Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1 edit

Template:Studioblock 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) 05:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently based on Template:School block. I can't see much potential for use, personally – educational institutions are regularly blocked from editing, but are studios? SuperMarioMan 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless. Template was created by a vandalism-only account before it got blocked. AtticusX (talk) 04:33, 5 January 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:KAU University 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) 05:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KAU University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear. Identical to Template:Kau infobox, Template:Infobox Kau and Template:Abdullah Alessa save minor coding differences. SuperMarioMan 20:08, 1 January 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 Kau 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) 05:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, purpose unclear. Identical to Template:Kau infobox, Template:KAU University and Template:Abdullah Alessa save minor coding differences. SuperMarioMan 20:06, 1 January 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:Kau infobox 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) 05:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kau infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear. Identical to Template:Infobox Kau, Template:KAU University and Template:Abdullah Alessa save minor coding differences. SuperMarioMan 20:04, 1 January 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:Korlink 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) 05:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicates interwiki links and other sister templates, few uses. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 13 December 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) 15:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inline interwiki links aren't a great idea and shouldn't be encouraged. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 12 January 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:Geolinks-US-streetscale 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) 06:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated. All article-space instances have been replaced with {{Coord}}. (A few talk page examples remain - how should these be dealt with?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No longer used except in some old talk pages (many of which are archives). I think we can safely let those links go red. For precedent, see Geolinks-US-cityscale, which was deleted in 2010 with talk page links remaining. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:26, 1 January 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:Cite sign 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 oppose merger. --Rschen7754 10:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite sign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite AV media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cite sign with Template:Cite AV media.
{{Cite AV media}} supports all the features of {{Cite sign}}. Merge by redirecting {{Cite sign}} to {{Cite AV media}}. No article updates are required. — Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who generally prefers {{citation}} over the {{cite xxx}} family of templates, I might be expected to support such mergers. Yet I can also see that signs are distinctly different from most forms of "Audio-Visual media", and that it is possibly useful that citations of signs be distinct from other forms. Perhaps retaining {{cite sign}} as a redirect is sufficient for that purpose. (A nice little question to start the year on.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you review the comparison through the "supports all the features" link, you will see that AV media already supports all of the features of sign (plus a few more). This is part of a long term project— I discussed and converted a number of templates with various styles to Citation Style 1, then standardized all of the CS1 templates so they support most of the features. Now I am checking which templates are redundant because they have the same features and semantics as another template. In short: a simple redirect will suffice and will retain the style of the original cite sign. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose—signs are not audio nor video. They are static media, like a photograph, and the AV media template is designed for non-static media like "Motion pictures, Television productions, Videotapes, DVDs, Trailers, Video games, CDs, Radio broadcasts, Podcasts". Signs don't have a timecode that would be cited analogous to the page in a book. These types of media are distinct, and I don't see a need to combine them. Imzadi 1979 → 21:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cite AV media supports time in addition to page numbers and the general at field. There are no semantic differences between any of CS1 the templates (unless you consider the Class meta-field which I really don't think is used). Indeed, the concept is that the CS1 templates should render in a common style- the differences are on the input side. There are minimal differences between the current templates. Cite AV media currently has 9158 transclusions and Cite sign has 137 transclusions. Redirecting Cite sign right now will not change the output. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that we've temporarily disabled the metadata components of the output of both CS1 and CS2, maybe there isn't at the moment. However, should those components be re-enabled, there will be semantic differences. Since those components are supposed to be restored to the core template in the transition to Lua, I consider the semantic differences to remain at the present. Sorry, you won't convince me to change my mind on this. Imzadi 1979 → 00:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then for following participants: The metadata you mention is COinS,which has no ContextObjects related to audio, video or visual sources. When COinS was enabled, the time data was stuffed into the pages ContextObject, which was rather a hack. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What has to be done first is to etablish the validity and effectiveness of signs as (reliable) citation sources; templates are to support article construction, after all. Even after that, the difference and/or similarity to the scope of {{cite AV media}} has to be examined. It's not the problem of superficial resemblance in template parameters. (For exapmle, the natural understanding of "location" differs significantly for signs and DVDs.) Until that, it must be segregated, and it won't be too late.
