Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 28 August 30 >

August 29

edit

Template:Complete article

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) 04:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Complete article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia articles will never be "complete and up-to-date". There will always be room for improvement, and information about subjects are changing all the time. The template can also lead to potential conflicts about what would be considered "complete and up-to-date". We already have featured-article topicons that give more-or-less the same message, and FAs are based off of a rigorous review process. This template is not used in any articles. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia strives to cover all areas of a subject. When an article is obviously missing important areas, {{incomplete}} may be applied. However, we have no way of ensuring that an article is in fact "complete and up-to-date". Information about subjects is changing all the time. Wikipedia already identifies articles that show the best of what we have to offer, and those articles are indicated with a featured article star at the top of the page. By saying that an article is complete, we are essentially saying that there is no longer a need to edit the page anymore, when in reality all pages, regardless of their status, can be improved in any number of different ways. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By marking an article as incomplete, we are essentially saying that every unmarked article is complete and doesn't need editing. Hyacinth (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Stable versions is "currently inactive". Are you saying {{Stable}} makes this template redundant? Hyacinth (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The CD version, Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection, uses a specific revision of an article. Mark that revision as the candidate version for the CD/DVD/print edition. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notice that a date is used in the template, which implies that after that date the article may need revision? Hyacinth (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the implication (ie. new facts can make complete versions incomplete) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:28, 5 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:Baltic states

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) 00:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baltic states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countries of Europe}}. Don't need a navbox for every country grouping there is, esp. when there's just three of them. — Lfdder (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. USchick (talk) 17:04, 31 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:Countries bordering the Black Sea

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) 00:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Black Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List can be added to the article. — Lfdder (talk) 22:08, 29 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:Countries bordering the Red Sea

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) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Red Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 22:05, 29 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:Countries bordering the Arabian Sea

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) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Arabian Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 22:03, 29 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:Countries and territories bordering the Indian Ocean

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) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories bordering the Indian Ocean (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this navbox useful? It lists so many countries, from Australia to Yemen, how does it improve navigation?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. It allows users to locate and navigate though all these many articles at minimal time, instead of trying to remember or guess the articles relevant to his search. Whenever I am searching for geographic info, I usually use these kind of templates. Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a better way to do that is with Indian Ocean#Bordering countries and territories. "trying to remember or guess the articles relevant to his search" is easy, you just type in the name of the ocean, and you have the list. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all countries around a body of water are interconnected and co-depend on that water for their economy, trade, security, etc. USchick (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a useless navbox: virtually no-one is going to want to navigate between these countries on this basis. There is no political or economic grouping of countries which border the Indian Ocean, and relations between countries on the African and Asian sides of this huge Ocean are generally not strong. Nick-D (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indian Ocean studies has in fact been a specific academic topic in the past, and as a consequence any form of linking the specific entities that are bound by the water is useul - and the perspective is useful for the geographically and information challenged - not perhaps the better geographically oriented enquirer. sats 08:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per USchick and sats. Bazonka (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are topics which relate to the land masses around the Indian Ocean, and, honestly, as SatuSuro said above, not everybody who might seek such sometimes geographical information will necessarily know all the relevant countries and territories. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the inherent relationship between the countries mentioned in the infobox. They share common economic, geographic, and cultural attributes. Whether such commonalities are defining is not really the question; as long as the countries in this grouping can be seen to be connected in a meaningful way, I see purpose for this template. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it useful for navigation. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:33, 20 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:Countries bordering the Persian Gulf

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) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Persian Gulf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, a body of water is a unifying characteristic for a set of countries; a body of water is "bigger" in the sense of geographic and economic significance than an individual country, because a body of water helps dictate the trading patterns and movement patterns within many countries. Yes, if the body of water were a small lake, that would be different, but we're talking about massive and influential bodies of water here. The Persian Gulf is perhaps the strongest example, given its unifying nature. No single country (with, perhaps, the exception of Saudi Arabia has as much unifying influence as the Persian Gulf. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CLN a list does not preclude a navbox; and I'm surprised, considering the way you treated other templates, you didn't say this was redundant with the Indian Ocean one... (which it isn't) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all navboxes for which the inclusion criteria is just that all included countries border on the same sea. Often those countries have little or nothing in common with each other, and there is little reason why someone would want to see the respective articles in succession. To answer 76.65.etc, the real-world definition of Gulf states is not the same that is used in the template, and even if it was more restrictive, they are part of the middle east anyway.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful geographic template. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this case, the Gulf defines the history and economy of each bordering country and has a direct influence on International relations of the entire world. USchick (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per USchick. Bazonka (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the inherent relationship between the countries mentioned in the infobox. They share common economic, geographic, and cultural attributes. Whether such commonalities are defining is not really the question; as long as the countries in this grouping can be seen to be connected in a meaningful way, I see purpose for this template. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:39, 11 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:Countries and territories of the Mediterranean Sea

