Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24 edit

Template:FK Turnovo squad 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) 05:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK Turnovo squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very few links one of which is already an afd looks to have been nominated for deletion by the creator but for some reason did not make it through to the daily page. Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to have a real purpose. GiantSnowman 12:29, 2 September 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:Aharon Keshales and Navot Papushado 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) 05:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aharon Keshales and Navot Papushado (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs a navbox. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nominator. We're not gonna wait two or three years for this template to meet the minimum of usefulness (and that's even assuming a new film is in progress). LazyBastardGuy 02:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is already announced that they are working on their next feature - a western called "Once Upon a Time in Palestine". I don't see what's the hurry to delete this template. Zaevet (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And when will this film be released? When will it receive an article that won't be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL? There aren't enough links here for a navbox to be terribly useful. It also has yet to be seen whether this film will actually be made (yes, filmmakers can and do get held-up, postpone or cancel films in development). In fact, I don't think five links justifies this navbox. I imagine another link or two might, but right now it's not necessary. LazyBastardGuy 19:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that this template is not terribly useful, but it is some what useful. I agree that it is not necessary, but I don't agree it should be deleted at this time. But, since you are not suggesting to delete this template for good, but only until "another link or two" will be added to it - I fail to see what's the hurry for deleting this template now (just because it's not "terribly" useful), only to restore it again, in the future. There is no harm in waiting a bit. Zaevet (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, how long will that be? I recently had a template for my favorite band deleted. Why? They have two albums with articles, one of their members has a page, the band itself has a page, and that's it. Four articles. I don't even know if they're still together or what they're working on now, so I didn't see a point to keeping that template around until then. If this new movie was just announced, it's going to be at least two years until it gets released. In the meantime, this template isn't very helpful. It's not going to hurt anyone to wait a while longer to make this template. We have yet to see if this movie will even be released. LazyBastardGuy 20:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that all of the information in the template now - is correct, and this information is not going to change? (the name of a movie will not change, the release year will not change, the directors' names etc). Do you agree with this? Zaevet (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue here. The issue is whether it has enough links to warrant being kept. At the moment it does not, and it is my opinion that we should not wait until it does. There is no guarantee, per se, that it will, even with the new movie in development. Navboxes are meant to be helpful, but only in cases where readers may get rather lost without them - it's not likely they would in this particular case. Subjects on the template could be connected with a "See also" section or even just the directors' filmographies. (Just to add, it seems likely that the two film articles would likely be well-connected in a similar manner already, e.g. "This is the second time these two directors have collaborated, the last time being Film", or at least that they could be; if the articles can be completely connected to each other without a navbox then there shouldn't be one.) LazyBastardGuy 22:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete the navbox, than Rabies (2010 film) and Big Bad Wolves will not be connected to each other. And I find this Navboxes the be the most helpful way to connect these articles. Zaevet (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are two articles. They do not need a navbox to be connected. Like I said, they could be connected via a mention of the two directors' collaborations (e.g. "This was the first/second film on which they collaborated; they would collaborate again/had previously collaborated on (whichever)"). And the two directors having their names on each article and the films on each of their filmographies ought to be sufficient; if need be, a note on each filmography could explain that one co-directed with the other. A navbox is not necessary nor all that useful at this time. LazyBastardGuy 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Speedying isn't really appropriate, but the simple fact is this doesn't have enough links in the navbox to justify it, and is unlikely to any time soon (if ever). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrew my vote for a speedy, but I still think it should be deleted. LazyBastardGuy 19:28, 27 August 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:ASI Monument row duplicate 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) 05:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ASI Monument row duplicate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; undocumented; purpose unclear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, created back in October 2012 and neglected since. Creator did not specify intentions with template or how it is to be used, and is not likely to return to complete the job. LazyBastardGuy 08:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete unless it is superseded in some way. Like the title says, it is a duplicate. The template is fully functional, and can be used when someone wants to create exactly identical lists as the ASI Monument lists, but doesn't want the contents to overwrite the original lists in the monuments database (basically a sandbox or event based list). Please first confirm with User:Karthikndr whether the Indian team intends to use it again this year. effeietsanders 09:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per