Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 7 April 9 >

April 8

[edit]

Template:Reign in Blood tracks

[edit]
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) 18:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reign in Blood tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Links to only two tracks. Better navigation served by {{Slayer}}. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:29, 8 April 2013 (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:Metaheuristics for real-valued problems

[edit]
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) 18:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metaheuristics for real-valued problems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Errors (e.g., local search is usually considered a method for finite/countable metric spaces, not continuous problems) and redundancy (given the template on optimization algorithms, which discusses continous optimization methods and metaheuristics). There have been problems with the metaheuristics article and others, which have raised SPA/COI issues. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I agree that this is redundant with the section on metaheuristics in the optimization algorithms template and that many MHs, such as genetic algorithm, are not easily classifiable as applying exclusively to combinatorial or continuous optimization problems. --Mark viking (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2013 (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:Metaheuristics for combinatorial problems

[edit]
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) 18:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metaheuristics for combinatorial problems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

SPA (who raised COI self-promotion concerns) created this. It is redundant with the section on metaheuristics in the optimization algorithms template. Many of the methods listed are used for non-combinatorial problems. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I agree that this is redundant with the section on metaheuristics in the optimization algorithms template and that many MHs, such as genetic algorithms, are not easily classifiable as applying exclusively to combinatorial or continuous optimization problems. --Mark viking (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2013 (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:Hotels in Ibiza

[edit]
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) 18:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hotels in Ibiza (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template covers a large number of non-notable hotels, with the bulk of the links being redlinks. As such, the usefulness of the template is questionable, considering that the bulk of hotel properties listed are not likely to warrant independent articles. So per WP:TFD#REASONS #3 this appears unnecessary and can be deleted. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of notable hotels in Ibiza and which will get traffic on here. The template is fine to link them all together, red links removed for now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Since when has a nav template merely linking multiple articles on a given topic had a requirement to "comprehensive" and how exactly is it "extremely subjective"? Very strange statement.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation templates should be comprehensive, or else they are misrepresentative of their subjects. This does not cover all hotels in Ibiza; it covers only a very small subset, and it is extremely unlikely that this will change. Where a group is open-ended, a category is a better choice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Not very common place" is hardly a fair outlook. Barely anybody edits hotel articles on wikipedia, it is a vastly underdeveloped subject on wikipedia, that doesn't mean the general consensus is "Thou shalt not create hotel templates".♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:09, 20 April 2013 (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:Eva O

[edit]
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) 18:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eva O (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN With just three albums there is no need for a nav box (and for Jax: no, not every silly cross reference is useful for a nav box) The Banner talk 11:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Navbox (like Template:Sonny Throckmorton) now has FOUR albums. The four albums do not all link to one another. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2013 (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) 01:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boilerplate for the sake of boilerplate by an editor notorious for the same. Hopefully it won't be too long before there's a formal topic ban in place to stop this from happening again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Though Past Time was redirected, there are still 3 albums and two bands in the navbox without templates which do not link to one another. There is already an RFC against me, with which I have fully complied. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without comment on the merits of the current articles, this seems a bit overwrought for someone with so few albums, and the "Related" section doesn't seem necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Um, again, Shadow Project and Super Heroines do not have their own navboxes, hence the reason for keeping them in the navbox, as well as keeping the navbox itself. Also, I don't think the second and fourth albums link to one another without the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, but make sure the existing album articles are linked either through the prev/next links in the infobox, or in the see also section. Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2013 (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.

ETS Capital Line

[edit]
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, redundant to Template:ETS LRT Stations Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ETS Capital Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ETS Metro Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk

