Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3 edit

Template:Protected areas of Serbia 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn (nac) Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protected areas of Serbia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are several hundred protected areas in Serbia. Many of them have articles (see: List of protected natural resources in Serbia). This template contains only five of them. Why those five were selected is a mystery to me. We can add all the protected areas to the template, but it would be so long that it should be deleted anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Template originator here. List articles, categories & navigation templates are generally considered to be complementary ways of accessing Wikipedia content. I've updated the template to include all protected areas linked from List of protected natural resources in Serbia, which itself quite reasonably lists only a selection of the 289 Natural monuments. As for the history, there was once an article Protected areas of Serbia which User:Vanjagenije redirected back in July 2010 (diff); this contained the original five links and no others. Curiously, four of the five are not currently on the List of protected natural resources in Serbia. -Arb. (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you improved the template. I withdraw my nomination. But Template:National parks of Serbia is now redundant to this template, and should be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2015 (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:Shahrukh Khan sidebar 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 precedent Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shahrukh Khan sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per prior discussions. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one has 4 (and until recently 5) links, as opposed to the previous discussion, where they had 3 links. It's a big article, so it takes some searching to find these without the sidebar. BollyJeff | talk 02:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if there are so many subarticles, you need a {{navbox}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me then, when is it ever appropriate to use a sidebar? Should they be removed from the syntax? BollyJeff | talk 18:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

person-centric sidebars are rarely necessary (one exception would be Template:Joseph Smith). Frietjes (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go ahead and remove it; I don't care. BollyJeff | talk 02:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All links are working. VandVictory (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Frietjes' nomination and the linked prior TfD discussion directly on point. It appears to be established that sidebars are not generally used for actors and other individual persons, except in exceptional examples (e.g., Joseph Smith). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent —PC-XT+ 14:39, 5 February 2015 (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.