Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 16

< November 15	November 17 >

November 16

Template:Currencies of Arab world

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) 16:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Currencies of Arab world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, currencies are using navboxes like Template:Currencies of Asia Bulwersator (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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:WPOIN

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) 16:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template with portal redlink Bulwersator (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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:Connecticut women's basketball 1,000 Point list

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 reformat as a list article Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Connecticut women's basketball 1,000 Point list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - WP:NENAN. This information would be much better served as a list article, not adding to navbox clutter. See also the related TfD for Template:UConn Women Career 1,000 Rebounds. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument in next item --SPhilbrick T 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - navboxes are first and foremost navigation aids. All on it should pass GNG and in this case that is not true. This info would be best served as a part of the UConn women's basketball article. Rikster2 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see GNG mentioned as a requirement in Categories or Navigation templates. Did I miss it, or is it elsewhere?--SPhilbrick T 19:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick - First, I want to say that I appreciate your work on Wikipedia. Women's basketball is an underserved content area (with LOTS of notable people and events currently unrecorded) and you do a lot of great work in the area - often alone it seems. My comment comes from me seeing navboxes differently than you in this matter. If we view them as first and foremost navigation aids, then it makes no sense to have subjects who aren't notable enough to have articles. My guess is that the guidelines think it's a given that the subjects of a navbox are actually navigatable articles. I disagree that a valid purpose of these things is to denote awards and honors. It's to navigate articles of people who have won said award, played together on a championship team, etc. This is why in mens college basketball and college football only notable players and coaches are listed on championship templates - the point isn't to record the team, it's to navigate the articles that either do or should exist. The other issue is that having one navbox on 1000 point scorers stars to set the precedent for these templates to be created for 300+ men's and 300+ women's schools. There isn't a school around, no matter how high profile, where EVERY 1000 point scorer is notable. This info is usually found on the appropriate school's program article. I actually think if someone were looking for it that's where they would go. If you or someone else wanted to create a separate list article taht went into a little more detail about each person that would work too. There have been MANY discussions about navboxes between the various professional and college sports projects and we are really trying to take a hard look at how we use templates in general - and most projects want relative consistency. This and the UConn women's rebounding template are (I beleive) the only ones of their kind and could spawn a whole new set, when the complaint about our project has been that we create too many templates. The info on them is absolutely notable and encyclopedic, but templates are not the way to display them in my view. Rikster2 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly hard to have a spirited argument with someone who says such nice things. Thanks, seriously. On the merits, you start with the statement that the subject matter of the navbox needs to meet GNG, then go on to argue that there will be programs where some items on a list are definitely not notable. That last point is squarely addressed in Categories, where is says "An embedded list, one incorporated into an article on a topic, may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles". I don't agree that WP is settled on the first question. Perhaps it is implicit, but implicit issues that are challenged deserve an open discussion.

I was surprised to see the nomination, and a few minutes digging convince me I find myself in a long running battle about navboxes and succession boxes and related issues. I'm not fully up on all the history, as there is a lot. So let me move on to an area of agreement - you said "There have been MANY discussions about navboxes between the various professional and college sports projects and we are really trying to take a hard look at how we use templates in general - and most projects want relative consistency". I fully agree with the sentiment. As a project we should take a hard look at how we use templates, and reach a consensus. There we agree.

What I don't like is the notion that the best way to reach a common ground is to propose a template for deletion and see what happens. Rather than work out a "consensus" by proposing deletions, and inferring a policy based upon what survives, I'd prefer an organized approach - RfC or whatever, and debate the issues. Frankly, I'd start with succession boxes versus navboxes—I was honestly gobsmacked to see support for succession boxes. They are TRS-80s in an iPad world. I thought they still existed only because editors hadn't gotten around to cleaning them out. I've removed a few of the ugly monsters (is my position clear?) but many are still left. I still shake my head at the notion that some prefer them.

Enough of a rant, but I think we should find a way to revisit the world of lists, cats, navboxes and succession boxes in an organized way, rather than trying to use the awkward mechanism of TFD to revise policy. xfD should always be making decisions based upon settled policy, and if the policy isn't settled, we should go off and settle it, not use xfD to reshape policy.--SPhilbrick T 01:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. Hate succession boxes and college basketball and football have essentially elimintaed them. There have been some broad attempts at coming to a shared policy, but they never go anywhere. But I'm just one person chiming in, it'll be interesting to see what others have to say. Rikster2 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and then delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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:UConn Women Career 1,000 Rebounds

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 convert to a list article Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UConn Women Career 1,000 Rebounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - WP:NENAN. This information would be much better served as a list article, not adding to navbox clutter. See also the related TfD for Template:Connecticut women's basketball 1,000 Point list. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see it differently, but I should start by acknowledging a potential COI, as the subject area is a personal interest, and I created the template.

For better or for worse, navboxes have evolved into a dual purpose. The primary purpose, of course, is to provide an easy, and reasonably unobtrusive way to let readers know about other relevant articles. It is natural, for example, that the reader of an article about a particular state park might be interested in other parks in the same state. A navbox, with a link to all the other state parks provided that functionality nicely. However, in the case of bios of notable sports persons, the navboxes provide a secondary role: they serve to identify awards and accomplishments of the person, and indicate who else has earned that ward or accomplishment. In the case of a state park, if I look at the nav box, I may very well want to go to another article (although I may be satisfied by seeing the list). In contrast, if I look at the navbox of players with 1000 rebounds, I can, of course go to the article, but I am likely to receive all the information I desire simply by seeing the list of names. Of course, the information can be imparted to the user by replacing with a list article, but I contend this hampers the user, rather than improving the experience. If I link to a list article, the reader cannot tell who else is on this list, or even how many are on the list, without going to the list. In contrast, both pieces of information are available to the reader who clicks on the navbox. Generally speaking, a list is more impressive if there are fewer who qualify. A list of all UConn players with over ten rebounds would be long, but not impressive. That there are only four signifies the exclusivity. However, a list article with only four entries looks rather bare. In contrast, a navbox with four entries highlight the exclusivity.

