Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 16 April 18 >

April 17 edit

Template:Jomo Cosmos 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jomo Cosmos squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Being 87% redlinks this qualifies under WP:NENAN. Technical 13 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Technical 13 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The navbox does have six links of the players. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although more blue links are preferable, there is nothing wrong with the template at this moment. The Banner talk 08:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a template for a professional club, links between half-a-dozen notable articles, and I am confident many of the red links will turn blue in due course. I would, however, suggest moving to {{Jomo Cosmos F.C. squad}} to match the parent article. GiantSnowman 10:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The league they play in is fully-pro so I bet that most of those red links are now notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even though there are too many red-links, the template should be kept even with only six blue-links. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Leading Hotels of the World 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. As pointed out below, this template is simply a wrapper for other templates, some of which have no blue links. Perhaps those should be nominated first or along with this template? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Leading Hotels of the World (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template contains probably close to a hundred internal links - in essence it's a mini version of the list in The Leading Hotels of the World. As such, it's cluttered to the point of WP:IINFO, redundant to the previously mentioned list (requiring twice the maintenance), and not helpful in most articles, as most readers who look for information about a specific hotel are not likely to be interested in an article about a random luxury hotel on some other continent. In addition, I'm not convinced that a hotel's membership in this association is so important that it needs to be prominently highlighted – promoted? – in a huge navbox at the bottom of each article.  Sandstein  18:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:CLN, navigational templates are complementary to lists and categories and we should not delete one to favour other methods. The use of the templates in particular cases is a matter for each article - the existence of the template does not require it to be used. Warden (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a narrow and overly-inclusive (there's a surprise) interpretation of CLN. While "duplicates a list" is not in isolation a valid criterion for deletion, it in this case indicates that there is a far more appropriate system available. For a set containing a very large number of members, especially where the set is mutable such as lists of current properties, categories and standalone lists are far more appropriate. As both such representations already exist, this is strictly redundant as well as being unmanageable and unwieldy to navigate by contrast. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue of redundancy is an artifact of the implementation by evolution. A more rational scheme would have the underlying data stored in a structured way in something like Wikidata and then displayed as a list/category/template/whatever, depending on the usage and context. Until the whole Wikiworld is reorganised upon such lines, we should keep the various attempts because the redundancy helps us check for errors and omissions. Warden (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't need a new metadata system for that purpose: the existing category system suffices perfectly well to taxonomise and navigate mutable sets. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nav box is shrunk down, that a lot of notable red links are missing is missing the point.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this template is simply a collection of individual regional templates. I see no reason why we can't simply use the subtemplates here, and get rid of this larger wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dr Blofeld. Why don't we just cut out any redlinks that are likely to never have an article? MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 08:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Yahzarah 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. Unfortunately, there was not as much input on this discussion as others. However, I found the argument that (1) there are one two albums and one single with articles compelling, as well as (2) the argument that Yahzarah discography does a great job connecting these articles, and (3) the argument that a small number of links could be placed in a see also section, or in the navigational portion of an infobox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN. Not enough links to warrant a nav box. The link to the discography immediately makes clear that there is nothing more to link. The Banner talk 11:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am perfectly aware that "[not] every freaking item needs a direct link to every freaking item", which is why I have refrained from creating navboxes about musicians without any solo career. Like motion pictures, putting every film that actors/actresses star in may create navbox clutter. However, IMO, in "Template:Yahzarah":

  1. All articles within [the] template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  2. The subject of the template [is] mentioned in every article.
  3. The articles [refer] to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  4. There [is] a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
  5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

Some of the articles involved are so long that having a conspicuous navbox would be helpful. What specific policy talks about "wikilinking in the articles"? Also, I did not ignore ALL of the criticism in the RFC. I have made sure to pipe links, include the navbox on most of the articles and try to include all articles in the navboxes that I can personally contemplate. Again, how was {{13th Floor Elevators}} not properly linked, and how was "Template:Venomous Concept" another example of an incomplete template that [I] only complete after a nomination? I hope this is not another example of questions that are ignored like before. This meets the rule of 5, so if Wikilinking is the solution, then there would be no navboxes at all.

BTW, the TfD for {{Rozz Williams}} has been open for over one month. When will it be dispositioned? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice try to deflect the criticism, but the fact that you corrected "13th Floor Elevators" the unpiped links quite quickly makes clear that you do know what the problem was. And it is rather annoying that you are now complaining about a template that was poor enough to delete. No matter how hard you are singing, people keep looking at the contents of your templates. The Banner talk 17:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I do know now what the problem with {{13th Floor Elevators}} was. The problem was formatting, not linking . Another user informed me that piping was the problem, and that's the only reason that I came to know about it. Exactly what template am I complaining about now that is "poor enough to delete "? To the questions that you ignored:
  1. What specific policy talks about "wikilinking in the articles"?
  2. Again, how was {{13th Floor Elevators}} not properly linked ?
  3. How was "Template:Venomous Concept" another example of an incomplete template that [I] only complete after a nomination?
On a side note, the TfD for {{Rozz Williams}} has now been open for over one month. When will it be dispositioned?
Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These questions are not relevant for this subject and a mere deflection from the case at hand. You know better, mr. Jax. The Banner talk 13:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Proper grammar should be used in XfD discussions. The first question acutally is relevant to this discussion, because The Banner brought up the topic of "wikilinking". The other questions were open at other relevant XfD discussions for quite a while, but remain unanswered. What does "you now better" mean? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off course, you use everything to get a deflecting of the real discussion. We are still discussing here "Template:Yahzarah" with just four (4) relevant links, a fact you want to hide under a lot of words to provoke WP:TLDR. And could you please remember WP:CIVILITY instead of mocking a typo while you make typos yourself? The Banner talk 13:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - There are five relevant links, "Bag Lady", Blackstar, The Ballad of Purple St. James, "Why Dontcha Call Me No More" and Yahzarah discography. Even if there were only four, many navboxes have been kept with this number of links. There is no evidence that I am trying to "hide under a lot of words to provoke WP:TLDR". I apologize for the incivility. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, can you prove with reliable sources that Yahzarah is the writer of that song "Bag Lady"? Up until know I have only found that she featured in the video, no proof that she wrote the song. Only acting in a clip is no relevant connection. The Banner talk 20:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - This reference and this reference state that Yahzarah was a backup singer for Erykah Badu, and that she performed backup vocals for "Bag Lady". In any event, there are still four articles about Yahzarah in addition to the parent article and "Bag Lady". The navbox for WFAHM was kept with only four articles.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, are you also going to add the cleaner and the receptionist of the studio to the people contributing to the song? The Banner talk 22:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - On what grounds should "Template:Yahzarah" be deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read the discussion above? The Banner talk 22:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Yes, I read the discussion above. Since Wikipedia is not a vote, I want to hear directly from Frijetes the exact reasons why he/she feels that the navbox should be deleted, instead of just saying "delete".
      • Note - The Banner deleted "Bag Lady" by Erykah Badu from the navbox. In accordance with WP:BRD, I am not reverting the removal, but ask that it be considered in this deletion discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_17&oldid=1078571101"