LBG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:12, 27 August 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:K. Beerschot AC squad 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) 05:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:K. Beerschot AC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Team went bankrupt in June 2013 and no longer exists. See Beerschot AC article. Pelotastalk|contribs 22:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not really sure that's grounds for deletion. It could be amended to say "Last Squad" (forgive me as I have no familiarity whatsoever with this topic), but I don't think deletion is the answer. Former teammates may also be included to "finalize" the template, so to speak, and I say this because there seem to be enough links for the navbox to be usable per WP:NENAN. Also, it's not as if when a band breaks up its template suddenly goes away. LazyBastardGuy 02:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is common to have templates for "current squads" for association football squads, to navigate between the players that are currently playing in a club. When the club is defunct and the player has moved on to others club, I don't see the point in having a template for the players that happened to play for this club at the time it was defunct. If it was a band, we could list all the former members of a band, but we shouldn't have a template for all the 182 former Beerschot AC players. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. It's a considerably more complex issue than with the members of a musical group. Good thing I hadn't cast a vote for certain, just wanted to be sure this was the answer ;) With that I would like to say Delete per Mentoz86. LazyBastardGuy 19:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, is there an essay for when navboxes have too many links to be useful? LazyBastardGuy 19:05, 27 August 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 Windows component 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 Keep. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Windows component (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Windows component with Template:Infobox software.
Redundant to {{Infobox software}}. We can add to this {{Infobox software}} param 'component_of' and 'included_with'. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose: consider renaming to "Infobox OS component" instead. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hi. I don't think it is redundant at all. They have very little in common. These parameters are unique to this template:
|service_name =, |service_description =, |included_with =, |also_available_for =, |replaces =, |replaced_by =, |support_status =, |related_components =
Adding them to {{infobox software}} will make it unwieldy. Besides, there are editors who'd like to just fill in every parameter and that's the recipe for disaster.
Instead of letting loose the dogs of war, let the sleeping monster lie. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. ElectroPro (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose however I believe renaming and generalizing/expanding its use as {{Infobox OS component}} could be done right. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment considering the opposition, perhaps instead, this should be generalized into {{infobox software component}} -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - two separate infoboxes, one generic, one with a more specific, and valid, purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Infoxbox software is far too generic. Don't be afraid to have well-tuned, purpose-built templates for subjects on Wikipedia that have hundreds of articles. Microsoft Windows is a massive subject... it's okay for it to have a couple of its own templates. I don't mind the idea of changing it to a "Infobox software component", but this shouldn't be done unless someone working on some articles for another massive software subject sees a need for it. Warren -talk- 13:23, 2 September 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 OS version 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox OS version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox OS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox OS version with Template:Infobox OS.
Redundant to {{Infobox OS}}. We can add a family param as an option. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge There is no place for two templates which do the same job. --Uniwersalista (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but merge Infobox OS version with Infobox OS rather than the other way around. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No need for two . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. We can keep both by forwarding most of arguments further to {{Infobox OS}} and by making it more extensible. — Wizardist t +c 11:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as being redundant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional merge: assuming that separate RTM and GA date parameters are provided after the merge. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate. Hi. Do you even know how different their underlying infrastructure is? I do know. It is different enough to cause a backlog of changes to a large number of articles which we can simply avoid by letting them be separate. The merge is purely technical, so let the sleeping devil lie. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge redundant template Widefox; talk 18:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I too agree this is redundant and {{Infobox OS}} can be extended to function for all current cases of their use. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: We don't make episodes of individual television series use {{Infobox television}}, but {{Infobox television episode}}. Unfortunately, there are few television series that only release an episode every 2-3 years, and there are not enough unique parameters to justify having two separate templates in this case. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge os version into OS. if the syntax from OS version can be extended into OS (or at least, use the same parameters), it should be a simple AWB job to convert all transclusions, even if the parameter labels are changed. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It just makes it simpler and easier. There is no point having two infoboxes. EverythingGeography (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: two is too much.OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 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:And? 