia policy or practice for the "two articles" argument for convention centres or similar topics") is also incorrect: Fact is, there is, yes, a basis in Wikipedia policy for the use of the 2 article practice, it is this one: WP:IAR. It is good for us to ocassionally remind ourselves of that also.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[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.

Template:Infobox GT circuit

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox GT circuit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. Not developed for over 4 years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the categorization suggests this is a videogame level infobox, but we don't write articles on each level of a videogame. The naming of the template is highly inappropriate, since it's not about the various GT-championship racing circuits. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2012 (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.

Template:Box office bombs list

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G8. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Box office bombs list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was used by {{Box office bombs navbox}} to facilitate functionality which has since been deleted. This template serves no purpose now the navbox no longer exists. (see below for accompanying nomination). Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2012 (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.

Template:Box office bombs display

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G8. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Box office bombs display (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was used by {{Box office bombs navbox}} to facilitate functionality which has since been deleted. This template serves no purpose now the navbox no longer exists. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2012 (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.

Template:WPPS

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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPPS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear; only a single transclusion, might as well be substituted. Keφr (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2012 (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.

Template:Thegodstemplate

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thegodstemplate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparent alias for "class=wikitable" but setting text-size to 95%. Was at TfD 5 years ago without generating any consensus on what to do. I think at the very least it should be renamed to something less opaque. -- Hex [^t/_c] 15:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, redundant, further the name is opaque; since there's no talk page documentation or template documentation, that's all we have to go on. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2012 (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.

Template:OSK Igalo squad

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OSK Igalo squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant – navigation template consisting of only one blue link. – Kosm1 fent 09:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 09:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not enough links, and it seems as though the current squad has changed, but the transclusions have not. it would be better to just restart from scratch if someone wants to update this template. Frietjes (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2012 (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.

Template:Towers in Russia by region

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Towers in Russia by region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is little in common between Moscow Kremlin towers, Admiralty building, Saint Petersburg, Golden Gate (Vladimir), and Bolshakovo transmitter, apart from the word "tower" in the title. There is no earthly reason why one should want one-click access from Pevcheskaya Tower to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. The template is unwieldy, crammed with images and arbitrarily decorative. It also overlaps with Category:Towers in Russia. Ghirla^-трёп- 17:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if for no other reason than its arbitrariness. It's appropriate to have lists that are tagged with {{Dynamic list}}, but to be fair to this template, we'd have to tag it likewise, and that's never a good situation for navboxes. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2012 (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.

Template:Union

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 no consensus to delete, but consensus to at least rename the template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

3 band members, 2 albums. No navigation template needed. Can be solved by normal wikilinking. And for the author: missing links is no excuse, just make those links. The Banner _talk 02:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are 6 articles in the navbox, four of which are so long that finding the links within the readable prose is difficult without a navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if kept, to template:Union (band) to match the head article, since this isn't about union, or the obvious uses of Union (US side of the Civil War; Unionists in Northern Ireland; organized labor) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At a minimum, the template should be moved to "Template:John Corabi" and not deleted completely.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but rename, it has enough links. Frietjes (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2012 (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.

Template:Massacre (experimental band)

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Massacre (experimental band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navigation template with just one (1) album? The Banner _talk 02:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Without the navbox:

Bill Laswell does not link to "Killing Time (Massacre album)"
Fred Maher does not link to "Fred Frith", "Bill Laswell", "Charles Hayward (musician)" nor "Killing Time (Massacre album)"
Charles_Hayward_(musician) does not link to "Fred Maher" nor "Killing Time (Massacre album)"

There are 6 links in the navbox, which link to several long articles within which finding the links may be difficult at best.

Any questions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stubs for the band's other three abums can easily be created. BTW, "Massacre (experimental band)" in the template header needs to be piped to "Massacre". —Bruce1ee^talk 07:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created articles for the other three abums and added them to the template; I've also piped the band's name. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is just one of the many cases in which a Jax-template needs to be rescued by others. Why not make proper templates, with at least red links for not-ready articles? The Banner _talk 09:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To answer your question, see WP:Write the article first. Also, regarding your comment that the "template needs to be rescued by others", again (this was written before all of the albums had articles):

"Without the navbox:

Bill Laswell does not link to "Killing Time (Massacre album)"
Fred Maher does not link to "Fred Frith", "Bill Laswell", "Charles Hayward (musician)" nor "Killing Time (Massacre album)"
Charles_Hayward_(musician) does not link to "Fred Maher" nor "Killing Time (Massacre album)"

There are [SIX] links in the navbox, which link to several long articles within which finding the links may be difficult at best."

The issue of whether to include musical ensemble members without articles has already been discussed. The verdict was that they should be if at least one of the ensemble members was notable (to avoid the impression that the ensemble is a solo act). It was also stated that songs and albums without articles should not be included, as ensembles generally are not referred to by the number of compositions that they produce.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is one album; so what? It passes WP:NENAN with the band member links alone. Also per Bruce1ee. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it has enough links. Frietjes (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2012 (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.

Template:Urban public transport in Azerbaijan

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Urban public transport in Azerbaijan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Only one useful link in it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is similar to many other standard form navboxes covering other countries (eg Template:Urban public transport in Italy). Most of them are works in progress, and therefore include at least one red link. I've now converted about half the previous red links in this particular template into blue ones by creating new articles linked to it. I'll convert the rest of the red links over the next few days. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, it looks like it now has enough links. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's fine now. The person who created the template should have waited until at least a few of these articles had been created before creating the template – navboxes consisting almost entirely of redlinks are not useful – but this template's links are all blue now. SJ Morg (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2012 (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.