[edit]
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, but feel free to renominate. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Strange nav box that does not cover what the title tells you. All lifeboats are still red links, so no use for this template. WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template is for use within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force for future article which will be created for the Lifeboat coverage for Suffolk. It has already been used for two of the Lifeboat station articles in Suffolk, and if The Banner! has not grasped the concept of use of a nav box for such projects I suggest he looks at the way it has been used Here, Lifeboat Stations in Norfolk  stavros1  ♣  15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess that you did not grasp the meaning of "the title should cover the content" and "a navigation box should contain useful links, not red links". And perhaps it is a good idea to wait with replying until your bad temper has cooled down a bit. The Banner talk 16:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern about too few working links looks like a proper one. Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Navigation_templates_provide_navigation_between_existing_articles discourages templates with "fewer than a handful of links" and says "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Only the links RNLI, Aldeburgh Lifeboat Station and Southwold Lifeboat Station go to existing articles. I looked at those last two and noticed that the information that's been added so far about the vessels is not so lengthy that the need for a separate article for each vessel, as this template anticipates, is apparent. I also noticed that some the vessels in the template are different from those listed in the articles. For example, the Aldeburgh article mentions the Christine, not listed in the template; the template instead lists the Lucy Lavers (ON 832), not mentioned in the article. The Southwold boats don't entirely match up, either.
I see why the title is confusing, but it could easily be changed to "Norfolk lifeboats and stations" or the like. The problem with the title isn't a valid reason to delete this template. —rybec 20:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the red links were fixed, and possibly more pages made for the relevant stations in Norfolk, then it could be a keep template, I see that there are only 3 stations with current red links but I am sure the template could be expanded. mtimmins92 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2013 (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) 01:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A wikiproject can keep a list of articles it wants to create in its own project space to track the work. Generating a navigation box that fails to provide anything useful to navigate serves the readers in no useful way. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There might be a case for this navbox if there were more articles, but there are currently only two. A navbox is not needed for cross-linking two pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have added further link to Lowestoft Lifeboat notes in the main Lowestoft article. Template is worth keeping to encourage further improvements on the subject of Lifeboats and rescue in this county.Cheeseladder (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now created Lowestoft Lifeboat Station page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeseladder (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that both the Norfolk and Suffolk templates suffer from "not doing what it says on the tin" and from the number of red links. The lifeboat articles - if they are really justified under notability criteria - deserve their own navigation box.
We have good examples of how to manage lifeboat station navigation. These boxes don't have to be county-level. I would have thought that Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk ought to be combined. This is how the problem has been handled in the South West: {{Lifeboat stations in Somerset and North Devon}}. The whole division has three templates: Dorset and South Devon, and Cornwall being the other two. Note that there are few red links, and the defunct stations link to the article for the respective town where it is unlikely that a lifeboat station article will be justified and created. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Layout that includes the lifeboats such as the Norfolk template is better, its easier to navigate through. There is not much red Ink, this should not be to much of a problem if the articles are likely to be produced.Dennisbluie (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleting this template would be rather like deciding what to wear before you've even been invited to the party.Along with the three lifeboat stations, there are several red ink pending articles in this template navbox, which, assuming good faith, will be created at some point. All these articles could remain disconnected without the navbox, this template navbox should remain to keep the connection within in this subject. Haydnaston (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2013 (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:Sidebar subsection

