Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16[edit]

Template:Districts of Giresun[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, it appears these have been orphaned for some time. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Districts of Giresun (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not being used in any artice; appears to have been superceded by Template:Districts of Turkey. -- Tom B (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all Turkish provinces have a separate template (see Category: Turkey district templates). If they are all superceded, it should be a group delete. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:07, 20 April 2011 (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 Simpsons season episode list[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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Simpsons season episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Lists of episodes, and of seasons, belong in Navboxes, not Infoboxes. See, for example, the infobox on Bart the Genius. Diverging from the standard approach does not help our readers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, there are many more Simpsons episode lists, and even more television episode lists. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Including episode links in the infobox has always (well, for as long as I've been here) been the standard for The Simpsons episodes. A lot of other shows used to use this format too, but I see some have been changed (some others still do it, ie. Seinfeld). Having episodes listed near the top is far more useful than a template at the bottom. -- Scorpion0422 14:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We neither have, nor should we, a "standard for The Simpsons episodes". We have a "standard for Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But as Plastikspork mentioned, The Simpsons articles are not the only ones that use this method. Has there ever been a discussion to determine the "standard for Wikipedia"? -- Scorpion0422 20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you show us any sequences of articles which use this method and are not about TV shows? Can you tell us why sequences of TV shows are different from any other type of sequence of articles, which are perfectly capable of being linked by the standard; a navbox? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not aware of there being a "standard approach" (although do please correct me if I'm wrong). In fact, looking closer I see numerous shows using this style (for example, South Park and The West Wing). For the record, if there were to be a standard, then I think this is the way to go. Gran2 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Navboxes are the standard approach. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you point me to the policy/consensus where that is stated? Gran2 19:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There exists a de facto standard. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then why are there so many shows which don't follow the "standard"? I'm sorry but I don't find your reasoning in any way convincing. A "de facto standard" which is diverged from on mutliple counts is clearly not a standard. As there is no official standard, use of the infobox format contravenes nothing other than personal preference as far as I can see. Gran2 20:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rather than arguing that the navboxes used by the vast majority of articles in sequences do not constitute a standard, perhaps you could try to persuade us of the advantages of the non-standard model which is apparently your personal preference? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being located as the top of the article is much easier to see and access (indeed, the standard TV episode infobox contains a field linking to the following episode rather than using a sucession box at the bottom). Similarly, the examples I've seen which use the infobox style number all the episodes, which again makes it easier to locate one. Gran2 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Having something at the top of an article may indeed make it easier to see and access. however, given that only a limited amount if data can occupy such prime positions, it is far from clear that a list of other episodes should be made easier to see than information about the episode in question. It is also debatable whether such information is "easier to see and access" for readers who expect to find it in the standard navbox position at the foot of an article; and who may reasonably be assumed to want to use it after, rather than before, reading an article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • 1. "it is far from clear that a list of other episodes should be made easier to see than information about the episode in question" - It wouldn't and isn't in any of the systems that use it. It just goes down the side of the article and indeed, the Simpsons episodes have it collapsible so space and distraction are not an issue at all (for the record, many articles with navboxes at the bottom have them collapsed as well, so any issue of not seeing the list applies to both styles). 2. "for readers who expect to find it in the standard navbox position at the foot of an article" - As said, I disagree that it is the standard. I'm sure more use that system, but a sizeable amount of very notable shows do not. Also, if it is so difficult for these readers who expect it at the bottom, what happens if, say, The Simpsons' articles get navboxes, not infobox lists (which they have always had)? Surely that would be far more confusing? 3. "to want to use it after, rather than before, reading an article." - This is a very valid point, but most episode articles are not very long, and such a list goes down the side of a lot of the article, so I don't see how this is much of an issue. As I said before, the standard episode infobox has preceding and following field and there doesn't seem to be any problem with that being at the top. Conclusion: There's not much point in a continual back and forward because quite frankly I don't care enough about the issue. I've made my points, hopefully some other people will have something to say in this matter now. Gran2 00:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There is no "down the side of the article" for people for whom it is delivered in a linear fashion. "a sizeable amount of very notable shows" is still only a tiny part of Wikipedia. "preceding and following field [sic]" are attributes of the episode in question; lists of all the episodes in a series are not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Location of discussion[edit]
  • I would strongly prefer for this to be raised at some central location (say, WT:TV) than for individual instances to be TfDed one at a time. That said, this is way too much information for every individual episode article's infobox. If there must be links in the infobox then they should just be to next/previous, with the full episode list held in a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be happy for this to be a centralised discussion, but not at a topic-specific page; otherwise - as seems to have been happening - we end up with one standard for that topic; another for everything else on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not of the opinion that the TV project is that sort of walled garden. These templates grew organically by basically copying one another rather than a WikiProject-wide consensus. In light of that, it's worth notifying them centrally as it only appears to be TV infoboxes which have this particular problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:21, 18 April 2011 (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:Small-village-of-about-1,000-inhabitants-in-Kent-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 procedural close - moved to correct forum (WP:SFD)

Template:Small-village-of-about-1,000-inhabitants-in-Kent-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Malformed template of no apparent usefulness. PamD (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2011 (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:Disney Resorts[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) 01:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney Resorts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not needed, as it is a lite duplicate of Template:Disneyparks. Josh (Mephiles602) 10:42, 16 April 2011 (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:Left Macron[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) 01:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Left Macron (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An alphabetical list of Unicode characters which contain macrons. Most of the wikilinks are next to useless (they mainly redirect to general pages about diacritics). Purpose unclear. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2011 (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:Leatherman Multi-Tools[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 Merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leatherman Multi-Tools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redlinked timeline. Unused; not useful. Leatherman Multi-Tools has never existed, oddly enough. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into the product section of the article. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agree with good idea by 65.94.45.160. Moreover, we certainly don't need a separate article for each Leatherman product as this template would encourage. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:11, 20 April 2011 (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:Tompall & The Glaser Brothers[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) 01:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tompall & The Glaser Brothers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only two three articles to navigate too - this Navbox serves no useful function. memphisto 16:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Navigates five articles already, and has the potential for more — Tompall & the Glaser Brothers and Jim Glaser both have several albums that could easily be added to the template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It only navigates to three articles - typically band members and related articles links should be ignored. And navboxes exist to aid navigation to existing (not potential) articles. memphisto 09:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that this template is only used in the Tompall & the Glaser Brothers article and is just a repeat of the discography already on that page, illustrates clearly why this navbox is redundant. memphisto 07:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One used once on a page that already contains all the same links. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:15, 20 April 2011 (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 Red Dwarf series specials[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) 01:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Red Dwarf series specials (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to info contained in Template:Red Dwarf episodes EmanWilm (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2011 (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/2011_April_16&oldid=1078570013"