Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16

edit

Template:I-22 aux

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links. Per past precedents, like this one from 2009, we ordinarily do not create these boxes unless there are at least 5 highways to link together, and this is only 3. Imzadi 1979 → 19:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 6. Primefac (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Parent monthly clean-up category progress

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).

The result of the discussion was keep with NPASR should the nom feel that it is still not a useful template (and not just a technical issue). Primefac (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this template seems to be to avoid a redlink on Template:Parent monthly clean-up category, but it causes a script error there instead, which is much worse. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The technical issue has been fixed, hence the relisting to garner a consensus on the (working) template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:University of Northern Colorado

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. BethNaught (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template with 4 links, one of which is the athletic conference the school is in. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It took me some time to sort out where your nomination ended and where your signature began. What are you proposing should be done about this template and what is the rationale for your proposed action? Thincat (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:New England sports

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates sports teams by state templates. All 6 New England states have their own template. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Miss Turkey

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

connects only two articles. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. The majority opinion feels that {{Zoos}} is a preferable method of linking the general topics, as opposed to sticking general lists inside of specific place-name zoo templates with a template such as this. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template seems to be added to every zoo navbox, which is not appropriate use, as the toplcs listed here are too broad to be linked in a geography specific navbox such as {{Zoos of California}}. Fails WP:NAVBOX. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, which I partly support, but then logically, the other links maybe also should be removed? Before I express any opionion, which links at the footer would you suggest as alternative? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the topics covered here are "too broad". They are essentially the same topics as are in the left column headings (zoos, aquariums, etc.), and they replace items that would otherwise probably be in the See Also section. Looking at the "Zoos of" templates now, I realize that the footer is actually redundant, since the categories at the left are linked. So if we retain the links on the left, I think this template becomes unnecessary. Don Lammers (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Are your serious Rob? You know there is a discussion ongoing, you are involved in that discussion, and you can see there is no consensus that items on a list which is listed on a template can't have this template. In fact this zoo template is the prime template focused on at the discussion. I put the templates on every zoo article, it is entirely appropriate and immensely useful for the Zoos project and for Wikipedia readers interested in particular zoos, and you once again are taking away weeks of my work for no reason other than you think something is policy when it is not only not a policy, not a guideline, but by ongoing discussion consensus seems perfectly fine. And Dan Koehl is taking your word as template-gospel? Please, Rob or Dan, put the templates back. Thanks.EDIT: strike, it's not the {{Zoos}} template, my mistake and apologies. Randy Kryn 18:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)/ 16:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have {{Zoos}} why do we need this? We can just have two footers at each article, one like {{Zoos of California}} and the generic {{Zoos}} together -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, the template Zoos footer isn't the same as template zoos. And yes, the {{Zoos}} template seems to me appropriate for each article. Randy Kryn 14:33, 21 November, 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure how to interpret this, are you suggesting a fusion of the two templates, e.g. that the template "Zoos of X-region" should in its footer incorporate the template {{Zoos}}?Dan Koehl (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am not suggesting a merger. I am suggesting we use template as other articles uses templates, that is, when appropriate, have more than one template as the footer templates on an article. There is no reason for a regional template to include generic information, when there is a generic template to provide those links. Just use a second template. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this template because I thought these items would be handy to have in individual zoo articles, and I had the same experience as Dan K. (see User talk:Dan Koehl#Zoos navbox, where my zoo article edits were removed on the basis of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I'm lazy, so rather than inserting these entries manually in every single "Zoos of" template, I created this template. I would personally prefer to use the two templates as 70.51.44.60 suggests. Randy K above says this bidirectional rule does not have consensus, but on at least two occasions in the past years, individual zoo articles have gotten modified to remove the second template, based on this rule. Putting at least some of that information "in the same template" (by using the footer) seemed like a better solution than not having any of the information. If we can keep people from editing out the Zoos template, there is no need for this template. Don Lammers (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have gone back before I posted and looked up the original, which was back in 2012. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoo/Archive 3#Zoos template. Don Lammers (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for whenever there is consensus that an article is improved by transcluding this template. Thincat (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom. Thincat's argument is irrelevant to this specific case. Its usage like so does not have consensus as in WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, which recently had a closed RFC confirming its consensus as a guideline. The template's usage here is not in keeping broadly and I find no specific reason to ignore the !rule. --Izno (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If nav templates are meant to clean up see-also clutter, then BIDIRECTIONAL is antithetical to that purpose. No set of see-alsos would be completely bidirectional, since there may be a list article included in the nav template that serves to link to the majority of articles, while the nav template itself appears in those SAL listed articles. I suppose the result of BIDIRECTIONAL would be the need to create a multitude of sidebar templates for more general navigation instead of neatly summing it up into navbar footers. This particularly would affect TV show episodes and characters, where episodes may not appear in the nav footer, but appears in the list, so would all need to be stripped of the TV show navfooter for no usefulness and much detriment, and much increased unorganized see-also clutter. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:ASB Mazembe 2011-12

