Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 6

< March 5	March 7 >

March 6

Template:Latin outtro

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 rewrite, to only include the list of common references, rename, to {{Latin phrases references}}, and replace in the articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latin outtro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Automatically adds Notes and References sections and navbox making them uneditable for willing editors. I suggest that it becomes subst only. For instance, page may be expanded to have more references. Magioladitis (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, at the very least split this into subtemplates so that the individual parts can be used separately. I plan to do this at the very least with the navbox. but, I agree, the rest can be simply substituted. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
okay, I split the navbox off to {{Latin phrases}}, and removed the interwiki links which were mostly incorrect. Frietjes (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as outlined by Ipoellet below. I don't understand how introducing a new level of template invocation, as done now here with {{Latin phrases}} which is called from {{Latin outtro}}, should help in any way, nor do I understand, as raised below, what WP:TEMPLATECAT has to do with these templates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, each page may need different references. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all do; the template merely provides the section "Notes" with {{reflist|2}} and the section "References" with sources applicable to every page. Did you inspect the template? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference style may change depending on the number of references. In general, creating model templates that automatically create sections of a page is not a good idea. It may be good idea for quickly creating pages but not for permanent use. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different rationale; you're shifting the goalposts. To answer this rationale: the number of "Notes" across the "List of Latin phrases" pages is 55 in total, an average of less than 3 with no great variation. I think {{reflist|2}} covers it. In addition, there are 3 general references which apply to all pages; transcluding those seems what templates are designed to do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make subst only or delete - This one has less benefit than the one below. It's easy enough to just copy the source. I think categories have less of an argument to be in this template than the one below, so I'll probably start adding them manually. -PC-XT+ 07:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references section could be in its own template. If the rest is moved to the articles, I'll change my !vote to keep. -PC-XT+ 07:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This contradicts what Magioladitis wrote above. And: isn't there some kind of etiquette which recommends restraint in editing pages mentioned "for discussion"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I did not do all that. (Note there is an intermediate revision.) I happen to think navbox and interwiki edits are pretty much maintenance, but only changed categories, myself, not content. I suggested a change, but won't act on it without consensus. It appears to me that a template for the references used for a group of pages is appropriate. I now question if it should be renamed, but I'll say keep if this change is made, regardless. I think the template should just be for references used for multiple pages in that group. -PC-XT+ 04:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC) To be very clear, I think the Notes section should be moved to the individual articles. I am only talking about keeping the References section, which does not use {{reflist}}, but includes a list of references used on multiple pages. -PC-XT+ 07:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Placing the categories directly to the page is a good start which enjoys strong consensus all these years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, refactor and probably rename to {{Latin phrases references}}. I usually would be for deleting templates having content, but this one seems to be a reasonable exception for that. It provides references for a long split list, with clear benefit for quality of the references and for consistency (that is one thing templates are all about, no?). My reasoning applies exclusively for the references. The remainder of the template (headings, notes, including other templates) should not be there - Nabla (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the other templates should not be included. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:38, 25 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:Metro Bacolod

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. Navigation is much easier from the article leads (all link to each other) than from a bunch of navboxes at the bottom Nabla (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metro Bacolod (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Clearly an example of navbox overkill, WP:NENAN. The 3 cities part of the metro area are already linked in the main article, and linked again in every other navbox at these articles. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 6 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:USS Tennessee (BB-43)

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) 22:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USS Tennessee (BB-43) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded template; all articles that it once covered were merged/redirected back into the main ship article, so all its links point to a single article, not even with anchors. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. A set of identical links is no help to navigation, and causes distracting and pointless clutter on an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 7 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:US state largest cities

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. The consensus seems to be that this template only adds more clutter to already overcluttered pages of these large cities. Ruslik_Zero 17:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US state largest cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Again a trivial navbar which mostly just adds to the already massive navbarspam at the bottom of many articles. Is sufficient to have List of U.S. states' largest cities by population, no need to have a navbar on the topic. --ELEKHH^T 05:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC) ELEKHH^T 05:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Couldn't have said it better:"massive navbarspam". -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a collapsebox for fixing that "massive navbarspam" (see for instance the bottom of Douglas SBD Dauntless); deleting a navbox because articles tend to collect navboxen on subjects that are appropriate to the article isn't something we need to do. Instead, collapse them, presto, problem solved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like the design of the template and there's no disadvantage of "navbarspam." alexanderao (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't there already an article as mentioned above that the petinent articles will link to (especially in the pertinent article intros)? Pentawing^Talk 06:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template is only used on 3 articles (Boston, Birmingham & Bridgeport) and in each case it is part of a massive navbarspam problem.
The more navbars are added to an article, the less prominent they each become, and this one is relatively trivial compared to the others on those pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Look again - the navboxes are now nested. I've added the navbox collapse template to those articles, thanks for pointing out the need. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hiding the problem doesn't solve it :(
    I looked again at Bridgeport, and it still has so many navboxes that they look like a wall. All that you've achieved is requiring a click before I can see the mess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I don't see it as a problem, but I suppose YMMV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, these articles already have a large number of navboxes at the bottom of the page, so adding this one doesn't add much. the article already does a good job of linking the articles. if someone wants to navigate through the list, that reader can just use the parent article instead. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{US state capitals}} to become {{US state leading cities}} -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per User:BrownHairedGirl, and note that potentially we could collapse the whole WP - or large chunks of it - into a page. Collapsing is no excuse to download marginally related data. - Nabla (talk) 11:29, 23 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.