Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

July 6 edit

Template:Khowar topics 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) 03:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Khowar topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is unused but it's also problematic because it consists mostly of red links and of blue links that appear to be unrelated to the khowar language. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only relevant articles is Khowar alphabet. The other four blue links don't even contain the word "Khowar". Pichpich (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have created Template:Khowar topics for khowar language spoken in Chitral Pakistan. like this template Template:Urdu topics is available. The template will be used in khowar language articles. I am writing articles about the red links of khowar language. The template is related to the khowar language. Please do not delete this template, with kind regards - Rachitrali (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and Rachitrali can return this to template space once more of the articles have been written. Also, remove the irrelevant and barely relevant links, and make it more clear where some of the links go. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Japanese language for a better format for a language template, or Template:French language for a sidebar design. I see Japanese as having a better model. Of course, the both templates include many items particular to those languages, but there are some universals, such as writing system, grammar and literature. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, another format that could be followed is Template:Pashto language. Mar4d (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir, I am writing articles on the redline topics. -Rachitrali (talk) 09:09, 23 June 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) 22:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now, seems like a valid topic for navigation. reformatting it could be useful. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 9 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:Infobox Twin Peaks episode 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) 03:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Twin Peaks episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only in use on one article. Could use {{Infobox television episode}} instead. May need an additional param in Infobox television episode to allow for "Guest actors" title to be changed though. WOSlinker (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has the scope to be used in thirty articles, however; though additional tinkering to {{Infobox television episode}} would essentially render it obsolete. GRAPPLE X 19:58, 6 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:Infobox Stargate episode 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) 03:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Stargate episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used and redundant to {{Infobox television episode}}. Was in use on a single eposide, Rising (Stargate Atlantis) but I've converted that one. WOSlinker (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant. --Rs chen 7754 03:36, 14 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:Dams in Pakistan 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 to merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dams in Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pakistani water locks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Dams in Pakistan with Template:Pakistani water locks.
There is a significant overlapping in the coverages of these templates. Beagel (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from creator: Pakistani water locks is more focused towards structures such as barrages, dams, and headworks on the major rivers in Pakistan. Dams in Pakistan is focusing only on dams (small dams also which are not technically waterlocks) in different regions of Pakistan. I thought of it too before creating the new template but merging the two will be too messy, most of the dams in the list are on small tributaries. Anyways, IMO both templates have different scope and merging will be difficult.

Also there are around 150 dams in Pakistan and I am trying to create articles for all over time. It will be suitable to have a 'dam only' template for easy navigation without involving headworks, barrages, bunds or other structures. I request to keep the two templates separate, but if the decision is otherwise I will respect that. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 15:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I counted at least seven articles on locks that are also on the dam list. With that though, every lock on the template is probably supported by a dam, a small one at least. The potential for duplicity is strong unless the dams template is renamed "Large dams in Pakistan", those >15m (per ICOLD). Otherwise the templates should be merged.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the water locks (barrages and headworks) might form a small reservoir but they are not considered or termed small dams (I hope I understood your comment correctly) and therefore cannot be added in 'Dams in Pakistan'. I intended to have complete scope (both large and small as per ICOLD definition) in the Dams template. Anyways like I said I won't argue of the final decision is merge. Its just that the merged form will be too heavy and messy for a template and for easy navigation. Also if the final decision is merge, please also put in suggestions on how to do this.

Name of river followed by list of locks/dams like in water locks template. (This will probably have more than 50 rivers and tributaries.)
Name of province followed by locks/dams like in dams template. (This will exclude the concept of water locks template which basically show major structures on major rivers only.)