Template:US state and territory outlines

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 into Template:US state and territory linked map Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US state and territory outlines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26#Template:US states and territories etc., yet another confusing, unnecessarily decorative template that can be better done in other ways, though this time unused. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ per prior discussions. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of my new templates are proposed for deletion as soon as they are created, so I have not deployed this template until a decision is made here. I've only been doing this for forty years, so I must be incredibly stupid.

I find these templates to be very helpful, especially for school children. I have a daughter-in-law who is a prominent education consultant and three school-age grandchildren, so I do know something about this. As far as this template being decorative, mea culpa. It is very important that Wikipedia be as dreary and boring as possible, because we are the impeccable source of all knowledge for the entire universe. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and for that matter, this or one of those other templates should, in my opinion, replace {{Template:United States political divisions}}, or be merged somehow. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment That was considered during the discussion for Template:US states and territories; that template and {{United States political divisions}} shared the same links, but it had the same problems. The problems again are; the map is unclear to anyone unfamiliar with the geography of the US and the abbreviation scheme used, which includes most users of the encyclopaedia; as such the map is unnecessarily decorative. It certainly can't replace {{United States political divisions}} and if merged it would just make it twice as big to little benefit; anyone who can locate states by these abbreviations can certainly do it by full name.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, John, you make a huge mistake in thinking that anything on a page like this is seen by more than a handful of people. Consider previous discussion results as encompassing the views of .0001% of Wikipedia users. As mentioned above, these helpful templates might not be perfect but they are a functional tool. You might not like it. Each user chooses the search tools that work best for themselves. These are not bad. They are not a negative on the pages they are included on. Until you provide a superior alternative, these should remain. Trackinfo (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors should not 'chooses the search tools that work best for themselves' if they are contrary to guidelines as the encyclopaedia is not built for editors but readers. And the guidelines are clear. Don't use colour, unless the information is conveyed in some other way. And don't use abbreviations unless they are widely understood. And they are included on no pages, so there is no need to provide any alternative.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge into a metatemplate per Frietjes. A useful tool for the visual learners amongst us. The only thing stopping me from boldly adding it to articles is that it is too big. Perhaps the font size could be reduced, thus allowing the image to be made smaller. {{Canada provinces map}} appears to have been quite successful (see Demographics_of_Canada#See_also), so why not this one? — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the template nominated below, adding a 'prefix' and 'suffix' parameter to change the links. except for the actual link targets, these templates appear to be identical, so they should be merged. I personally don't think they should be widely deployed in article space, since they bloat the see also section, but I could see a use otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2012 (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.

Template:US state and territory indexes

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 into Template:US state and territory linked map. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US state and territory indexes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26#Template:US states and territories etc., yet another confusing, unnecessarily decorative template that can be better done in other ways, though this time unused. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per prior discussions. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As explained above, I have not deployed this template until a decision is made here. I find these templates to be useful. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia is British or an adult. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above Trackinfo (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the template nominated above, adding a 'prefix' and 'suffix' parameter to change the links. except for the actual link targets, these templates appear to be identical, so they should be merged. I personally don't think they should be widely deployed in article space, since they bloat the see also section, but I could see a use otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2012 (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.

Template:Volleyball at the Summer Paralympics category navbox

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Volleyball at the Summer Paralympics category navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Broken and only used (wrongly) on three category pages). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep: There are several other templates of the "Template:team sport at the games type category navbox" format. In what way are they broken and wrongly used? Presently, the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics have templates of this type. The use of these templates will be more widespread as more Games occur and old Games are updated here (in wikipedia, I mean). See for instance Template:Volleyball at the Summer Olympics category navbox, which is currently used by 9 categories. I think it's both natural and convenient to be able to navigate between a certain category of the 2008 Games and that of the 2012 Games, e.g. for comparison reasons. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case it was broken due to a nonexistent image and category. That other stuff exists is not a strong argument to make half-hearted clones of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't motivating its existence with "other stuff exists". I used the other example to illustrate that there are other such templates that are used by significantly more than 3 categories, and that the numbers will increase with time. I did motivate its existence by saying that it could be convenient and helpful for navigation between categories. If the image doesn't exist, that it can be created. The category can be created. Rome wasn't built in one day. It seems a bit overly zealous to delete a single instance of navboxes in a whole system of navboxes, just because of two minor flaws that can be easily fixed. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It wasn't immediately obvious that this was part of a series of templates. The "Rome wasn't built in a day" argument serves equally well to nominating templates gradually. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - User Illia Connell has now corrected the file name (thanks), so the picture's there. I've created the category. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement with standard succession box template, or with a cat tree. there are indeed many more of these check here. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming that any of these are worthwhile (and that's a big assumption), they should be rewritten to use a proper meta-template. Unsurprising that there are broken examples when the code appears to have been copied and pasted from some 2006-era original. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any advice on how to re-code this is appreciated. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:12, 23 September 2012 (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.

Template:Football kit/pattern list

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football kit/pattern list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unrepresentative, arbitrary and frequently broken. The templates which point at this should instead link directly to an appropriate image category at Commons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - use this all the time and have found no issues with this templateBabylon77 (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just use Category:Football kit templates directly instead of the random assortment that some editor has stuck in this template? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use this one if it suits? --No unique names 03:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 23 September 2012 (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.