Replacing the navbox with a list would mean the need to create a stub article with only four entries, plus adding a See also link to all articles, which I contend would be more clutter than retaining the navbox. I can say more, but I'm already in danger of tldr. Let me know if anyone wants more arguments.--SPhilbrick T 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Adddendum. I hadn't read WP:NENAN before. It doesn't change my answer, although I'll note I have my own perosnal "rule of five". If I'm editing an article where there are five or more awards or accomplishments, I create a collapsed navbox for all the awards and accomplishments to help avoid clutter. See, for example Tina Charles (basketball)--SPhilbrick T 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - navboxes are first and foremost navigation aids. All on it should pass GNG and in this case that is not true. This info would be best served as a part of the UConn women's basketball article. Rikster2 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Basically, all it is is a list. A navbox is not necessary for this. Listify or merge are better options. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:13, 29 November 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:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1972–1979

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 ater merger Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1980–1989 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1990–1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 2000-2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 2010-2019 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1972–1979 with Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1980–1989, Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1990–1999, Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 2000-2009 and Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 2010-2019. No need for separate templates as all are small. The last one in particular has only one entry. A single template will do. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The complete list already exists in the template below:Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), hence merging is not necessary. The idea of dividing them into groups was taken from this filmfare awards template :Template:FilmfareAwardBestActor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages). If you think dividing it into groups is not needed, then go ahead and delete the 4 templates listed above. Thanks for notifying me. - krzna (talk): 20:26, 16 November 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:Shemp Howard

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) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shemp Howard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template contains the filmography for an actor, and previous consensus (here, here and here) has shown that these should not be created. Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cause our articles on films would be ten times as long if every actor had one of these. --Conti|✉ 14:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions and Conti is correct. A film like Love Actually, with a huge ensemble cast, would take about thirty minutes to open before editing with the number of navboxes that would be added. MarnetteD | Talk 15:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain, Take a look at the actual template created before using blanket statements like "cause our articles on films would be ten times as long if every actor had one of these". We are not talking about a film like Love Actually. Also, many films do not need this template. just more notable ones. This template has been added based on templates added to such entries as the following:{{Abbott and Costello}}, {{Marx Brothers}}, {{ThreeStooges}}, {{Laurel and Hardy}}, {{Laurel and Hardy filmography}}. Note that Laurel and Hardy have both a template and a specific filmography template. This Shemp Howard entry is not solely a filmography (note the name "filmography" is not utilized, as that would limit it). In addition, this "Shemp Howard" entry was specifically creates because of the diversity of series', many studios and short/feature films + television that Howard was involved in. Note that other sections will be added to this template (related works, television, etc). Please do not delete until discussed further.Oanabay04 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those examples are comedy teams not individuals. The specifics of this template that you mention are not unique to this person and those details are better served by being mentioned in his article. MarnetteD | Talk 18:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The idea here would be to put this template on every article mentioned for an actor, and a supporting actor at best. Templates galore await for every actor's every acting appearance should this survive. {{Jack Warden}} anyone? No offense to Jack Warden, or Shemp Howard for that matter. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per repeated past consensus. Creating templates like these for actors is a bad idea. Robofish (talk) 22:28, 4 December 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:Sema:'

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) 16:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sema:' (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simple text substitution from 2005. We have the character panel now. Unused (not that it really matters). — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:11, 16 November 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:Seaports and Terminals in the Philippines

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 Redirect to {{Seaports in the Philippines}}. Ruslik_Zero 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seaports and Terminals in the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Effectively redundant to {{Seaports in the Philippines}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:08, 16 November 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:Secret Seven

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 Speedy Delete Creators request. Jac16888 ^Talk 14:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Secret Seven (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links redirect to The Secret Seven. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. Biscuittin (talk) 09:57, 16 November 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:Scientists whose names are used as SI units and non SI units

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) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units and non SI units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific a criteria for a navbox. Not currently used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first deletion rationale does not make sense; a too specific criteria would be one that had very few or no members. Template: Kings of Judah for instance has rather less entries. A natural question for a reader to ask on finding a person has a unit named after them would be "who else has units so named?" and the template answers that question. I note also that templates exist for Template:Scientists whose names are used as non SI units and Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units and these are in use, presumably the reason for the disuse of this one. I support deletion solely on the grounds that the template has now been superseded by other templates and its deletion should not be seen as a precedent for deletion of the ones currently in use. Spinning Spark 11:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The average reader is not likely to want to navigate from one scientist to another by those criteria. If they are interested in scientists with these properties, there are lists/categories for this. This takes up unnecessary page space. --N Y Kevin @770, i.e. 17:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any statistics on how often the template is clicked through? If not, you are not in a position to pronounce on what the average reader is, or is not, likely to do. Spinning Spark 00:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete and create a Category for this. The template does not concern a topic. It just groups common properties, but the scientists themselves have nothing in common. -DePiep (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we should also nominate the other templates (see first, long, !vote), but I don't think it's a good idea to add them to this nomination; there are different issues involved. --N Y Kevin @793, i.e. 18:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. They all could be in categories and subcategories. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and Categorify, and then delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - not a useful means of navigation as far as I can see. Would be acceptable as a list, but not as a navbox (or, I should add, a category). Robofish (talk) 22:27, 4 December 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.