Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 22 March 24 >

March 23 edit

Template:Navigation Applause Award 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) 00:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navigation Applause Award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't seem to be a notable award. No mention of award on International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:12, 23 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.

Template:Indian Food 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 and redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Food (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template used for spamming (see external link). Superfluous to and mostly copied from the older template Template:Indian cuisine. The Banner talk 21:14, 23 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.

Template:Derek Jones 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) 00:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Derek Jones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only 5 links for Derek Jones (musician), who barely (if at all) meets WP:GNG. There was a 6th link (to A Smile from the Trenches EP ), which I removed because Jones did not play on that recording and is not mentioned in the article. All the pages in the navbox are linked from Derek Jones (musician). Both of the bands already have their own navboxes (see Template:Falling in Reverse) and Template:A Smile from the Trenches), so this is just navbox spam which clutters up the articles and impedes navigation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 23 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.

Template:Ronnie Radke 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) 00:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ronnie Radke (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ronnie Radke has been a member of two bands: Escape the Fate and Falling in Reverse. Both bands already have navboxes (see {{Escape the Fate}} and {{Falling in Reverse}}), and this navbox adds nothing to them. It is merely navbox spam which creates clutter at the bottom of articles, and thereby impedes navigation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 23 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.

Template:Mario Goossens 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) 00:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mario Goossens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mario Goossens has not had a significant solo career, and in fact appears to be non-notable: Mario Goossens redirects to Winterville (band). Attaching this template to lots of the articles gives undue prominence to what appears to be a relatively minor aspect of the topics of those articles.

This is one of a large number of navboxes created by the same editor, who appears to have inverted the logic of WP:NENAN, by trying to create a navbox for any topic where he can assemble a set of links. This is just navboxspam, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or redirect to "Winterville (band) ") - Mario Goossens is a member of two notable bands, and can have an article made about him. Without the navbox, all of the articles shown in the template do not link to one another.
Also, how is this SPAM if Wiktionary defines SPAM as:
  1. A collection of unsolicited bulk electronic messages
  2. Any undesired electronic content automatically generated for commercial purposes
  3. An unsolicited electronic message sent in bulk, usually by email or newsgroups
Need I go on? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. No need to go on with that irrelevancy. The concept of spam is much wider than that dicdef: see Spam (electronic).
    Regardless of whether you want to play linguistic pedantry games over the word spam, the point remains that attaching this template to lots of the articles gives undue prominence to what appears to be a relatively minor aspect of the topics of those articles --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - the subject is not even referenced in the linked articles, that's how minor it is. As a side note, I note the many many similar navboxes created this way are bordering on disruptive behaviour. - Nabla (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Mario now has his own article, since he has been a member of at least two notable bands. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. I have restored the redirect. There is no evidence that reliable sources exist to allow a properly-referenced an article to be created, and the one-line entry which Jax created looks like WP:POINTy disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - Mario has been a member of multiple notable bands, and creating the article does not violate WP:POINT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply. Please read WP:NBAND. It says that "A musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Note that word I emphasised: may.
            See also: WP:NBAND#If_the_subject_is_not_notable: "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Navigation is simple enough from the majority of articles within Winterville (band). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Without the navbox:
  1. Monza and Noordkaap do not link to the album and songs of Winterville, and
  2. "Shotgun Smile" and "Breathe" do not link to one another
Additionally, we are having the same issue with Mario as with Bastian Emig and Kochmit, to which ensemble do we redirect? --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. There is no requirement that all these pages link directly to each other. They are linked through the article on the band.
    As I have noted repeatedly, redirection is not a problem. If a musician is associated with two bands, simply redirect to whichever band he is most closely associated with, and cross-link. If he's equally closely associated with both, then redirect to either and cross-link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a man with a job, not a musician that warrants a nav box through an impressive solo career. The Banner talk 10:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 25 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.