[edit]
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, seems that this template is now unused and now redundant to {{sidebar|child=yes}}. If this is not the case, please let me know, so we can find a solution. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sidebar subsection (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a solution to a problem which does not exist, rolled out far too quickly without discussion to satisfy personal aesthetic demands which aren't in line with the general trends in sidebar / template design (i.e. to remove unnecessary stylistic markup in favour of plain and simple content that can easily be edited without expert HTML knowledge). Removing it will involve backing out the changes made to incorporate it into its transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thumperward. I introduced this navbox a few days ago and have been adding to it since. I have copied this box to create several navboxes for the anthropology pages (Economic and development Anthropology; Medical, Cognitive and Psychological Anthropology; Political and legal anthropology). The original box was created by CsDx for the Economic Anthropology page. I'm not sure what the exact issue is, but if its a problem with this one, its a problem with them all. The rationale for using this was uniformity across the anthropology pages. There were lots of orphan pages that needed to be brought together, shown to be related, and made easily navigable in a standard way. The subsections are meant to make it easier to see how specific case studies are related to specific basic concepts. Is it the content or the subsections that is the issue? What does 'Removing it will involve backing out the changes made to incorporate it into its transclusions.' mean? Its harder to understand than the HTML ;) Schrauwers (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work on any sidebars which presently use this to give them the desired output once this is backed out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you use the word "once" here? CsDix (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's typically considered poor form to orphan templates while they're still at TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this template because I saw varying degrees of success in people's attempts to improvise subsections within sidebars. It has two primary parameters, "heading" (or "subheading") and "content" (or "subcontent"), whose primary names (i.e. those unbracketed here) I'd hope would be recognisable and readily understood by anyone who's used templates such as {{Sidebar}}. Having just revisted the template's page, I'd accept that the information there could probably be presented more helpfully, so, if the template survives, I volunteer to try improving its documentation. Better still, though, I imagine, is if someone other than the template's creator did so, or at least visited / amended it after I've tried to do so.
As regards the "to satisfy personal aesthetic demands which aren't in line with the general trends" bit, "methinks thou dost protest too much" – and "You presume a great deal, Mr Bond."
CsDix (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is potentially the case that we could do with baking subsection support into {{sidebar}} itself, or through a subclassed template along the lines of {{sidebar with collapsible lists}}. I don't think doing it in an ad-hoc manner with a div generator is the right way to go about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is readily evident from how people have tried to include subsections in sidebars that some sort of support for it would be desirable. I'm intrigued by your description of the template as "ad hoc" on the basis of using <div>, an HTML standard (the HTML standard?). Is that because it isn't "official" (i.e. hasn't originated from or isn't blessed by the likes of someone or some group) in the way e.g. {{Navbox subgroup ...}} might be? CsDix (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of both. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be that just having this discussion has affected the template's utility. See List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I for instance. An unintended consequence? JMOprof (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, now with lua, we should be able to add subheadings and subsections directly to {{sidebar}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the layout is better, its easier to navigate through... --TIAYN (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems to simplify formatting and keeps the subheading under the appropriate heading. Also put template for deletion in noinclude tags due it high repeat useage. —CodeHydro 15:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of clarification. I see that Frietjes refers to lua, which I assume refers to Wikipedia:Lua. If so, how does lua solve the alleged problem better than what seems like a relatively simple proposal§ that doesn't require specialized programming knowledge? The other alternatives I've seen for a subheading (plain text, bolded text, plain text with colon following) seem either too weak, too strong, or too non-standard for a subheading compared to italics for a sub-heading. Thank you.
§ I could understand it! --Thomasmeeks (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the lua comment refers to the fact that we can make these templates smarter now. for example, there is no longer a limit on the number of groups/lists for {{navbox}}. similarly it would be easy to make things work more like {{navbox}}, which has the ability to nest {{navbox|subgroup}} or {{navbox|child}}. we could have {{sidebar|subbox}} or {{sidebar|child}} as well. this would reduce the complexity of maintaining a second template, which, does not have nearly the functionality of the main template. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
another option would be to add functionality to {{sidebar}} to specify subheadings, say as |heading1-1= for the first subheading under |heading1=. this would actually reduce the complexity for the average user, since you would not need to nest a bunch of templates, but use one single template for both the headings and the subheadings. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, F., for remarks that touch matters large and small as to this section. For ease of reference, I number the following.
1T. Improving the functionality of sidebars, as suggested above, seems very worthwhile, especially if it involves copying or adapting Template:Navbox/doc into Template:Sidebar/doc, does not disrupt current sidebars, and is lucidly written.
2T. Even apart from that, my impression is that WP:SIDEBAR is a subset of WP:NAVBOX (same link for both). So, in principle including any parameters etc. from Template:Navbox/doc is reasonable in a sidebar if it solves some problem (such as suggested above per Template:Sidebar subsection). And that is so whether or not those parameters currently appear in Template:Sidebar/doc.
3T. The examples cited at the bottom of Template:Sidebar subsection (in the relevant sections where italicized subsections appear, such as at Template:History of Western philosophy) I think would convince most people that use of Template:Sidebar subsection solves a genuine problem, and in a way as uncontroversial as smaller subheading fonts following WP:Headings (which solution, however, seems precluded by the already-small font of sidebars). The Template:Sidebar subsection creator might be the first it shut down or adapt it accordingly if an alternative came along that solved the subsection-font problem more simply. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2013 (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) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to reiterate: I don't have an issue with discussing the addition of subsection functionality to {{sidebar}} itself, which would be more elegant. It's that this was created and then rapidly rolled out with the intention of cloning the existing style in templates which could frequently have done with a redesign that's problematic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, if we could get the ball rolling per se on making {{sidebar|subsection or whatever working, I think this would close fairly quickly as replace/delete. I had created {{infobox subbox bodystyle}} awhile back, which I would happily have deleted as well if we could add this functionality to both infobox and sidebar directly. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4T. The constructiveness of the preceding comment IMO suggests that the objective of {{sidebar|subsection}} might be incorporated into Template:Sidebar. If that should happen, even soon, I hope that its creator would receive appropriate recognition through an Edit summary or summaries, not just an archive on this page, to encourage such efforts, which surely evidence a lot of work and careful thought (not to say the last word). Conversely, if its initial reception here is an indication, it's hard to see how the template could have gotten any traction if it had first been presented as a proposal on a presumably appropriate Talk page. The present venue might be the best compromise.
5T. At the same time, if the subheading (a complication) could be avoided with equal or superior navigibility in a given sidebar, I'd go for that too in the interest of simplicity.§ I doubt that the "if" statement is satisfied in a generic sense, however, based on examples in the bottom section of Template:Sidebar subsection. I also doubt the its creator would object to its use as a template/sandbox for testing reworkings & possible substantive incorporation into Template:Sidebar.
§ I tried to make just such an Edit here. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would comment on your last diff link, but it appears to have a typo? Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, F. The link worked when I put the original WP:Diff link in at the "here" in the footnote above.# The link i.d. number has since changed (a surprise to me), so I replaced above.#
# In case the diff changes again, it's at Template:Anthropology, Revision as of 21:35, 2 April 2013, with one subheading ("Lists:"} becoming a heading and the other ("Categories:") disappearing, so no more subheadings in that template. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it would be great if anyone interested could comment on the thread at Template talk:Infobox. there is a proposal there to add functionality which would allow for nesting sidebars/infoboxes in the same way that we are able to nest navboxes. in my opinion, this functionality would render this template redundant. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: It is Frietjes who showed how to dispense simply with Template:Sidebar subsection but get a look very close to it at Template:History of Western philosophy here (my Edit but F's WP:Markup suggestions via discussion at Template talk:History of Western philosophy#Disputed WP:Markup in this template). The advantage of the latter is its simplicity with each subsection heading introduced by a:

