Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 24

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

July 24 edit


Template:Silver Bridge Fatalities 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Silver Bridge Fatalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Back in the 1960s, a bridge in the USA collapsed and killed some non-notable people. This template is nothing but a list of the people who were killed; it's not transcluded (and appears never to have been) and doesn't at all belong in template space. I don't know of any other page where it would be appropriate; a complete list of fatalities wouldn't be appropriate at Silver Bridge. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unused template that does not contain usable content. As mentioned, a full list of fatalities in the article Silver Bridge would not be appropriate, since it would constitute memorializing the victims of the bridge's collapse. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that it is not, really, a template, and is unusued. I suspect it was created as an article to be transcluded, but the idea foundered on the basis that it was a list of non notable people, albeit important to their nearest and dearest. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:25, 26 July 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:Gotras of Jats 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) 20:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gotras of Jats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not being well maintained if List of Jat clans is the definitive article containing all Jat clans. It is a subset of that list (though may in parts have entries not in the list), and it is not applied to all articles contained in it. If List of Jat clans is not the definitive list then there is a different discussion to be held about what is the definitive list. The article declares that there are 2,700 Gotras (clans), of which even the list is a subset. A navigation template is not unmaintainable for this size of group, but manual maintenance is a supreme challenge.

A navigation template is useless if it is (a) not up to date and definitive and (b) disagrees with what appears to be the definitive list.

I don't want to go down the "A template is better/worse than a list and/or a category" route. This template should be considered in isolation from a generic argument on templateness. The only reason I've nominated the template for discussion (note discussion rather than deletion) is because it simply is not being maintained well, and is perpetually out of step. It may be that the content is too huge for sensible maintenance. Bot maintenance has an appeal, though, and would solve the entire problem should a suitable bot be available. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason it's not "well-maintained" is that there is no absolutely accurate list of which gotras are Jats. There is, in fact, massive disagreement, and the constant changes are people supporting their own group or disparaging others. I recommend deletion of the template, because it is by definition impossible to maintain. Templates give the sense of highly consolidated information, of being a very accurate list of a big set of info. But this list cannot, by definition, be accurate. A list or article, can work, because it can be made to conform to WP:V through the use of citations (so that even if it is incomplete, at least what is provided is verified); that is not possible, though, with a template. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logic is reasonable, but I would prefer deletion as the step of last resort. My instinct suggests that a template ought to be a good thing if one can solve the maintainability issue, POV pushing notwithstanding over what is and is not Jat Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually find the template thoroughly useful for navigation as far as Jat clan-related articles are concerned. Of course, there is the problem of WP:V but I think a better route would be just to revert whenever anyone adds a link on the template which seems to fail verification. I actually have this template watch listed so I can look over, whenever that is the case, and a better action would be to request someone to provide verification if they try to add something in the template which doesn't seem correct. Most of the time though, it can just be verified by clicking on the article and using some common sense. Generally, the articles listed on the template are indeed Jat clans and relevant - I see very marginal possibility, if any, of errors. Mar4d (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the problem of the template getting too big - it's of decent size right now. It would be unlikely if it gets any bigger than this, the main Jat clans are already listed and have articles on Wikipedia. Other options can be explored if it gets oversized, but that's clearly not a problem right now. Mar4d (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me, but empirically there clearly is a problem in that the template is not up to date, despite several editors putting in valiant efforts. As you'll see by re-reading the nomination I am also in favour of keeping the template, but by somehow aiding the ability of the template and the articles it should be applied to being complete and up to date, hence my suggestion of a Bot, hitherto uncreated. I feel we should, with some precision, follow the heading of this page and discuss the template itself and how it might be better applied rather than taking the easy route of keep vs delete !voting. I brought it here very much in that spirit. I do not disagree at all that the template, if complete, would be wholly useful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Many of the articles lack verified references and are not well-written, but some of the articles are actually nicely put together. Perhaps a better plan would be WP:PROD the many poorly sourced Jat clan articles. MrX 19:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may be slightly missing the point? As it stands the template is very imperfectly maintained despite the valiant efforts of many editors. This is not about notability or verifiability of the underlying articles, but about the template itself, and whether it can either be rendered maintainable or should leave us. