Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16

edit

Template:Rozz Williams

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 relisted Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rozz Williams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two albums on his own name plus a few other "projects". Does this warrant a nav box (okay, mr. Jaxx will say yes, but he believes that every cross reference is enough for a nav box, because it might save the lazy reader a click) The Banner talk 22:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Gladly,

Thing is, that Rozz has solo and duet work ANYWAY, which can be made into stub articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still just 4 relevant links, all of band members. Not one album is linked (yet). Even this project does not warrant a nav box. The Banner talk 10:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jax's approach appears to be to create a navgation box for every band or musician that ever was, and pad it out with loosely-connected articles to increase the link count, and create sub-stub articles on non-notables if needed to reach the quota. This just create navbox spam on articles, by providing an overly-prominent set of links to topics on the basis of minor attributes of each article. It doesn't appear that there is enough material on any of the bands to justify a navbox, but that's a separate issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply 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?
--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. 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) 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as relisted. I'm not sure how TFD handles relists, so I'm just closing this as "relist" so that the bots think that all discussions here are done. I'm next going to copy the entire discussion to today's TFD log; none of the comments here should be lost. If you notice one that's missing, let me know and I'll fix it. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 19 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.

Template:Jeordie White

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) 22:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jeordie White (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN 2 band, 3 albums. That can be solved with normal wikilinking and without nav box The Banner talk 22:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Gladly

--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still just 4 relevant links. That can be solved by normal wikilinking and does not warrant a nav box. The Banner talk 10:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jax's approach appears to be to create a navgation box for every band or musician that ever was, and pad it out with loosely-connected articles to increase the link count, and create sub-stub articles on non-notables if needed to reach the quota. This just create navbox spam on articles, by providing an overly-prominent set of links to topics on the basis of minor attributes of each article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - 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?
--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need I go on? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. 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) 14:35, 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:Doogie White

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) 22:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doogie White (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN with just two links to albums, there is no need for a nav box The Banner talk 22:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Article Once Upon Our Yesterdays complete, navbox now has 5 articles, 3 albums that do not all link to one another, one band that links only to the singer (without the navbox) and one band that links to all but one of the articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you only finishing up templates after a nomination? You clearly have the info, so why make dodgy templates? And don't tell you did not have the time as I nominated it about 7.5 hours after launch. And there is no need for cross references from every loosely related item to each other. Nav boxes are not ways to save lazy readers one or two clicks, they are supposed to improve navigation between closely related items. What will be next, a nav box to relate queen Elizabeth II to the horse "High Kingdom" of her eldest granddaughter Zara Phillips because she has seen it compete? The Banner talk 10:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite interesting that you now even use copyvio for your stubs. Things are going the wrong way here. The Banner talk 10:41, 27 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:Anna Waronker

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) 05:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anna Waronker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. No direct links involved, rest could be done by normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 22:24, 16 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.

More templates by User:Technical 13

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) 05:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tbullet-s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AddSig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:YourSig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TimeStamp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This has now hit the threshold of competence is required. Technical 13 needs to stop creating pages in the Template: namespace until he is more practiced in writing template code. I suggest he limits himself to editing existing ones for the time being. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:28, 16 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:Roman2dec

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. Author moved to User:Technical 13/Template:Roman2dec. WOSlinker (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman2dec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since not all the extensions required for this template to work are installed, there seems little point in having this template around. If there is a need for it, it probably needs doing in lua. WOSlinker (talk) 19:16, 16 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:SupportSection

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) 05:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

See this discussion from yesterday. Before it could conclude, Technical 13 nominated the template he created for speedy deletion; but then recreated it under this different name two minutes later. My assumption of good faith for this user is beginning to run out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's an entirely different template. Consensus seemed to be that few liked the two stage template that used two <div> sections, a 25px block image of a check-mark, and the wording wasn't specific enough. There was hinting by a few of those discussing it that there it wouldn't be bad for there to be something similar to that template, but as worded by Hex, "An "I approve" might be a good addition to Category:Image with comment templates, but it would need to look completely different." This being the case, I created a new template that uses a single <span> section, an 18px rounded image (that is used in other similar templates, and made the wording specific. I then G7ed the old template as it was no longer needed. — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 20:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I (and Hex) are being very generous by not tagging this with {{db-g4}}. I strongly suspect what Hex had in mind was something much more subtle,   I approve or   I agree for example. There is no need to attract attention to your opinion by using a big box. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:08, 17 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:Wikify/tutorial

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. G8. Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Wikify/tutorial (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wikify/tutorial/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nowikify (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nowikify/content (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nowikify/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now that {{wikify}} has been deprecated, these templates are no longer needed. GoingBatty (talk) 17:27, 16 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:Infobox Island of the Bahamas

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, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Island of the Bahamas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer in use, and redundant to {{infobox settlement}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 16 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:Infobox tunisian athletics

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) 05:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tunisian athletics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is fully covered by {{Infobox sportsperson}}. Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what I mean above. We'll delete this template only after replacing it by {{Infobox sportsperson}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:08, 18 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:Infobox sportspersonv2

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) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox sportspersonv2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We have well-established {{Infobox sportsperson}}. This one is used only in 2-3 pages. I see no need to have it. Magioladitis (talk) 08:43, 16 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:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1928–1939

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 move Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1928–1939 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) was created only in 1940. The Academy Award for Best Story was an Academy Award given from the beginning of the Academy Awards (1927) until 1957, when it was eliminated. The categories are different, with different winners. --Borowskki (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename There is no reason to delete the template. Almost all academy award templates have templates. Just rename this and create the proper categories for it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename and expand to cover the Academy Award for Best Story. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
now renamed. Frietjes (talk) 22:00, 7 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_16&oldid=1138535046"