Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 3 March 5 >

March 4

edit

Template:MahamayaNagar-geo-stub

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 and histmerge with {{Hathras-geo-stub}}. Ruslik_Zero 17:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MahamayaNagar-geo-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not required any more as the district specific geo-stub has been moved to Hathras-geo-stub GDibyendu (talk) 18:37, 4 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:Letter-spacing

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Letter-spacing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purely presentational template intended for Yet Another means of emphasising bits of random text. The one articlespace use (in a hatnote on charge conservation) neatly demonstrates both its intended use and why that's not a good idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continue, please. Why this idea is −good? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:01, 4 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:Van Canto

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Van Canto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 12:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or rename navbox to Template:­Bastian Emig) - ­Bastian Emig is a member of both van Canto and In Legend, so as long as both are notable, Emig is notable enough to have his own article. This would bring the total number of van Canto articles up to 5, not counting their upcoming album. Additionally, Emig makes ­In Legend related to van Canto, the former of which does not have its own template. Finally, the four van Canto albums do not all link to one another without the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It should be the article Van Canto that would link the different albums. Nav boxes are not supposed to save lazy readers one or two clicks, as is told you many times before. And otherwise, you could fix it by linking in the album-articles. The Banner talk 19:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_9, which says:
"The whole purpose of a navbox is to be inserted in all the related articles to allow you to navigate between them. A list just does not allow you to come and go and jump between them. This is exactly what a navbox is for."
Additionally, some of the articles are so long that it would be difficult to find the links within the article anyway. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are kidding, I hope? The Banner talk 23:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Long is a relative term, and with the two bands combined, it meets NENAN rule of five. With Emig, the articles regarding Van Canto alone will also meet the rule of five. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of five doesn't exist. I would like to remind everyone that not everything needs a navbox is a user essay, not policy. Yes, it's well respected, and yes, it's often a good idea to follow it, but it should never be the only reason to delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thank you Ego White Tray! --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Read WP:BAND bullet 6, which says "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles". It does not matter why I created the article. If we were to redirect Bastian Emig to van Canto, how would we know he is a part of In Legend? If we were to redirect Bastian Emig to In Legend, how would we know he is a part of van Canto? Here it says "Users have expressed interest in keeping the tracklists somewhere in Wikipedia". Implied in this is keeping the information about the album, which is what an encyclopedia should do. Lastly, how are my comments SPAM if they are not trying to sell something? Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Jax, spam is not only about selling; it's also repeated and unwanted communication. Please stop spamming.
    The question of where to redirect (or whether to redirect at all) is a secondary question. The fact is that he is non-notable, and there is nothing to say abut him other than that he played in two bands. That factoid can be conveyed in each article in less than a dozen words.
    As to your "here it says" comment ... was that a sneaky attempt at misrepresenting the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums, or did you just not bother to read the closing statement?
    Whichever it it was, Jax has quoted from the closing admin's summary of the discussion rather than from the conclusion, which rejected any blanket approval of that point: "that consensus is to Keep current wording and merge or redirect album articles that only contain an infobox and a tracklist. Given the comments above, such merges should be done in compliance with current policies and guidelines, and when such information is considered notable (or encyclopedic) enough to be included". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply -
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
I can't stop spamming if I did not spam in the first place.