Template:National Register of Historic Places in Oregon counties trailer 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, the template is now orphaned, after being replaced. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Register of Historic Places in Oregon counties trailer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Automatically adds see also, references and external links sections to pages. This makes these sections uneditable by willing editors. I suggest it should be subst only template or stop to exist. Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is nothing to prevent willing editors from editing the template itself. If such an editor modifies the template, then the edit properly populates to all 36 articles where this template is placed. Otherwise, we end up with variability among a set of articles that ought to be kept uniform. If an editor feels any one of the articles should not adhere to the same outline as the others, then that's a discussion worth having in the context of that individual article. My guess is that the real issue here is that when Yobot is used to add References sections to articles, it's not smart enough to recognize situations where a References section is already present through transclusion. The solution is to fix Yobot. — Ipoellet (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • split into chunks, and move the reflist to the article. we should also be mindful of WP:TEMPLATECAT here. Frietjes (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this not good practice, making editing more difficult or confusing. Like the template above, make it a substitution only. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split, make subst only or both - I generally like the concept of templates that repeat large sections for a certain type of article, but think this one has too few benefits to be transcluded for several sections of articles in this manner. Parts could very well be transcluded, though. Maybe it could be substituted to place the templates split from it in their sections, conveniently giving all of them the same first parameter. -PC-XT+ 09:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I disagree with nearly every point made above. In particular, I find the argument that this template complicates editing to be an argument against templates that provide content in general, not just against this one template. But I can also tell that I'm in the minority here. So here's the resolution I propose, based on PC-XT's suggestions:
  1. Remove the categories from the template and insert them directly in the 36 articles, consistent with WP:TEMPLATECAT. (I've actually already done this step.)
  2. Create two new templates, corresponding specifically to the "See also" and "External links" sections, then edit Template:National Register of Historic Places in Oregon counties trailer to include those two sections by transclusion.
  3. Substitute Template:National Register of Historic Places in Oregon counties trailer in each of the 36 articles, which should insert the two new templates, as well as inserting a references section that is no longer transcluded.
  4. Template:National Register of Historic Places in Oregon counties trailer and its redirect can then be deleted. (I'm not an admin, so I can't do this myself.)
If no one objects in the next few days, I'll implement steps 2-3, then announce here when an admin can do step 4.— Ipoellet (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support steps up to 4, but leaving it as a subst only template, if more articles are likely to use it in the future. For step 1, I'm not sure but that it might work to keep the categories in the template if it is only used for substitution. It's probably best to remove them if there is doubt, though. -PC-XT+ 11:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done step 2. Next I need to temporarily comment out the {{Template for discussion}} warning from the "trailer" template, so that I can do step 3 without substituting the discussion notice into the 36 articles along with the rest of the template. I will re-establish the warning after I've done the substituting. — Ipoellet (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done step 3 and re-established the warning. As for step 4, I doubt that this template will ever be used again now that it's been substituted in the only 36 articles where it was ever intended to be used. I now have no opinion about whether it should be deleted or kept. If it's to be deleted, please remember it has two subtemplates and a redirect that all need to be deleted as well. — Ipoellet (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: relist due to sustantial changes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven's sake! The current configuration is a good-faith implementation of what reasonably appears to be the consensus above. Why did no one speak up when the plan was proposed and objections solicited? So far I've been going along to get along: working with consensuses that I disagree with out of respect for the community. But I'll confess I'm getting a bit impatient here. I'm just looking for a way to maintain these articles without having to touch all 36 every time there's a change. Templates are the perfect tool for that. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is how templates are supposed to be used — you want the same content to appear on multiple pages and you want to be able to change all of them at once. It shouldn't have been substituted, since any changes to the layout of the bottoms of the pages will require modifications to all 36 pages instead of a single edit. Meanwhile, this template is designed for use on a specific set of pages, and its documentation says that it shouldn't be used elsewhere: in such a case, the inclusion of categories helps, since all of the pages should be in these categories, and there's no way that extra pages can end up in the categories improperly unless they incorrectly use the template. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 25 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.

Template: Bus routes in the UK 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) 00:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bus routes in the UK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The articles in this navbox are being rapidly deleted at Afd, rendering this template pointless.King Jakob C2 23:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. Wait until the AFDs close, then see what's left. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary keep - gut feeling is that there'll be one article left - London (which probably remains). The Norfolk and Suffolk links go to Transport in East Anglia I think. The only decision to be made then is whether we want to link to prose articles (such as Buses in Bristol) or whether it's better to delete. Might be worth going to the template talk page to do that? If there's no interest in refactoring the box then I suppose we'd better delete it now that all the articles other than London have been deleted Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Temporary keep - Current Consensus looks like its heading for a delete of everything but London. I would have no problem with refocusing the navbox to list the prose articles instead. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per the other changed votes, the articles are all now deleted except London and a few redirects in East Anglia no reason to retain. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Within the next few days it is highly likely there will only be London. Suffolk and Norfolk redirect to Transport in East Anglia therefore there is little point in keeping it. By the way the users above voted temporary keep before most of the articles had been deleted (31/03/13). Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most routes have gone, Pointless having this just for London (& few others), Davey2010 Talk 18:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects are getting deleted so soon only London will be left. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 10:40, 2 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_March_23&oldid=1136430253"