Or we can remove name of dams from water locks template and keep its scope to barrages, headworks, ROR. Sounds confusing but I hope I am able to convey my point :) Samar (Talk . Contributions) 21:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of merging provided that dams and water locks are listed separately in the merged template. A clear distinction has to be made between a dam and a water lock as the two are separate structures otherwise it would be confusing. Poloplayers (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are two separate lists; List of dams and reservoirs in Pakistan and List of barrages and headworks in Pakistan. The scope of both lists is clearly identified. The templates should be accordingly edited with Template:Pakistani water locks only focusing on headworks/barrages and Template:Dams in Pakistan only focusing on dams (both large and small). I have removed the names of six dams from water locks template. Moreover I suggest to rename the water locks template to Barrages and Headworks in Pakistan so there is no further confusion and overlapping. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clarification provided by Samar. Both templates are designed for different purposes, better to keep as seperate. Mar4d (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changed my mind. Since dams have been removed from the Water Locks template by Samar. The merged template would become too cluttered and confusing, unless, as I mentioned earlier, the template bifurcates the two categories, which may not be possible. I also support Samar's proposal to rename the "Water Locks in Pakistan" template as "Barrages and Headworks in Pakistan" so as to streamline with the List of barrages and headworks in Pakistan page. Poloplayers (talk) 18:38, 7 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:WA U.S. Routes 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 -- Selket ^Talk 19:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WA U.S. Routes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to both the Category:U.S. Highways in Washington (state) that's present at the bottom of each article and the link to List of U.S. Routes in Washington present at the bottom of the infoboxes in each article. This navbox practice has been deprecated ty WP:USRD for a while. Imzadi 1979 → 06:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over a dozen articles use this navbox. Why were those editors wrong in thinking that the navbox gave them functionality in addition to categories and any "list of" articles? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a cite for the USRD practice, and did it go through a full RfC, or is it simply a stylistic choice that is not binding? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thirteen similar navboxes for Interstates were deleted in January, see: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 21#Template:Iowa Interstate Highways. Imzadi 1979 → 07:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these were all nominated as unused. You gave a rationale that it is against USRD policy. Do you have a citation for your actual rationale? Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. Iowa was nominated as unused. You nominated the others as being against USRD policy, but again failed to provide any link to said policy. So you've used the same argument twice without citation. If these kinds of templates are, in fact, deprecated by USRD, and this is policy, they'll have it written down somewhere, and we'll be able to actually evaluate what the policy is. Right now, I only know what your interpretation is, not what the policy actually is. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were unused because the project in general has moved away from using navigation boxes, minus a few pockets where they have lingered. Looking through Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles and Category:A-Class U.S. road transport articles for the recent promotions into the upper tiers of articles, you'll find very few navboxes in general, outside of those similar to {{I-55 aux}}, which is the only type of navbox mentioned in WP:USRD/STDS, the project standards page. Some metro areas have freeway-based navboxes (or general ones for all sorts of topics related to the metro area, not just highways), which isn't the same situation here. Some states, like Illinois retain an Interstate-specific navbox because that state doesn't have its "List of Interstate Highways in Illinois" list created and listed from the bottom of the infobox at this time. Similar navboxes just for state highways (not Interstates nor US Highways) were deleted between 2005 and 2009 per WP:USRD/P#State highway system templates. The project has just moved away from this sort of practice, and while it has never formalized a deprecation of it, it has certainly come out in favor of past deletions. Imzadi 1979 → 07:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is used. Furthermore, all the templates on USRD/P are navboxes for state routes, not US highways, and you again ignore the actual reason why those templates were deleted - namely that they are large, unruly, and red link farms. This is demonstrably false in regards to this navbox. The fact is, there is no policy that actually deprecates these templates, and the reasoning behind deleting similar templates does not exist here. Deleting this navbox would be applying an invented policy for counterfactual reasons to a useful and used template. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 08:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonstandard, and because categories are preferred. --Rs chen 7754 08:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the article List of U.S. Routes in Washington. V C 17:37, 6 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:State highways in Washington related to I-82 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:State highways in Washington related to I-82 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links to three articles, per WP:NENAN Imzadi 1979 → 06:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me to deletion I'm guessing I must have moved it from the end of an article as I wouldn't have created it from scratch . -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should have a half-dozen or so related articles, and this one isn't going to be expanding beyond three any time in the near future. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, make that four. I-182 could be on there as well. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it only links to three articles. V C 17:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G7 since the creator asked for deletion, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 6 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.