Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 14

< August 13	August 15 >

August 14 edit

Template:Barnes bus map London 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. czar 10:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barnes bus map London (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOTTRAVEL. This information is more readily available on the TFL website which I have sourced on the only article this template transcludes to. Ajf773 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2019 (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).

Template:Mithun Chakraborty 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mithun Chakraborty sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The actor's navigational template consists of four links: the actor's article, a redirect to a section of the actor's article, the actor's filmography article and a film studio. There are only three articles that are already linked together, actor navigational templates go against WP:FILMNAV and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete, insufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2019 (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).

Template:Osaka Umeda connections 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Osaka Umeda connections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer used after being merged with the parent article Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, messy and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2019 (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).

Various small and/or highly overlapping radio navboxes 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nantucket Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pueblo Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pensacola Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hilton Head Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Santa Fe Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don’t really get why Template:Nantucket Radio even got invented in the first place. There are only 4 stations in the navbox, and (in my opinion) that isn’t enough to warrant its own template. Similarly, the Hilton Head, Pueblo, Santa Fe and Pensacola templates should be merged with the Savannah, Colorado Springs, Albuquerque and Mobile templates respectively. It seems a bit redundant to have separate templates that overlap so much. Aside from translators, LPFMs and a small number of full-power stations, most of the stations on both sets of templates appear on both templates. Removing Pensacola and Pueblo stations from the Springs and Mobile templates (and likewise) would actually be worse, since most of the full power FMs in both sets of templates share the same transmitter. TomG2002 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Nantucket is NOT part of the Cape Cod market, which is why it got its own section! The other areas @TomG2002: mentioned are markets unto themselves, like the New Bedford/Fall River market, which is embedded in Providence, but is also its own. I would like to add that above user has not discussed this at WP:WPRS, which is highly recommended.Stereorock (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons @Stereorock: has given, but this also raises some bigger questions that should be discussed in WP:WPRS, such as: How closely are the Arbitron/Nielsen market maps being used to create these regional templates? Is it a strict or loose interpretation? Should we be strict in some cases, and loose in others? Do these templates fall under Nielsen copyright, and are they at risk of being taken down due to this copyright? --DrChuck68 (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how people are creating these navboxes now, but they used to be based exactly on the Arbitron markets, and Wikipedia was issued a takedown notice and they had to be recreated from scratch using other sources. I've been around here long enough that I've lost track of time, but it feels like it must be a decade ago now. @Bearcat: might remember, as he's been here longer than I have. Mlaffs (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlaffs: Basically, you are dead on. As some minor areas have gotten bigger, let's say Nantucket, with LPFMs and the like, a new template could be made for just that area. It makes sense and works. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:51 on August 16, 2019 (UTC)

Keep All: Per StereoRock and the 68th good Doctor Chuck. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:51 on August 16, 2019 (UTC)
Keep Nantucket, Pueblo, Pensacola, and Santa Fe. These cities are far enough away and have enough stations stations distinct from the cities/areas that it is proposed they be merged with that having a separate navbox is warranted. This is not the case for Hilton Head Island, though. Hilton Head Island, South Carolina is too close to Savannah, Georgia for a separate navbox to be warranted, and most of its stations do overlap.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2019 (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).