Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 19

< May 18	May 20 >

May 19

Template:Bad Azz

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) 21:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad Azz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 22:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Navbox has five articles that do not all link to one another without the navbox:

Word on tha Streets (Bad Azz album) does not link to Money Run nor Thug Pound
Personal Business (album) does not link to Thug Pound
Money Run does not link to Word on tha Streets nor Thug Pound
Thug Pound does not link to Word on tha Streets , Money Run nor Personal Business
Bad Azz is the only musician article associated with the LBC Crew

There is no good place in the album articles for all of the albums, and this does meet the NENAN rule of five. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may pass the rule of five, but there is no need to include the album Blacc Balled in the navbox. Per WP:NAVBOX, which you agreed to follow before creating new templates in you RfC, "the articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". There is no reference to Bad Azz in the Blac Balled article and no reference to Blac Balled in the article for Bad Azz, nor should there be. You wouldn't include I Am... Sasha Fierce in {{Kelly Rowland}}, and the same applies here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I neither agree nor disagree about removing Blacc Balled from the navbox, albeit I only put it under related, and will comply with WP:BRD should someone remove it, just like I complied with WP:BRD regarding Mary Was the Marrying Kind. I never said that my future work was going to be perfect, however, I have added all contemplatable articles to my navboxes and put the navboxes on all pages aside from "Related Articles". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have kicked it out, as there is no evidence at the mentioned article that Bad Azz was involved. The Banner talk 19:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Request speedy close as keep Now Jax came up with more links (why not before the nomination?) the template barely makes the threshold of five relevant links. The Banner talk 19:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - This navbox has had ALL of the SAME five links from the very beginning, so this navbox, like {{Londonbeat}} should never have gone to TfD in the first place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because I ignored the "related" section as it is for no use in the head count. The Banner talk 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - The links in a "Related" section MIGHT NOT be relevant, that doesn't mean that they ARE NOT relevant. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep, four albums plus the artist is enough. Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 23 May 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:Modern AFV

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) 21:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern AFV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is mostly redundant to Template:Modern IFV and APC. This could be repurposed into a template for armoured cars ~~in the (more attractive) style of the IFV&APC template~~, but it's probably easier to delete this and start afresh if considered necessary. DexDor (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this edit summary, undoing a redirect to that template, there is a distinction here which makes a merge inappropriate. Is that generally considered to be the case? I agree that if this template is kept it should be properly {{navbox}}ed rather than usijng its current hand-hacked-in-2005 look. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reformat - It is not redundant to Template:Modern IFV and APC, because IFVs and APCs are primarily troop transports. This template is needed for armoured vehicles that do not carry troops and are not tanks. It is needed precisely to eliminate the confusion about the distinction between the different "classes" of armoured vehicles. It should be reformatted to the usual format for Navboxes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted Template:Modern AFV to match Template:Modern IFV and APC. Should we keep the two templates with a large overlap (bearing in mind that it wouldn't make sense to have both these templates on an article) or should we repurpose the "Modern AFV" one into "Wheeled armoured vehicles that do not carry troops andare not tanks" - if so isn't that pretty much the definition of an armoured car ? DexDor (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2013 (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) 21:31, 19 May 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:79th Texas House of Representatives

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) 21:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:79th Texas House of Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:80th Texas House of Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:81st Texas House of Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:82nd Texas House of Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

current convention is that we only navigate by the list of current representatives, not historic. the list of historic representatives is only needed in one article per senate, hence no need for these templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you in saying that my templates go agianst current convention. However I feel that they still have use in their respective articles. It is obvious to me that there is no one template that is used on every historical House of Representatives and Senate page for every state. In fact some lists fail to even provide links to representatives. My goal in creating these templates was to have a useful and (most importantly) consistent manner of providing each and every legislative article with their respective list of representatives; which I feel they do. The same goes for all other templates listed for deletion below. Cheers - Freebirds ^Howdy! 20:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the content should be in an article, not in a navigation box. what further complicates this approach is the idea that the list of representatives is static for an entire session, which it frequently is not. also, imagine the number of these we would have at the foot of an article about a politician with a long career. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as delete Your case makes sense. It would probably be much easier to display the same information if I can find a template that fits for all instances. I'll take a look and see what I can find. Meanwhile, I have no problem doing away with these templates, as they are now defunct and serve no purpose. The same goes for all other house and senate templates listed for deletion below. Cheers, Freebirds ^Howdy! 22:47, 20 May 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:70th Texas State Senate

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) 21:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:70th Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:71st Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:72nd Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:73rd Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:74th Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:78th Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:79th Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:80th Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:81st Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:82nd Texas State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

current convention is that we only navigate by the list of current senators, not historic. the list of historic senators is only needed in one article per senate, hence no need for these templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you in saying that my templates go agianst current convention. However I feel that they still have use in their respective articles. It is obvious to me that there is no one template that is used on every historical House of Representatives and Senate page for every state. In fact some lists fail to even provide links to representatives. My goal in creating these templates was to have a useful and (most importantly) consistent manner of providing each and every legislative article with their respective list of representatives; which I feel they do. The same goes for all other templates listed for deletion below. Cheers - Freebirds ^Howdy! 20:56, 19 May 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:1st Alaska State Senate

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) 21:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1st Alaska State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2nd Alaska State Senate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

current convention is that we only navigate by the list of current senators, not historic. the list of historic senators is only needed in one article per senate, hence no need for these templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you in saying that my templates go agianst current convention. However I feel that they still have use in their respective articles. It is obvious to me that there is no one template that is used on every historical House of Representatives and Senate page for every state. In fact some lists fail to even provide links to representatives. My goal in creating these templates was to have a useful and (most importantly) consistent manner of providing each and every legislative article with their respective list of representatives; which I feel they do. The same goes for all other templates listed for deletion below. Cheers - Freebirds ^Howdy! 20:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked, and it appears that WP:STLEG has seen one revision in the past sixteen months, with WT:STLEG seeing only three revisions during that same timeframe. I think it's safe to call that project inactive. Even so, it was obvious that there was an overall prejudice against anything not pertaining to current legislatures; it wasn't strictly limited to what we're discussing right now. And why the hell not? Politician biographies are the red-headed stepchild of Wikipedia. We shouldn't remind people that there are tons more articles of notable people (some highly notable) still needing to be created. Given the overuse of Google as a means to do "research", it should be obvious why we're content to take such a stance, as Google favors current "product". RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bias or no bias, the information should be in an article, not in a navbox. imagine the number of these we would have for a politician with a long career. if someone wants to navigate this way, he/she can use the article about the historic session. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 20 May 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.