    Examples of some 140 tranclusions are not enough, but it may be a good time to scrutinize, say in WT:CITE or in WT:IRS. (I don't know how {{cite sign}} was introduced, but it's an interesting observation that signs can be cited.) --Ahora (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A sign is a physical object that can be represented by an image media object or a video media object or described by an audio media object. A sign may be thousands of years old, such as a text inscription or a hieroglyph, and fragmented. A sign may be graffiti and considered a type of creative work. It may be an epitaph on a headstone or a runestone. It may be a traffic sign. To cite a sign is to cite the object not the media about the object. The sign is an undistorted primary source; the media object may be enhanced to change the meaning. The data model at schema.org is a good example of where a harmonization of types should, in my opinion, be evolving toward. A sign type is not an audio object type; not an image object type; and not a video object type. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is not going to get merged, so I will close with a challenge. Please detail the differences in output between these citations:

Markup Renders as 
{{cite sign|title=Signage for I-276 at Norristown entrance |url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norristown_ramps_to_PA_TPK.JPG |type=Highway sign |publisher=[[Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission]] |location=[[Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania]]}}

Signage for I-276 at Norristown entrance (Highway sign). Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.

Markup Renders as 
{{cite AV media |title=Signage for I-276 at Norristown entrance |url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norristown_ramps_to_PA_TPK.JPG |type=Highway sign |publisher=[[Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission]] |location=[[Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania]]}}
Markup Renders as 
{{citation |title=Signage for I-276 at Norristown entrance |url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norristown_ramps_to_PA_TPK.JPG |type=Highway sign |publisher=[[Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission]] |location=[[Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania]]}}

I appreciate your comments and will refer back when I revisit this in a year. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment. this is a false challenge, and the result of the unhelpful tendency to "harmonise" {{cite xxx}} templates so that they are efficient for machines (software), not humans. there are different and differing {{cite xxx}} templates because editors require them. i am sure that with a little parameter+data-entry tweaking i can make {{cite book}} present exactly the same result as {{cite journal}}. why not merge them? they can both refer to print media after all. {{cite sign}} has or used to have semantically significant/appropriate parameters such as |medium= and |distributor=, and needs further unique parameters such as |(title) location=. instead these sign-specific parameters are de-emphasized/inappropriately deprecated to render code reusable (to machines). this also happens in other cite templates. this tendency to put square pegs into round holes has been carried to the individual templates' documentation, which is becoming progressively irrelevant in its uniformity. this may confuse and deter editors from using citation templates, thereby possibly affecting 1. articles' readability 2. users' ease of verification 3. further reading on the article's subject. there are longstanding issues with the performance of {{citation/core}} which may or may not be valid; instead of trying a one-size-fits-all copout, may i suggest that 1. you NOT "revisit" this but concentrate on optimising the engine, perhaps starting with a thorough examination of the rationale behind all the expensive and perhaps unnecessary {{#if}} statements (that also limit editor choice) 2. leave source-specific functionality, related parameters, and documentation alone in {{cite xxx}} templates. and please, let's leave out arguments about how great everything is going to be when lua scripting is applied. if fixes are needed, they are needed now, and can't wait for a holy grail that is possibly going to be (again) beta-tested on editors' time. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cogitated on this a while, as it is specifically addressed to me. I have been the primary architect of converting various templates to Citation Style 1, standardizing the series so the markup is in the same order and standardizing the documentation. If you have issues, then they need to be addressed on the CS1 talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i addressed this to you because you issued the "challenge", you asked for comments, and you are the nom. everything i mentioned above is i think relevant to this nomination. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 13:38, 14 January 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:Humanism 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) 00:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This outdated sidebar template doesn't add anything of value to the articles in question. It is grossly POV, e.g. by using the logo of one recent secular organization as the illustration while humanism covers much more than that and primarily refers to the renaissance. It seems that the main purpose of the template in its current form is a promotional one, i.e. giving an organization (IHEU) WP:UNDUE weight in all articles relating to humanism, the broad term referring to renaissance humanism, religious humanism, Jewish humanism, Christian humanism and more. A good example of the promotional intent is that various modern secular organizations are even listed at the top before the articles addressing the primary/original use of the term, i.e. renaissance humanism. Jeannedeba (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The template provides a number of useful links to related topics. The nominator tried to change the image and remove a number of those links, but did not gain consensus for her changes (see the talk page, here). It seems that now she's trying to delete the template altogether because the image was not changed like she wanted. I don't think that would be an improvement to the encyclopedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, how about a little honesty? You are editwarring on the template to enforce the use of the logo of your organization, although multiple users agree on the talk page that it's POV. It's basically a worthless POV template whose only pupose is promoting your organization by giving one organization undue weight and even using their logo (which another user compared on the talk page to using the Jesuit Emblem). It has very little to do with humanism. Jeannedeba (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jean, I've been quite nice, and I'm not going to get involved in a fighting match with you now. Uninvolved editors can (and should) check the talk page to see what's been discussed without embellishment, which is why I linked to our discussion above. If they care to know our (short) history, our discussions at Talk:Humanism, your talk page and AN3 are not hard to find. Otherwise, this discussion should remain on the merits of the template which you are proposing for deletion. By the way, it seems I have to reiterate that the IHEU is not my organization. I have nothing to do with them, and don't even know the first thing about them. I'm going to do other things off-site, so how about we let other editors comment for a while.