Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

June 17

Template:Arsenal F.C. season 2002-03 game log

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) 02:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arsenal F.C. season 2002-03 game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has become redundant the last two years, having been replaced by {{football box collapsible}}. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2012 (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:Family Guy cast

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) 02:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family Guy cast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded. TBran dl ey 16:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, by convention we don't create cast templates, or it would create way too many navboxes at the bottom of each article. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2012 (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:Option

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) 22:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

nearly unused, poor visual contrast, and basically redundant to {{grey}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2012 (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:Pass on

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) 22:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pass on (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to {{1x}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2012 (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:Singapore places locator map

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) 22:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singapore places locator map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2012 (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:Paris RER imageclick

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) 22:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paris RER imageclick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Paris Metro imageclick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Paris Tramway imageclick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

appears to be obsolete. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2012 (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:Suþ

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

basically redundant to {{sup sub}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{sup sub}}. ({{sub sup}} should also redirect there) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2012 (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:Olympic sports

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. Relisted per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_31#Template:Olympic_sports, with the Olympics and Sports WikiProjects notified. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Redundant for what? It is used on a fair number of articles. Preference keeping THIS template over Template:OlympicSports, which has "unofficial" Olympic sports, which is not something that even exists: The IOC has no such classification. --LauraHale (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm agree with LauraHale. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The previous discussion presented several good arguments for keep, good explanations for why it is not redundant and a weak argument for deletion. While the admin who closed it declared "no consensus" the ultimate result was to keep it. The only person who seems to want to continue to pursue TfD is this same proponent, with no additional evidence or argument. If you don't like dad's answer, maybe mom will go the other way. Trackinfo (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak? And Koavf is the only one who would desire deletion? That's a different read from the discussion than I got, else it would have likely been closed as a keep rather than a no consensus.... --Izno (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Please assume good faith, Trackinfo. If you've got some axe to grind, please don't do it here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said previously, this template serves as a way of linking the Olympic sports themselves. If deleted there will be no direct link between major olympic sports articles such as Cycling and athletics, Swimming and Rowing, or Bobsleigh and figure skating. People associate these sports mentally because of their Olympic prominence. At least 25 people per day view the template directly. Perhaps we could split up the current summer sports and current winter sports into separate templates to improve relevance further if that's the issue? SFB 09:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"People associate these sports mentally because of their Olympic prominence."^{[citation needed]} I certainly don't and I doubt anyone actually does in that manner. --Izno (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People think of Swimming and Athletics together (as Olympic sports) in the same way people might want to go between Baseball and Basketball (as American sports). If you don't think of them that way, then perhaps that's because you're not interested in those particular sports or the context in which they feature. It is to me quite obvious that someone reading a top level article on a major world sport might like to move on to read another top level article on a different major world sport. SFB 18:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I played soccer (football) for ten years, competitively swam for another ten years (non-exclusive), and had my hand in tennis, cross-country running, and track and field. To put it plainily, "People think of..." needs a citation. I do not think what you say is true for everyone, nor the vast majority of people, though it may be true for yourself (claiming what you think as what many people think is simply a fallacy). I do see the value in the possible context, but that is provided by Template:OlympicSports to a sufficient degree; Template:Olympic sports is simply excessive "navigation" between loosely related topics. --Izno (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still arguing for deletion. It basically is redundant (see my comments at last TfD); beyond that, they are of rather low relation to each other (see WP:SPECIFICLINK for what I'm getting at here). Any rather important links should be added to Template:OlympicSports. I personally don't see any, but maybe one of those arguing for a keep does see such a link. --Izno (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge with {{OlympicSports}}. having two templates is just confusing. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep everyone above has summed up my thoughts pretty well. -DJSasso (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same stuff still around? I mean clearly the result should be already really clear. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The common subject here is "Olympic games". If you don't link the actual Games articles then the grouping is completely arbitrary, no better than {{sports where participants wear gloves}}. And there are some dreafully low-quality arguments in opposition to the nomination, some of which are worrying from admins who should really know better. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a very strange comment. Are there really people who think that whether a sport is an Olympic sport is no more important than whether it is a sport where gloves are worn? Is it due to "dreafully low-quality arguments" that Category:Olympic sports is blue and Category:sports where participants wear gloves is red? Thincat (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think that every time we have a category for something, we have to have a navbox for it too. These people are wrong, and contribute to the trainwreck that is the navbox section of many of our team sports articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. I must have misunderstood your phrase "the grouping is completely arbitrary". Thincat (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is entirely reasonable to be able to navigate from one sport that is in the Olympics to another one. It is also reasonable to navigate between the "at the ... Olympics" articles. An entirely separate matter is whether "unofficial" Olympic sports are included. Inclusion in the present template might be problematic because, although it is natural to link to Fire fighting at the Summer Olympics, a link to Fire fighting would seem very odd. In the latter article the sporting aspects seem to have gone unremarked—I expect someone will place an {{Incomplete}} template there soon. Thincat (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2012 (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:Iodide