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I did miss the point. I was confusing templates with categories. Color me confused and consider my above comments retracted. MrX 22:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we'd value your opinion on the template though, once you have had time to consider it :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the extent that Gotras of Jats is of notable importance, then I think this template is useful and valuable. If on the other hand, it is analogous to a template that lists all of the family surnames in, let's say, the Northwest US, then I think the template (and perhaps the articles themselves) are somewhat trivial. I don't really know enough about the subject to weigh in more than that, however, I do agree that the template needs to be maintained, and I think a bot would be a good idea given the size of the template. MrX 12:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that, on the basis that consensus appears to be heading currently towards the fact that the template is useful but hard to maintain, I have made a request for a bot to perform the maintenance. If that is fulfilled then this discussion becomes superfluous, though it has been important to hold it in order to see what the consensus might become Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note Not that we should restrict discussion here, but we are 70% towards a Bot based solution to this problem (see the Bot Request). I'm content for someone to consider closing this early and closing it in favour of a bot based solution, if they feel this is an appropriate action. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:54, 29 July 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:P.m. 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:P.m. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:A.m. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, only a couple of uses--substitute and delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think {{p.m.}} is vastly easier to remember and use than {{sc|p.m.}}. I'm not sure why Template:p.m. can't simply call the small caps template. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, poor title, since it is equivalent to {{sc|pm}}, and not {{sc|p.m.}}. isn't this discouraged by WP:MOSTIME (states a.m. and p.m. should be lowercase)? Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I chose the version with periods because Template:Am was already taken. Generally in written English, you use "PM" or "p.m." (and not "P.M." or "pm"). I'm not sure if the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style agrees with this or not. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with plain text. Small caps should not be used for AM/PM per Frietjes' link. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:16, 27 July 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:Sfd top 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 some and keep others. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfd bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SfD-old business (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfd-t (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfd-c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfd-r (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfdisc list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfdisc sfd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfdisc top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfdnotify1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfdnotify2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfr-t (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfr-c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfr-r (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sfd-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:SFD is now marked historical. There is no need for these templates to exist. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete {{SfD-old business}} and {{Sfd-notice}}, since those two work only with WP:SFD. Also delete {{Sfd-c}} and {{Sfr-c}}, which now are redundant to {{Cfd}} and {{Cfr}}. Keep {{Sfd-t}}, {{Sfd-r}}, {{Sfr-t}}, and {{Sfr-r}}, for which WP:CFD has no equivalent templates and which can be repurposed. Also keep {{Sfd top}} and {{Sfd bottom}}; it may or may not be useful to use them instead of {{Cfd top}} and {{Cfd bottom}} to highlight discussions of stub types. Lastly, keep {{Sfdisc list}}, {{Sfdisc sfd}}, and {{Sfdisc top}} since are used by WikiProject Stub sorting independent of the existence of WP:SFD. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything that Black Falcon suggests keeping. I wouldn't have thought of this without his comments, but he's right that they could be modified for reuse in other deletion discussions. They should only be deleted if discussion conclude (at CFD or some other relevant place) that they're not useful there. Likewise, delete the four that he mentions, because they don't serve a unique purpose. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 25 July 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.

Nominated-for-deletion templates 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) 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multidel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Old AfD multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Multidel with Template:Old AfD multi.
I've looked over these templates, their documentation, and examples of how they're used on talk pages, and I can't see a difference. Why do we need both? Let's just replace all the transclusions of one with transclusions of the other and then redirect one to the other. No opinion on which one is better, so I'm not making a suggestion of which one should be merged and which one should remain. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment OldAfDmulti is specialized for AfD, but MultiDel is agnostic as to which deletion process is being used, so MultiDel is the philosophically better template, since it doesn't assume everything is an AfD, and then using extra processing to access non-AfD pages. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would take a tremendous effort of manually harmonizing the parameters since they are different in the two templates. I doubt any closing admin would undertake that gargantuan enterprise. __meco (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think both these templates (together with several similar templates) should be deprecated in favor of {{ArticleHistory}}, which is more general. It is handier to track article's history in one template, not in many. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{multidel}} uses a freeform list, whereas {{Old AfD multi}} has proper parameters. While the latter could theoretically be transmogrified into something that could be substituted to turn its transclusions into {{multidel}}s, that would lose rather a lot of semantic information. I'd rather simply deprecate {{multidel}}, as with only ~400 transclusions it's massively less popular than {{Old AfD multi}} (250 times that). As for merging to {{articlehistory}}, to my knowledge we've never tracked XfD in that template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate {{Multidel}}. It's the less standardised template, and by far the less used one. However, replacing all the instances of {{multidel}} with {{Old AfD multi}} would take a long time and be fairly unnecessary; if anyone wants to do it, go ahead, but in the short term we should keep multidel around and just note that it's not the recommended template for this purpose. Robofish (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)*[reply]