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and finally... Have you read WP:AfD (particularly WP:DEL, to which it links)? The alternatives to deletion section is relevant, where it details that content issues are typically not grounds for deletion. If you haven't done so already, you should take a look. Enjoy the new year.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, I have read those pages years ago. Please do not derail the discussion. The template is not encyclopedic, it is not useful, it does not adhere to core Wikipedia policies (particularly NPOV and UNDUE) and it clutters up articles. The only purpose of the template appears to be the promotion of one organization, not an overview of humanism. Jeannedeba (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is part of a disruptive campaign by User:Jeannedeba to manipulate articles on humanism to her own viewpoint, for which the editor has already been temporarily blocked for edit warring. The template is well established and useful. It uses the most appropriate available illustration for a wide-ranging topic, and the list of matters which it covers clearly all fall within the scope of the broad topic area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ghmyrtle. And so far as I'm concerned, it's simply wrong that the word humanism mainly refers to the Renaissance. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
? That's hardly the issue here. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dougweller was just responding to the nominator's unfounded argument that 'humanism' "primarily refers to the renaissance". (A quick Google and multi-dictionary check refutes any obvious primacy of the renaissance sense of the term.) AtticusX (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ghmyrtle. Baffling to see this template nominated for deletion. The template is clearly valuable as a concise overview of articles on the various branches and topics of humanism. If the dispute is really about the inclusion of the iconic logo or about the order of the links, nominating the template for deletion wasn't really the best way to advance that discussion. AtticusX (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reorganize The template does give excessive prominence to organized Humanism, which is a tiny minority pursuit within Humanism. This will come as no surprize to anyone who has followed the main article over a long period. In fact the sections in the template should more or less be reversed to : Related articles (actually the main philosophical group), History, IHEU & other Anglophone organizations, Secular humanism, religious humanism. This would be more typical of comparable templates. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'd disagree that organized humanism is a "tiny minority pursuit", I do agree with Johnbod's proposed reorganization of the template, which at first glance does seem sensible and more typical. AtticusX (talk) 05:19, 5 January 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:Navbox Goosebumps 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox Goosebumps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems redundant to {{R. L. Stine}}. Tim Jacobus and Scholastic are the exclusive wikilinks here. Does this warrant its own template? If its kept, this should be at {{Goosebumps}}. « Ryūkotsusei » 04:05, 16 December 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) 01:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to template:R. L. Stine ; if we should ever need to split it out again, the appropriate tranclusions will be in place. It is a reasonable redirect in any case. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with {{R. L. Stine}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Stine. Surely Jacobus and Scholastic could be put in there somewhere, if necessary. — WylieCoyote 15:13, 7 January 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:Category-Metaphysics/header 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 per this discussion and the discussion for Template:Category-Aesthetics/header, which did close as delete, but was magically recreated? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category-Metaphysics/header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary duplication of category structure that can cause confusion for readers. Also, this sort of template moves category pages away from the convention and consistency of being clutter free. Clutter reduces usability for the reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, a simple {{category tree}} would work here. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I resent the fact that Alan is making a piecemeal attack of these templates, one by one. after the logic template was supported by the community of editors in that subject area. This amounts to a political issue, as the principle is the same, but the number of editors in the "metaphysics community" is very small, and so he knows he will be able to pick it off. Greg Bard (talk) 19:58, 19 December 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) 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the story here is that Gregbard took a no-consensus close of a TfD on a similar template as carte blanche to go and create new templates in the same vein. Not appropriate. Rather than making arguments to authority ("the community of editors in that subject area") Gregbard should propose a formalisation of this sort of header template if he wants it rolled out rather than making, ahem, piecemeal attacks on wider category page uniformity by continually pushing out his own style of headers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:41, 3 January 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:School killings in the United 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 delete as mostly redundant to the Shootings in the United States template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:School killings in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This long and difficult to read list of links is redundant to Template:Shootings in the United States, which is organized by year and does not contain red links.  Sandstein  16:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In lists, but not in navboxes, which are supposed to help navigate between existing articles. The problem is that when both navboxes are applied, as in the article about the recent US shooting, they generate unneeded visual clutter.  Sandstein  19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/Potential renaming. For full disclosure, I was the user who originally created the template that is being suggested to be deleated. Regardless of that, I would say that the template does have some differences, namely the links to articles about past school bombings while the other is more about shootings that have occurred within the US, so I would not say that it is fully redundant. If anything, I would suggest that template be about attacks on schools in general, such as adding links to any article that are about a hostage situtation that occurred at a school. Super Goku V (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a possible suggestion, we could also merge the two templates together and make it into a template on attack that have occurred in and to the US. (That would open it to any terrorist attacks and some battles from various wars in the past.) Super Goku V (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would probably make the navbox unmanageably large. We have lists for topics that broad.  