| content = line (consecutively-numbered

after the first such line

followed by the subsection heading in italics with a leading colon :(italics).

For example, in that template the first subheading in markup looks like this:

| content2 =

followed on the next line by

:By era

which looks like this (text centered):

By era.

On F's edit above, IMO there's no inconsistency in also saying that Template:Sidebar subsection should not be deleted without first determining whether:

A. The proposed alternative is at least as functional (such as relative to the example cited above), perhaps via a side-by-side sandox comparison).
B. The documentation is as easy to follow as at Template:Sidebar subsection.

Without (B) being satisfied, it's hard to see a net advantage for most users who lack a strong a background in programming. For the record, I hope that others might follow up F.'s invitation above and that (A) and (B) will be satisfied. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2013 (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 Rice residential college

[edit]
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 with {{Infobox residential college}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Rice residential college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (which is also used for non-university colleges). May need to merge some parameters to that. Only one transclusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 20 March 2013 (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) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (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 Yale residential college

[edit]
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 with {{Infobox residential college}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Yale residential college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (which is also used for non-university colleges). May need to merge some parameters to that. 14 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: American residential colleges are a unique hybrid of residence halls and the Oxford/Cambridge college system. The Yale infobox is modeled after the infobox for the Oxford colleges (specifically on the featured Oriel College article), with appropriate adaptations to the Yale residential college system. A better option would be to merge other American residential college infoboxes (including the Harvard house infobox) with the Yale template, although each system exhibits unique characteristics. Please keep all the parameters specified in the Yale infobox. Nickknack00 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2013 (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) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (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.

Halls of residence

[edit]
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 with {{Infobox residential college}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University of Notre Dame residence hall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Harvard house (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Convert to generic "Infobox hall of residence" or merge to {{Infobox building}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:46, 20 March 2013 (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) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (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:As Cities Burn

[edit]
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) 18:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:As Cities Burn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With five recordings linked, this template just about scrapes through the minimum threshold in WP:NENAN ... but these recordings mostly appear to be non-notable. Four of them are now at AFD (EPs AFD, AFD: Hell or High Water, and AFD: Come Now Sleep) ... and if any of those deleted, the navbox has too few links to be needed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we are putting the cart before the horse in this case (pending the AfDs). There are still five articles in the navbox, and I believe that if 3 or 4 remain that are disconnected without the navbox, the navbox should remain until they are connected. Also, why isn't Son, I Loved You at Your Darkest at AfD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because unlike the others, it has reviews? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - "01:03, 24 March 2013‎ BrownHairedGirl(talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,088 bytes) (+64)‎ . .(Added "notability" and "unreferenced" tags to article" --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I can't recall why I didn't AFD it. Feel free to to bring it to AFD yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 25 March 2013 (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) 00:07, 8 April 2013 (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:Artension

[edit]
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) 18:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navbox for a non-notable band and its 7 non-notable albums. All the articles are at AFD:Artension; this template should be deleted unless 5 of the albums survive AFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Navbox has at least 5 articles, and if there are at least 3 articles within the navbox that are not linked together without the navbox, then the navbox should be kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The threshold of 5 has broad support at TFD.
    But more importantly, there is no evidence that any of the albums are notable. What are you playing at by trying to create navboxes for all the fluff that fails Wikipedia's basic inclusion criteria? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I was not notified of the lack of notability until after the fact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. If you are unaware that wholly unreferenced articles fail Wikipedia's basic inclusion criteria, 5 years after yous started editing here, then we have a serious problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Just because an article is wholly unreferenced doesn't mean that it does not have the potential to be kept (see WP:BEFORE). Bastian Emig was significantly expanded after the fact, as was Derek Jones (musician). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax 0677 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 March 2013‎
Reply. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bastian Emig. The article was bulked out with unsourced material, misrepresentations of sources, and now consists primarily of material referenced to his band's own website, contrary to WP:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable.
Derek Jones (musician) consists of 109 words of body text. It's a perma-stub, againj contrary to WP:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 25 March 2013 (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) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_8&oldid=1146552829"