Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 1 February 3 >

February 2 edit

Template:Tokelauan self-determination referendum, 2007 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) 19:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tokelauan self-determination referendum, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced by Template:Referendum –aʙᴊıᴋʟaᴍ[ᴛ|ᴄ] 12:03, 2 February 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:Tokelauan self-determination referendum, 2006 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) 19:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tokelauan self-determination referendum, 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced by Template:Referendum –aʙᴊıᴋʟaᴍ[ᴛ|ᴄ] 11:57, 2 February 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:Latest stable software release/Opera mini web browser 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) 19:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Opera mini web browser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

delete because not used in any article and no revision which has any related content Ushau97 talk contribs 10:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, appears to be a vandalism target as well. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 6 February 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:Sonny Throckmorton 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. The template is clearly appropriate under relevant guidelines. So, the discussion essentially turned to the question of whether the template is useful enough and whether it duplicates the discography section. In the end I do not see any particular consensus for deletion. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sonny Throckmorton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. All four singles were more famous by someone else, so having this template there is misleading. The albums are long OOP, so I doubt they'll have articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Once again, I did NOT receive a notification on my talk page about this TfD. This has happened several times before, and I have had to ask about this more than once before I received any answer, albeit an unsatisfactory one stating that they did not want to deal with what I had to say. This template contains links to several songs written AND RECORDED by Sonny which DO have articles, and are linked from Sonny Throckmorton. Based on a quick glance, without the navbox, only two of the songs link to one another. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't warn you because I don't want you spreading your damn filibusters every time I nominate one of your poor templates. And apparently that's not enough. Spamming TFD with your novel-length rants won't help matters in the least — ceasing to make templates for everything on the planet will. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - TPH,
  1. Again, how are my comments filibusters if they do not prevent other people from replying? How are you in a position to decide which TfDs I respond to when Wikipedia is based on consensus of the entire community?
  2. How is this a poor template if it contains several articles of songs written by Sonny? These are articles that do not link to one another without the navbox. If my templates are poor and worthy of being deleted at TfD, why have only 3 of my over 1000 templates been deleted after being referred to TfD (Back From Ashes because the article was deleted, Kip Moore due to the debut album linking to one song, and No Justice because the album articles were deleted after the fact)?
  3. If all of my templates that are being nominated for deletion are on my watch list, how is failing to warn me about these TfDs on my talk page going to prevent me from contesting the TfDs?
  4. How are my comments SPAM if they are not trying to sell something?
  5. If I have made less than 2000 navboxes, how can I be making navboxes for everything on the planet?
Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet more navbox pollution: all of the single articles (two of which were a double A-side) are skeletal stubs and could easily be folded back into the parent article. This is a navbox for the sake of having a navbox, put in place to further the author's niche POV that spamming articles with redundant templates is of benefit to the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Chris,
  1. How is this navbox pollution if there are four songs linked to by Sonny Throckmorton?
  2. If the four Sonny Throckmorton songs in the template should not have articles, why has no one (including you) nominated those four articles for AfD?
  3. How do my navboxes fall under the category of [1] spam?
  4. How is my template redundant (or made "for the sake of having a navbox") if only two of the songs linked to one another at the time the navbox was created? Can you prove your last sentence? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need to link everything to everything. - Nabla (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Based on this statement, we do not need any navboxes at all. There is a guideline at Wikipedia:ANOEP#Navboxes_not_to_be_created stating "A listing of articles for which there is no reasonable theoretical limit to the numbers of articles that can be included" should not be created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not present others ideas for what they are not. - Nabla (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I did not present others' ideas for what they are not (if I did show me where). I feel I have demonstrated that this navbox, like Template:Funkadelic, serves a purpose. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said that "Based on [my] statement, we do not need any navboxes at all", which is not what I have said. - Nabla (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am taking the statement "We do not need to link everything to everything" as it is written. If we are to use this logic, then we would not need any navboxes at all. Failing at this, where exactly does this statement end? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The complementary statement to "need to link everything to everything" is "may link some things to some (other) things", it is not "may not link anything at all". In other words, (and in my opinion) we may have navboxes but we do not need a navbox simply because we absolutely need have direct links to everything. - Nabla (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - So I ask again, why exactly should this template not exist? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have also not said such a thing. I only said that a specific argument of your's is not a reason to keep. (guess I need to express myself better)- Nabla (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - If the "specific argument of [mine] is not a reason to keep", and you are not saying that "this template not exist", then based on these two points alone, the TfD would default to no consensus. I have already stated why this template should not be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An existing template with no reason to keep should be deleted (in general, not this one specifically). You keep making up what I have said, it is impossible to communicate this way. - Nabla (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The reason to keep this template is that there are 5 articles shown in the template that do not all link to one another. I do not make up what you said, and you are the only one who is complaining to me about this. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a perfectly reasonable template that is being used in a perfectly reasonable manner. In any case, WP:NENAN is an essay and not policy, WP:ANOEP is as valid and argues the other way.Op47 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As things stand, the template is appropriate although it (or its usage) could clarify that the songs were also written or co-written by Throckmorton. I can understand someone coming to I Wish You Could Have Turned My Head from an Oak Ridge Boys perspective wanting to navigate to other songs by Throckmorton. I'm not clear how the articles can de "folded back into the parent article" (see above) since we have co-writers and different singers. Which parent article could hold the material relating to the other singers? However if a merge can be achieved the template would likely become redundant. Thincat (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, based on the other arguments. I don't think this should set a precedent for other navboxes, though. They should each be considered on their own merits. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thank you This, that, and the other! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - superfluous to the discography section in the article. No need to make templates to accomodate lazy readers. The Banner talk 22:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Banner, if this is the case, then why do we need ANY navboxes AT ALL??? Additionally, why has this TfD been open for more than one month? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:00, 3 March 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_February_2&oldid=1138535365"