Sandstein  19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Terrible suggestion. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then do you have a better suggestion as to finding a way to preserve the school bombing section? That is the only section that is not in the other template. Super Goku V (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure that there needs to be a navbox for school bombings at all, or that it needs to be in the same navbox as shootings, as these seem rather distinct types of incident to me. I suppose a separate navbox for bombings could be created if somebody feels strongly about it.  Sandstein  07:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. Pretty much redundant. It is useful in some ways, but enough for me to justify keeping it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Sandstein. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are so many links globbed together it ceases to be useful. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: help! 05:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would it be more useful if it was divided by date? As in a template for killings in the 1990s, one in the 2000s, etc? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean one for every decade? How many decades is that? It sounds even worse than the current problem. --86.40.98.64 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is actually a good idea, except that is already at {{Shootings in the United States}}. (It would have to go from at least the 1960s to the present for the shootings and from the 1920s if someone decide for unknown reason to do the same to the section on bombings.) Super Goku V (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to the better {{Shootings in the United States}}. Ryan Vesey 06:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant with {{Shootings in the United States}}, Merge content there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - split the shootings up by elementary/middle/high/tertiary. Use this in preference to the much broader "Shootings in the..." navbox - which is actually a "Mass shooting" navbox (notable is redundant since we only have notable articles, in theory. The fact that a school is the target is significant, more so than the method. Rich Farmbrough, 12:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • retain and improve - the area is one of interest and there is a need to be able to navigate between events of a similar type, as this allows the reader to do. Criteria for inclusion are unclear - is there a number of victims threshhold? user: s_ellinson —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Rename I think we should merge the School bombings section into the Notable mass shootings in the United States template and rename the Notable mass shootings in the United States template to School killings in the United States. I like the idea of there being more than the shooting scope added here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As much as this sounds like an idea to me, implementing it would cause one problem in that the Mass shootings section on that template would no longer fit with the template. Do you happen to have a second idea to preserve the three sections or do you think that the Mass shooting section should be removed from the other template? Super Goku V (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Make overall template for school violence in the US, organized by decade, rather than a listing of scores of shooting and a handful of bombings.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but also from a purely philosophical standpoint, a mass shooting is still a mass shooting whether it takes place at a school or not. I don't see how the specific venues of mass shootings are notable enough for separate NavBoxes. Full disclosure: I edited this Template not terribly long ago, and it will be a little weird to see a red link on my own Contributions Page. Notably, I'm going against that slight bias of mine. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems useful and informative, gets other users to check out other shootings--Mjs1991 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the Template is changed to some form of 'Shootings' only, then sad to say....where do the bombings go? Where would Bath School disaster fit?
Agree generally with Knowledgekid87 (but rather than "School killings in the United States" maybe renaming the navbox to something like 'Notable acts of school violence in the United States"?) Also agree with Bellerophon's suggestion of a navbox rename to something like "School violence" (or maybe "School violence incidents"). In the school attacks listed in the present navboxes, the violence done to survivors is a notable too. Shearonink (talk) 03:12, 27 December 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) 01:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as redundant to {{Shootings in the United States}}. for further differentiation in the type, we have categories. if there are enough bombings, then create a "Bombings in the United States" template. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Take out all the redlinks and you have T:SitUS. — WylieCoyote 15:18, 7 January 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:No Justice 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) 00:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No Justice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I checked for sources on the first three albums and found none, so I redirected them. As a result, this template now navigates only one article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Template now navigates five articles. Per WP:NALBUMS, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting".
Do we really want five track listings in the main No Justice article? Also, please see my talking points at the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far from Everything.
Also, this is the second time that I was not notified on my talk page about a TfD for a template that I created.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - BTW, I just updated No Justice. This is how it will look with all of the album articles merged into it. Lemme know what y'all think.
Additionally, the five album articles do not all link to one another (most notably, the last two consecutive albums do not both link to one another).--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 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, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:18, 24 December 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) 01:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, after the article merger has been executed. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 6 January 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_January_1&oldid=1087818111"