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) 04:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:And? (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article, undocumented, other templates that are more clear and more civil could be used instead. GoingBatty (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant to the templates {{Clarify}}, {{Ambiguous}}, and possibly {{How}}. Although the intended purpose for this template is not clear, it seems that it is already taken by one of these aforementioned templates. It might be better used as a redirect page to a larger-encompassing template in the future. — |J~Pæst|  16:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like JPæst said, it's redundant to several other more specific templates. Also, it's not terribly civil. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per JPaest (purpose seems unclear) and Cymru (seems mildly impolite). Also seems rather WP:POINTy and suited for use for when one user doesn't think, in their own opinion, that the attempt at substantiating notability is clear (we have processes and templates for that already). It seems to be made for when the material available is insufficient to establish notability, but the tooltip (hover over it for just a moment) says the sources are in question, not the material. Can't seem to make up its mind... LazyBastardGuy 02:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant in agreement with others. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template creator agrees with the deletion - see User talk:Kraŭs#Nomination for deletion of Template:And?. GoingBatty (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How its used in an article seems to indicate that this is for marking statements that are incomplete/need more detail... ViperSnake151  Talk  17:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hover over it for a moment and it says the sources aren't good enough, which is very confusing. Even if this could be fixed through normal editing we have other templates such as {{better source needed}} and various notability templates. LazyBastardGuy 19:02, 27 August 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:Fb team Al-Orobah 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) 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Have only one team listed.--Mishae (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those are reasons for keeping, and it looks like a whole bunch of those other things should go. And it's also incredibly unclear what a lot of those templates are even for... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:07, 7 September 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:Derive 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 14. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Derive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Etymology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Derive with Template:Etymology.
These two serve the same purpose. {{etymology}} seems to be meatier and more robust (uses {{ISO 639 name}}). — Lfdder (talk) 12:53, 24 August 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 micronation 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox micronation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox micronation with Template:Infobox country.
Redundant to {{Infobox country}}. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Cleary no need for two templates; the distinction is arbitrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - All the functionality of {{Infobox micronation}} could be handled by {{Infobox country}}. TDL (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think there's a difference between country and micronation: "Micronations, sometimes also referred to as model countries and new country projects, are entities that claim to be independent nations or states but which are not recognized by world governments or major international organizations." We're talking about things like the Principality of Sealand. Maybe it would be better to keep the two things separated. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone disputes that there is a difference between a country and a micronation, the question is do we need two separate templates given that they do almost identical things? Why not just create a |micronation = yes parameter or something which turns on any special "micronation code"? That way we can avoid forking the main infobox code. As an example, {{Infobox geopolitical organisation}} redirects to {{Infobox country}} even though these are very different things. TDL (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Mine was just a comment, maybe sometimes it's better to have some redundancy for better clarity. But your solution would be fine too. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - As mentioned above, a single template with some kind of a |micronation = yes parameter would most likely be easier to maintain. There doesn't seem to be a lot of specific code for micronations. Patheticcockroach (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - I've been asked to comment as the creator of this template. When I created the template, there was (I recall) a lot of talk about the labels, which is why everything has "purported" and "claimed" etc. These should probably be retained if merged. --Billpg (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seems to be a tendency to try and merge infoboxes into super-infoboxes which cover everything {{infobox country}} is one and {{infobox office holder}} another. There is a lot good to be said for this as there are about 5000 different infobox template. The problem is that these super-infoboxes are getting more and more complex, infobox country currently has 216 parameter and infobox office holder over 1000. The new VisualEditor and the TemplateData system makes this problem a little more important. Having to scroll through 200 parameter to find the one you need is inconvenient. Its actually impossible to completely document infobox office holder as there is a hard 64K limit of the template data size. Maybe its time to put a limit on the complexity of infobox country. Having to add some switch to change all the labels, or possibly a bunch of new parameters is just going to add to the complexity.--Salix (talk): 16:10, 1 September 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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_24&oldid=1136066813"