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template dependent on an non-existent article MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:ES Sahel Basketball 2011-12

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template not needed anymore MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:The Beatles 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).

The result of the discussion was delete all except {{Born in the U.S.A. tracks}}. The precedent is to delete track listings when it is duplicated by a navbox. I'm not sure how BitUSA ended up in this list of Beatles' track listings, but since it has no corresponding "album" navbox it will be closed no consensus with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus for previous XfDs on such templates as redundant in place of {{The Beatles (White Album)}}. All of them should be deleted. I will be adding more such Beatles templates as I find them. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 16:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update. All of them have their respective templates, hence a tracklist is so WP:UNDUE and redundant. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 16:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and per precedent in previous discussions on similar templates. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Following the decision here, these track list templates need discussion on a general level. In other words: about whether they all – not just one or two at a time, nor just a handful of them by artist – should be removed. As in that August TfD, I'm suspicious about why nominators are intent on having these decisions made piecemeal and with such a select few involved, when there are project pages that can be used to attract as many editors as possible to a discussion regarding each and every track list template on the encyclopaedia. (It's not as if your average editor has any knowledge of this current discussion, unless they happen to be on a song page carrying the template and see the notification.) I think this avoidance of taking the issue to as wide a forum as possible is against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they are redundant and nothing proves that they are beneficial to any understanding when the exact same content is present in another template at the below of the article. You can be as much suspicious as you want but deletion discussions need not invite each and every wikiproject. If it bothers you so much, be my guest, but don't come here harping that people feeling redundant templates to be deleted are just "against the collaborative spirit". The Beatles are not an exception to other music artists to have redundant templates. And I will even argue your love of editing Beatles music articles is actually clouting your judgement and fail to see how much of an utter clutter these templates are. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I am suspicious. And you saying I'm "harping" and "whining" by voicing that suspicion when opposing your proposal typifies the disdain I think you show towards others. As for my focus on Beatles articles "clouting" my judgement, that's ridiculous: in the above-linked August 2015 TfD, I mentioned that the situation is the same for Bob Dylan's articles across the encyclopaedia. My position is based on what I've seen on Wikipedia since 2012, not what I want. But you obviously want to see each and every tracklist templates gone, which is why I would think it makes sense to discuss, what, hundreds(?) of them in one hit, elsewhere, instead of bringing a few here each time. Heck, if such a discussion did take place and it fell your way, then we'd all be removing the templates per consensus, and soon enough the job would be done – they'd all be gone. JG66 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Copyright violation

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Copyright violation with Template:Copyvio link.
Both templates say the same thing: "[copyright violation]". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Template:Copyright violation. The first template is for text that is possible a copvio. The second template says do not link to possible copy vio. The second template makes no sense. The second template suggests if you remove the link to a copyvio then it is okay to have a copyvio. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both The first is for text that violates copyright, while the second is for links to such texts. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Latest stable software release/ChatON

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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 6. Primefac (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-coded text used only in a single article. Better to just merge contents into article than hidden away in a template. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Ethnicity in Mexico

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Brian Topp Endorsements

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).

The result of the discussion was delete after merging text with the 2012 article. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template of just hard-coded text (including citations) that is used on two separate articles. The fact that an error found within this page would require someone on the main page to look for this template and then fix it is not the way things are done here. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Pedicab

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useless navbox; only been used to link between related music acts. Sixth of March 02:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Cruise Lines of Apollo Management

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links only to one article. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_16&oldid=1146660460"