Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 29

< November 28	November 30 >

November 29 edit

Template:Vlaho Bukovac 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. I am a fan of Vlaho Bukovac, but we do not need the template at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vlaho Bukovac (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's only one article on a painting by this artist. No need for a navbox. INeverCry 19:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, useless. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 9 December 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:Ulla 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. Underpopulated navbox. RL0919 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough of a navigational aid over the Ulla Jones article itself with so few other articles to include here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, useless. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 9 December 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:Community of Christ 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. This looks like a misunderstanding of what an infobox is for: it is for summarising a single article on that single article not for providing identical information about a movement across multiple pages. DrKiernan (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Community of Christ infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is a generic infobox for religious bodies. You can make a sidebar or footer if you have other articles to navigate but an infobox like this really only needs to be one one page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -First this issue has already been decided just recently. There is no policy that the in the reasons for deletion page that says what the user claims. This template is similar to the hundreds used on religious pages, such as the LDS Church pages and MLB and minor league Pages. To delete it because the nominator has a personal dislike for infobox templates is wrong. There has already been a consensus to keep this template.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ARTEST4ECHO: I don't dislike infoboxes... I just don't understand why you would have the same infobox four times. If you want navigation, that's what a sidebar does. I don't think you understood my nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Where was this discussed? Virtually nothing links to this template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have confused about the template that was put up for deletion with this argument before, but I remember it happening. However, that doesn't change the fact that this template is used four time. The reason is simple, when the information changes (such as membership) no one wants to go to four different pages and make the same change. That is the point and very reason for the existence of Templates. The fact that the template is used four times means that the template is necessary. This is the same way that {{Infobox LDS Church}} is used. I see no policy to justify the deletion page at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ARTEST4ECHO: If you're concerned about population statistics and you think that they are going to change radically, then create {{CommunityofChristdemographics}} or somesuch. As I pointed out above here and below to the next commenter, the function of infoboxes, sidebars, and footers are different so they shouldn't be used all in the same template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With all due respect to the gentleman who made this nomination, I don't see what the big deal is, here. The Community of Christ is not some fly-by-night religious outfit that sprang up just yesterday, or has only fifty or a hundred members; it is the second-largest denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement, with a unique history and 250,000 members, not to mention numerous smaller factions that broke away from it over time. Since there are multiple WP articles about this church out there, I can't see what the issue is with having a template dedicated to it. It's certainly not hurting anything, and it's not like Wikipedia's going to crash because it's there, so why even worry about this to begin with? - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecjmartin: Again, I don't think you understand. {{Infobox Christian denomination}} exists as an infobox. This is being used as a sidebar as well as an infobox. There's no purpose in that. You can use the infobox for infobox information and create a separate sidebar or footer for navigation between articles. There's no purpose served in mixing the two into one template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I still don't understand the harm in having an infobox that serves as a sidebar too, if that's what its creator wants it to do. You might think the two should be separated, but others might disagree; is there a specific WP policy you could quote to say it should be your way? Please understand: I'm *not* saying any of this to be sarcastic or disagreeable at all; I'm saying it because I'm not a WP policy guru, and if there's no specific WP policy prohibiting what this infobox does, why should we make a big deal out of it? The LDS Church has its own infobox, and I would imagine other churches do, too; do you propose deleting all of them, as well? No disrespect intended, but I don't get why this should be such a problem. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the discussion here also applies equally to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 2#Template:Infobox LDS Church. I'd suggest that the conversation be consolidated. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. No reason whatsoever to delete. I agree with the arguments made by my respected colleagues that edit these LDS-related pages all the time. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using the same infobox on 23 different articles will strike most people as bordering madness, especially those who understand what infoboxes are about.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User 208.81.184.4 has been mindlessly spamming this template on dozen of pages, presumably to influence the outcome of this TfD.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not mindless spamming: each of the articles I added it to have a directly relevant use of the template that had been previously overlooked. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into any article that has references to cover the infobox. If the main referenced text doesn't say what the infobox does, it should be removed, anyway. If that is not possible, delete as premature —PC-XT+ 23:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom has this right: this isn't being used properly as an infobox. An infobox would summarize information in the article where it is used. Instead, this is repeating general information about the denomination that isn't in most of the articles where it is used. If the idea is to link the articles, then format it as a proper navigation sidebar or footer instead of this pseudo-infobox. --RL0919 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, if you want to create a sidebar to link the transcluding articles, go ahead, but this isn't it. this is an infobox, which only belongs on one page, and is hence redundant to the generic denomination infobox. Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 11 December 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.