    There is some real use to {{Multidel}}, specifically on WT:CVU where a simple "listed - consensus" format would be insufficient to correctly inform the reader the MfD history of the page. Achowat (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give us an example of this sort of specialized {{multidel}} use? DMacks (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I prefer {{Old AfD multi}}, but it's apparent from this discussion that {{Multidel}} has its uses too. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those of you who are concerned about the workload of replacing one with the other — who says that we'd need to do it immediately? With a decision to get rid of one of the templates, the closing admin could replace that template's code with a warning saying not to use it; some people (like me) would be willing to whittle away at the backlog, and the presence of an annoying warning would surely induce others to help with replacement. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not personally fond of TfDs which have to be left in a holding pen for months pending their closure. Marking {{multidel}} as deprecated allows editors to update it at their leisure without keeping it hanging around here. It can be easily speedied once it's been orphaned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either I wasn't clear or you misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting leaving it for months; rather, I'm proposing that we do precisely what you suggested. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are currently about 550 links to {{multidel}} (including links to discussions about it, not just actual transclusions), so it's certainly reasonable for a few editors to plow through that pile without too much difficulty. DMacks (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case anybody is interested, here is an example of what the merged template would look like. It takes both sets of parameters. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand the issues, but found this debate through Template:Oldafdfull also redirecting to Old AFD multi. Orderinchaos 15:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My primary concern here wold be that the oldafd template is used a when AFDs are closed with any result other than delete. If the merging in no way whatsoever makes closing an AFD more complicated then I don't see a problem. If it makes more complicated in any way, shape, or form then I am opposed to it. We want closing AFDs to be a simple as possible in order to encourage the broadest possible spectrum of admins to pitch in there. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand. The templates are most often used when the result is "keep" anyway. And all the templates seem to handle "merge" results just fine. Keφr (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that the template is used a lot and closers are already comfortable with it and know how it works. Having never used the other one, I don't know if its functionality is as simple to understand and if it will fit as easily into the closing process. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that. Well, Template:Old AfD multi requires one to break down discussion information into a machine-readable structure, and the other template allows free-form markup. So one of the potential transitions would not be mechanical. Though this is the one I would prefer. By the way, I'd like to ask, are there any scripts that close the discussion and place the template automatically? Keφr (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The script I use to close afds does not. But in most cases the template is preloaded in the afd tag on the article and all you have to do is copy it and paste it to the talk page if it is kept or change the word "keep" to "no consensus" or "merge/redirect" depending on the result. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rather than expending the energy effort to fix what ain't broken, wouldn't it be better spent improving content? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True; however, the simultaneous existence of both templates means that confusion results, so something is broken. Nyttend (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a bizarre and pointless comment. Rather than attempting to dictate what harmless activities other volunteers are engaging in, shouldn't you be doing whatever it is you think everyone should be doing? People don't come behind the scenes in WP because there are tons of new things to be said about President Taft and iron oxide. Content creation plateaued years ago, Wikipedia is a holding pan, and most people here amuse themselves with bureaucracy. I could give two craps about the latest Justin Beiber singles, but if you think that time is better spent there, then by all means go there. Obviously the people that have already commented here see value in this exercise, no matter how "ain't broke" it is. If you have a valid concern about the ramifications of the merger, that would be welcome, but whatever you hope to accomplish with self-righteous wingeing is beyond me. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate {{Multidel}} per Nyttend. Leaving that template with a notice would give us the leisurely time we may need to effect the transition. __meco (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment —— {{Old AfD multi}} should be kept. I agree with Nyttend here.  Brendon is here 10:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -If its not broke dont fix it. The template works and is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I agree with BabbaQ & co., there's no need to do merge or delete or whatever, both templates are in use and work perfectly fine, reorganising them would just be pointless busy work.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 12:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, and don't merge BabbaQ has it right: "If its not broke dont fix it". I don't see the justification of Nyttend's comment "the simultaneous existence of both templates means that confusion results, so something is broken." What confusion? What is broken? Even if some people can't see any point in keeping them both, doing so does no harm. It is clear from this discussion that some people want to keep both as options, and those who don't want them both can simply not use them, or use only one of them. There has been a good deal of discussion of how difficult or easy it would be to make the change, but, as far as I can see, nobody at all has given any explanation at all of what harm is done by having both templates. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both. I have to agree with BabbaQ, et al - this is a solution in search of a problem. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. Keeping both creates work for everyone closing XfDs: they have to choose between multiple overlapping templates with the same goals, they have to port features from one to the other, and any attempts to automate extraction from either have to be altered to work with the variants. None of these things may be visible from the outside, but at the same time it is beyond pointless (actually rather counterproductive) for editors who neither know nor care about these problems to be passing comment at TfD ("pointless busy work", as it were). "Some people want to keep both options" is not an argument in itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I am following your logic there. If we leave things as they are oldafdfull will continue to be the default that is built in to the AFD tag in most cases. Those who wish to use the other one can do so if they choose, the rest of us can just keep doing it the way we've been doing it. Right? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an argument for allowing these templates to be forked at will. Assuming that one rejects that argument, it stands to reason that any variants of the default template should have some compelling reason to exist considering the burden that they impose on general template maintenance. Thus far there's been little in the way of argument for this particular variant. Additionally, as I said, the more structured template makes it considerably easier to extract data automatically, which is as good a reason as any to use it everywhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ::(talk) 07:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)"Some people want to keep both options" was not given as "an argument in itself". It was given as a subordinate clause in the context of other argument. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I'm not tryong to be difficult or contrary here but I honestly don't understand your point. If you could expand on the concept of "the burden they impose on general template mainenance" it might help. To me, someone who doen't work with template maintenance, a template I don't use but could if I wanted to is just another tool in the shed. It is not requiring anything of me when I close AFDs because I did not know it existed before this discussion and I now that I do I don't plan to start using it, so nothing is more is required of me than there ever was when closing an AFD. I feel like I am completely missing the point of your argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Primarily for reasons enumerated by BabbaQ and UltraExactZZ. It should be noted that there would be a case where we'd want to convert from one to the other (like GNAA and it's many troll nominations going from OldAfd to Multidel to make the list easier to add to) or to handle simple and long standing community tradition. Hasteur (talk) 13:52, 9 August 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:Visegrád Group 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. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Visegrád Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This article is barely more useful than the one below: it links five articles, which are also fairly well linked to one another. I don't think there's a need for a navbox here. Robofish (talk) 21:01, 16 July 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) 03:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template has microscopic utility and its main function seems to be ornamental. A map would serve the purpose of visually showing the members of the group much better, and such a map already exists in the main article. It would probably be superfluous even in the country articles, where simply naming the other members ought to suffice. __meco (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accounting for this one-touch reversal I suddenly realize this navbox conforms with and dovetails with other navboxes to fellow members of other international groupings, such as NATO, the EU, Council of Europe, and so on. It belongs in this company and the template should be treated on par with the rest of these navigational templates. __meco (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per This, that, and the other's comments on the Weimar Triangle. Unlike NATO, EU, CoE, etc., this group consists of just a small number of countries in close geographical proximity to each other. We can expect all of them to be linked to each other in the text, unlike the other groups; there's no reason to assume that Turkey and Iceland (NATO) or Azerbaijan and Luxembourg (Council of Europe) will link to each other in a context that reminds the reader of those organisations. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with user Meco.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Frietjes and my own comments on the TFD below. In addition to those comments, I just want to mention that country articles are overflowing with navboxes, and we must choose very judiciously which ones we include. Visegrád is a minor international group, and as such, this navbox is not a net benefit to readers. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary navbox clutter. As for Meco's comment, above, technically I agree that the navboxes of international groupings should be treated the same... and be deleted. Membership in an international organization is hardly so important to deserve a navbox, and it's a very unlikely way to browse articles (why should I learn about e.g. each NATO country, one by one?). User can easily navigate to other members by going to the article about said organization. Since it's hardly possible to delete them all simultaneously, we might as well start from minor ones, like this one. No such user (talk) 06:42, 2 August 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:Weimar Triangle 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) 02:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weimar Triangle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is virtually useless: it's only used on two pages, and only links four articles, which are adequately linked to one another already. Poland has more than enough navboxes at the end for this one to add anything useful. Robofish (talk) 20:59, 16 July 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) 03:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I can't see how this would be useful. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. This template has microscopic utility and its main function seems to be ornamental. __meco (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Accounting for this reversal I refer to my rationale given for the preceding nomination. This navbox conforms with and dovetails with other navboxes to fellow members of other international groupings, such as NATO, the EU, Council of Europe, and so on. Since this group is a more loose organization than the ones I mentioned, including the Visegrád Group (it appears to me), my opinion is less emphatic than in the above nomination though. __meco (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unnecessary; WP:NENAN. The articles about the three countries are already sufficiently interlinked (I can say that even without looking at the articles!), although perhaps the linking to Weimar Triangle could be improved if necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Navboxes are there to add to the reader's underatanding of the subject and to ease navigating to related articles. Or, they are needless clutter that doesn't do either of those things. This one is the latter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 28 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_24&oldid=1138696148"