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) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories of the Mediterranean Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 21:55, 29 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.
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) 04:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EmmyAward ComedySupportingActress footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:EmmyAward DramaSupportingActress footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BritishAcademyTelevision ComedySeries footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:OlivierAward Comedy footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTAAwardBestAdaptedScreenplay footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 29 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:Antarctic Protected Area row 2

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 with {{Antarctic Protected Area row}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antarctic Protected Area row 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary fork of {{Antarctic Protected Area row}}; better to put a switch in the original template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 29 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 Proterozoic

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) 04:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Proterozoic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Almost" unused. There is Cymru Terrane which has it substituted. I would say we delete it unless there is some better idea. Magioladitis (talk) 12:47, 29 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:FK Sloboda Užice

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) 04:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK Sloboda Užice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three links not really a significant aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 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.

Template:Countries and territories of North Africa

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) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories of North Africa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countries of Asia}} and {{Countries of North Africa}}. — Lfdder (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, no need to navigate by every possible subgrouping. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{Countries of North Africa}} (merge both to here) North Africa is a defined Geographic, UN and cultural region. It is not redundant with {{Countries of Africa}} since that template has no indication of what's in North Africa, therefore cannot be redundant with it since it doesn't have that information. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See frietjes' response above. It is redundant in that the same links are present. — Lfdder (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't every possible subgrouping, this is a very reasonable grouping. Having the same links does not make it redundant if it does not do the same navigation; which it does not, because the Africa template does not group North Africa. And if you're going to argue that a grouping such as North Africa is unreasonable, then why not argue that all continental templates are unreasonable, and we should only have a world template? Where's the limit to your drive to delete all possible regions of the world? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Continents is the most common grouping. I don't think we need to put countries in any other grouping for navboxes. — Lfdder (talk)
          • Praytell, why are you saying that Europe or Asia is the redundancy instead of Eurasia then? The continent is Eurasia, Europe is a subcontinent, and Asia is the rump when you remove Europe. Continents are not the most common grouping. North Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia are very common groupings. "Asia" grouping of countries is much less common than that for East and Southeast Asia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • A Eurasia navbox would be too big. These smaller groupings vary too much and too often. — Lfdder (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't really see how that would be if you think Europe and Asia templates are not too big, then Eurasia wouldn't be much more. It gets rid of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia, since Europe is just a subcontinent, the same as South Asia, or Southeast Asia, or Southwest Asia. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:44, 4 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:Countries and territories of Southeast Asia

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) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories of Southeast Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countries of Asia}}. — Lfdder (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When making decisions like this, it's important to consult with people who understand the region. I'm not the right person to ask, but is there any cultural or political significance in SE Asia that makes it separate from the rest of Asia, making people want to navigate SE Asia exclusively? Simply looking on a map is the absolute worst thing to do, since you won't see the map lines when you're standing on the ground. USchick (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is, it is the meeting place between the Indic world and the Sinic world, where the Sinitic sphere of influence mixed with the Indic sphere of influence, and thus has the history of cultural mixing of the two (of the three, except for the Mediterranean-Mesopotamian region) great cultural regions of the world. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asia is a subregion of the world, why bother with continental templates? Asia is a template that should be used sparingly since it is overly large, without being broken into sections. Asia isn't a proper breakdown region anyways, since it lacks unifying characteristics. It is a rump of a continent subtracting the subcontinent of Europe from Eurasia. The next step up should be a Eurasia template. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I never seen any problems regards to this, and of course, If someone depends only on Asia countries template, it may be adds a confusion to the readers. So its possible to separate the SEA Countries to avoid those conflicts. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 02:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As per Hamham31's statement. Shanayujilover (talk) 03:01, 3 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:Bill Medley

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) 04:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bill Medley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Righteous Brothers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Bill Medley with Template:The Righteous Brothers.
Medley has had only a handful of solo works. Suggest merging to the Righteous Brothers template: compare {{Brooks & Dunn}}. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:32, 29 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:West Germany Squad 1980 Mundialito

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) 04:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Germany Squad 1980 Mundialito (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One-off tournament. Redundant to 1980 Mundialito squads. Sawol (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This template was considered for deletion on 9 January 2011. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 9#Template:West Germany Squad 1980 Mundialito.
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_29&oldid=1141876096"