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) 22:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, trivial chemical template. Simple enough to just use {{iodine}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation please - I don't know how to read template code, why does no one make documentation pages for the templates they create? I have no idea what this does. Seriously, I see {{{1}}}I{{{2}}} on the template page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, with a simple template like this one, you just fill in the gaps: {{iodide|2|3}} gives 2I₃, which is the same as using 2{{iodine|3}} to give 2I₃. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, simple frontend to {{iodine}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2012 (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:4 Non Blondes

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4 Non Blondes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The band are notorious for only having one album and being a one-hit wonder. Until such time as they release anything else, then this isn't necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band has 3 notable band members with long articles (the length adds to the difficulty of finding other articles), 2 notable albums (including Hello Mr. President) and 2 notable songs ("Spaceman" by 4 Non Blondes has charted). WP:NENAN requires five articles in which to place the template, this template has 6 (with potential for 8).

Linda Perry does not link to Shaunna Hall. Shaunna Hall does not link to Roger Rocha. Roger Rocha does not link to any of the other band members nor "What's Up". "What's Up" does not link to Shaunna Hall nor Roger Rocha. For these reasons, the navbox should be kept. At a minimum, a template for Linda Perry should replace this template.--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, articles not linking to one another normally means that a navbox isn't appropriate. That said, in this case I'd suggest it's more due to the articles needing improved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That may be true in the most general case. However, if a musical ensemble has multiple albums, singles and members (past and present), should all of the articles necessarily reference all of the members, albums and songs? If the ensemble has at least 3 albums or singles, they very often do not all reference each other. Pigface has over 100 members past and present. Listing them all in an article about a song or album is not likely to happen. And again, if the articles are long, the navbox makes it MUCH easier to find the links in question. Using the logic that "articles not linking to one another normally means that a navbox isn't appropriate", then we would not need navboxes at all, because you could argue that all of the links are contained within the article in question. Additionally, where in each article would we put such information? We don't even know that Shaunna and Roger were even involved in "What's Up", but we do know that the two are interconnected through the band.

We also have not addressed the question of having a template for Linda Perry replace this one. Thank you very much for your attention.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability But what understanding does this band have two notable albums? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Justin,

1. I may have been mistaken about "Dear Mr. President" being notable, but even if it is not, "Spaceman" has charted, bringing the total number of potential articles to seven.

2. The ensemble has three notable band members and a song, none of whom link to every band member. Additionally, the album and band are notable, bringing the total number of existing articles to 6.

3. If we were to change the title of this template to "Linda Perry", with her 3 albums and discography, that would bring the total number of articles in the template to 10. However, I believe that both templates ("4 Non Blondes" and "Linda Perry") can stand on their own.

4. I respectfully request that this template NOT be deleted until and unless a discussion about a template for "Linda Perry" has taken place.

Thank you for your attention.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2012 (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) 01:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A borderline case that I feel should be kept. If any one of the five articles is deleted for some reason, the template should be re-nominated. If more articles are added to the navbox, then we'll be a lot happier! — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, "Spaceman" is a notable song.--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will suggest this is more important to keep than your ordinary band, because during the "one hit wonder" phase they did achieve such notoriety and then that they have subsequently scattered. A template like this draws unity to where this notable band has gone. Trackinfo (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2012 (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.