Emig is a member of two notable bands. On disambiguation pages, such as Graziadei, the rules state that only one link is permitted per line. If that is the case, then it would be a difficult decision to determine to which band Billy Graziadei should redirect. This is exactly why Lamagna and Kochmit have articles. Keeping the article about Emig allows people to quickly know that he is a member of VC and IL. I was not trying to be sneaky at all, just quoting discussions. I would think that track listings of albums are encyclopedic and includable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jax, if we keep one-line pseudo "articles" on people just because they are mentioned in two other pages, we might as well delete WP:GNG.
If you think that track listings are encyclopedic and includable in the article on the band, then argue that case on the article's talk page. But as concluded in the discussion you linked to, that's no reason to keep an article on a non-notable album. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I disagree with the first statement, per WP:BLP1E. I am trying to avoid a merge followed by a subsequent size or content split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. BLP1E is nothing to do with this. If there is a subsequent content split, it cannot create an article on someone non-notable; deal with that if and when the problem arises. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - IMHO, "toss a coin" is not a good solution to determine to which band a musician redirects if both bands are equally notable. In this case, the musician's article acts as a "disambiguation page" of sorts. IMHO, it is better, when someone types in Hughell or Pitruzzella that it shows all of the bands that the person has been a part of, instead of just saying that the musician does not have any page at all, and requiring the reader to sift through search results. That is what an encyclopedia is all about. If it is properly sourced that the musician belongs to the notable bands in question, then the page should remain. If one or zero of the bands are notable, then the musician might not warrant a page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Toss a coin works fine for issues like this. We don't need to provide a perfect navigational path for every non-notable person who ever existed, and any attempt to do so would massively clutter Wikipedia with pseudo-articles on non-notable topics. What we can do instead is use the Wiki's facility for easy internal links to cross-link between pages so that each of the band articles can cross-link to he other bands, like this:
Drummer
There is no need create a walled garden of pseudo-articles on non-notable topics, nor to create navigational templates to tie all this cruft together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A Storm to Come (AFD, closed as merge)
  2. Hero (van Canto album) (AFD, closed as merge)
  3. Tribe of Force (AFD, closed as merge)
  4. Break the Silence (van Canto album) (AFD, closed as keep)
  5. Bastian Emig (AFD, closed as redirect)
As nominated, the template fell below the 5-album minimum recommended by WP:NENAN. It is now down to 3, and may fall further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Three albums and two bands which do not all link to one another makes a navbox quite useful me thinks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:25, 28 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:Danny Vaughn

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 Rename to Template:Vaughn (band). Ruslik_Zero 17:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danny Vaughn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 12:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thank you Ego White Tray! --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:20, 5 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:Tesco Vee

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tesco Vee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 12:14, 4 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:Venomous Concept

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) 03:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venomous Concept (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN With just one album and three linked musicians, this nav box serves no purpose. The Banner talk 12:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I don't object to the deletion, for accuracy's sake there is actually 2 albums listed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank to your intervention, MrMoustacheMM. But it is a clear indication of the rather common sloppy work of J. that you can add links so easily. The Banner talk 19:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Venomous Concept has four notable musicians and two album articles. As of now, the articles do not all link to one another without the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a question, why do you make so many dodgy or/and incomplete templates when there are so many complaints about them? This is another example of an incomplete template that you only complete after a nomination. Please, Jax, improve your standards before someone goes after a topic ban for you. The Banner talk 23:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -

  1. See this page, as TfD is not the forum for this matter.
  2. This navbox STARTED with 7 links, and STILL has the SAME 7 links. Only three edits have been made to the template thus far, one by me, one by Victor Lopes and one by you, so this CAN NOT be "another example of an incomplete template that [I] only complete after a nomination". Care to explain how I can change this navbox after the fact if I created it and only made ONE edit to it?
  3. As of late, my navboxes have been on every page that is linked in it except some related articles. They have, and continue to move toward the path of connectivity with few to no disambiguation pages. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:The Banner, I have checked the history of this template, and User:Jax 0677 has only made one edit (the initial creation of this template). This edit was made prior to you starting this TfD. I also made an edit to the template (to add piped links to two wikilinks). No edits have been made to it after this template was nominated here. Please ensure that you are not making "dodgy" nominations with incorrect information (such as the number of albums contained, or when and how many edits have been made). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With only two albums there is no need for a nav box. This can be solved by normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 22:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Templates for discussion is not an exercise in counting. The number 5 has apparently become a magic number with mystical powers as listed in the great holy work WP:NENAN. It's not, this template is useful regardless of its magic number. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thank you Ego White Tray and MrMoustacheMM! --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -

  1. Banner, if the problem can be solved by wikilinking the articles, WP:SOFIXIT!!!
  2. Banner, what proof do you have that this is "an incomplete template that [I] only complete after a nomination"?
  3. Lastly, how are my comments SPAM if they are not trying to sell something? Thank you!

--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:59, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_4&oldid=1138534984"