Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9

[edit]

Template:Infobox casino

[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 merge. JPG-GR (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with Template:Infobox building. There is considerable overlap anyway with infobox hotel and infobox building. However the infobox building will need updating with any casino specific parameters and like infobox hotel I'd like to retain the very appropriate gold coloring scheme for the headers or maybe the maroon and gold used for infobox hotel. Maybe a building_type=casino programmed to display infobox in gold or maroon and gold seems as places like Bellagio are both a hotel and a casino..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose its more specific and clearly pertinent (the amt. of casino articles here()). details are important . if anythign it can be expadnded.. to include other data on the casino, slot machines, revenue, etc.
incidentally if there is consensus for a merge then the hotel box below would be more pertinent than building.Lihaas (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I happen to be one of those involved in the design of that template and don't see a problem since, except for one or two fields, it fits well in with the building one. As to adding other data. Number of slot machines is not a good data point since it is always changing and not with a public announcement making verifiability a major issue. Likewise for revenue. As far as the local casinos, I don't believe that this is released information is released for competitive reasons. I looked at the Caesars 10Q for this year's first quarter and that revenue data is not broken out by casino. The lowest level of breakout is by region. In any case, if there is other data that belongs in a separate infobox, we still have the option to do that since {{infobox building}} supports the embed of an additional infobox. So that material can be included in a much smaller infobox that adds to {{infobox building}}. But as I said, I'm not sure that there is a need for that here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still Oppose... -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 15:56, 28 May 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, JPG-GR (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this I think is on the right track, but the track is laid in the wrong place. A casino is a business, or part of a business, that is housed in zero or more buildings. Perhaps a look at schema.org might help with the larger picture. Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose. To add on to Farmbrough's comment, I think it needs to be reiterated again that a casino is strictly not a building but a function, just like a hotel is also a function which can take place either in a building of its own or as part of a building. If we are going to have a single template for all buildings, imagine the parametres needed for every possible building function which can range from a residential building to a police station to a stadium to a discotheque to an airport!--Huaiwei (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A Casino is not a Hotel.Moxy (talk) 17:11, 16 June 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:DNB AA

[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. Only 1 of 731 templates up for deletion were tagged. No prejudice toward any future TfDs. JPG-GR (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DNB AA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The DNB citation template, {{Cite DNB}}, does not use, or mandate the use of, these templates. Most (694) are unused, and the others appear to have few transclusions. They contain unneeded verbosity (the initials of the contributor are hardly needed in each article), and are not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to remove the "signing as" part feel free. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 20 May 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, JPG-GR (talk) 18:04, 9 June 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:Nth weekday

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nth weekday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, and replaced by other template (Template:WEEKDAY). Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 9 June 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:Nth day

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nth day (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

broken and unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 9 June 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:Venture Bros. navigation

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venture Bros. navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per this discussion, all of the episodes of The Venture Bros. have been merged into the main list. As such, this navbox no longer links between separate articles. Neelix (talk) 15:14, 9 June 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:VentureBrosEps

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per this discussion, all of the episodes of The Venture Bros. have been merged into the main list. As such, this navbox no longer links between separate articles. Neelix (talk) 14:34, 9 June 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 Bill

[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 and redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used twice, appears to be redundant to {{Infobox legislation}}, which could be used in those two articles instead. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Also redirect the better name "Infobox bill". Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 10 June 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:20th century persecutions of the Catholic Church

[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. Please continue discussion of trimming of template on the template's talkpage. JPG-GR (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:20th century persecutions of the Catholic Church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are two problems related to this template:

  1. It is not really an "article series", in the sense that the linked articles form a logical, coherent chronological or spatial set. Rather, this is a set of disconnected, isolated incidents where the only thing is common is that the target is Catholic church or its clergy. It is similar in spirit to various "Anti-X sentiment" articles, in the sense that it violates the WP:SYNTH in "connecting the dots" where there is no connection supported by WP:RS. The reasons why (members of) the Catholic church was targeted and prosecuted during the 20th century wildly wary, and there is no reason why they would be linked in a "series". It is highly artificial "series", and demonstrates a POV, if I may say. And then, why is only the 20th century singled out? For that reason, I propose outright delete. At most, it should be converted to a category.
  2. Because of the number of items, the template is visually huge, and presents a significant distraction from the text. If kept, it should be converted to a navbox format. (This is not stricly an issue for TfD, but I present it as an additional argument why is the whole business of creating templates of this kind is bad). No such user (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant reduction in size This is a huge template, with really different items, and seems to want to count anyone bumping into a Catholic on a sidewalk as "persecution of the Church". There were some persecutions, but the items presented here are just too many. So a much smaller template with at most 7-10 major articles is all that is needed, with a common thread is among the articles. But a total deletion is not necessary, given that some persecutions obviously took place in the 20th century - and some were really serious, e.g. Spain, Mexico, Miguel Pro, etc. What is kept should be discussed on the template talk page. History2007 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 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, JPG-GR (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's clearly problems with this template; namely size, structure and, especially, content. It really ought to be a navbar but whether this should be geographically, chronologically or otherwise oriented is hard to say. And as for content... Hmmm. In the meantime, I've copied it to my userspace, so I'll work on it there and see if I can come up with something to supersede it. LordVetinari 11:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A new template has been created and is at Template:Persecution of Christians. It is designed to supersede {{20th century persecutions of the Catholic Church}}. Perhaps the original template could be redirected? LordVetinari 10:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that template is much better. I'm fine with redirection of this one, but it should be first removed from most articles (chiefly about individuals) where it is transcluded, and moved to the article bottom elsewhere. Since it requires additional work anyway, we might as well delete this one (because it will end up unused). No such user (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am sorry, I can not agree. That new template s ok, but is about Christians, not Catholics. It is like having an article about the US and using that as an article about Kansas as well. It will not work. Kansas needs its own article regardless of how well the US article looks. The fundamental logical problem with merging the two is that Catholics have been persecuted by "other Christians" so persecution of Christians will not cover that in any shape of form. It is a simple question of incorrect logic to attempt a merge. I think this discussion needs to wrap up, then we will reduce the size of the Catholic template on its own talk page. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Done deal. History2007 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 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_June_9&oldid=1078572787"