Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

November 4

Template:ACC Men's Basketball Tournament venue navbox

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 both, because the category will become empty after template deletion. (The template is the only member of it.) The category can be recreated if necessary. Ruslik_Zero 08:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ACC Men's Basketball Tournament venue navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete all – Locations of the ACC Tournament are found in the tournament's article in a list format. It does not necessitate a navbox. I am also nominating the related category for deletion along with it. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template only/Keep cat This template is not really a useful navigation tool, but this content seems like it is suitable for a category.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 4 November 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:Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi

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) 20:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only two articles and a split off of the second article. Can be normally trancluded in Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi. A normal "for more details"-link can be added in Silvio Berlusconi to the trials-article. No need for a template. The Banner talk 13:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, although I admit it will only be used in 2 articles. The template serves the purpose of providing a brief overview of 32 court trials, giving a summary of each case by a single sentence. If the reader of the Silvio Berlusconi article (in which the template is used), has a desire to read about all case details, he can then visit the Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi split off article, where the same template serves a navigational purpose for the reader - followed by 32 fully detailed case chapters. The idea by also having the template visible at the Silvio Berlusconi main article, is for the purpose of avoiding to have 31 case summary chapters for those cases in which Berlusconi for various reasons did not receive any final judgment, while still keeping all those vanished court cases visible to readers by the brief template format. Danish Expert (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is to add the information into the articles. The Banner talk 20:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest to add the template information into both articles or only one? Danish Expert (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi and provide a link to Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi from Silvio Berlusconi. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus to delete the template and merge its content with only 1 article, it would be far more appropriate to merge it with the Silvio Berlusconi#Legal Problems main article, and then remove it from the Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi article. As per my argument in the first reply, I however still support to have the template visible at both articles. In the main article it serves the purpose of providing a brief overview of all Berlusconi's legal problems during his career (instead of writing some more bulky 27 summary subchapters for the 27 completed trials without final punishment), and the chapter already has a hat-link to the Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi article if readers want to learn all details about each of those cases. Removing the "overview template" from the Silvio Berlusconi main article, would mean important Wikipedia content about his legal problems would be missing from the main article (conflicting with the content criteria goal for the article to be "all inclusive"). Please note, the legal problems in the template are written in summary style, and "written content in summary style" is normally evaluated as being appropriate to be featured by "main articles". Danish Expert (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Danish Expert: you can transclude a section from one article in another using #lst, see Boston College Eagles men's ice hockey#Current roster for an example. Frietjes (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: I was not aware of the LST option for transclusion of sections. Thanks for informing me. I have now removed the introduction paragraph from the template, and instead transcluded it by the LST code between the two articles. Do you prefer that we now also LST transclude the table itself between the two articles, or is it okay to keep the template alive - now when it no longer include written "section text" but only a table? Danish Expert (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Danish Expert: I would say just put everything that is duplicated inside the section tags and eliminate the template. Frietjes (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep template for the same "summary content" to be displayed in both the main article and spin-off article, also seems to be a reasonable decision, if you check how the Italian Wikipedia display the same content. The Italian Wikipedia have created almost two completely identical "case summary tables" at the main article and the detailed spin-off article. The two Italian tables are as good as identical, meaning that both of them need to be updated when new developments occure, which is the main argument why its better to have one overall template used for both articles. Danish Expert (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But a template is for use in many articles, not one or two. It isn't that much extra work to update two articles instead of one template. The Banner talk 12:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:TEMPLATE: A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of articles or pages. As we actually deal with 1:1 identical content to be displayed in two articles, the purpose of using a template seems to be highly appropriate. It both saves editors time only to edit one table instead of two, and ensure that editors do not forget to update the second identical table each time they upload new info to the table. If the content displayed by the template at the main article and spin-off article is 1:1 identical and accepted as such, I see no reason why we should prefer to delete the template and copy-paste the identical content into each of the two articles. Danish Expert (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a section to be transcluded per Frietjes - better to transclude a section in one more article than to make a new template page for use in only two articles -PC-XT+ 08:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus reached for deletion: As per the replies by @Frietjes: and @PC-XT:, and my own consent, I have now merged all of the template content into the main article, and the two articles previously using the template no longer uses it (but share the content through the #LST command). The template is now ready for deletion. Danish Expert (talk) 01:57, 16 November 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:Colonial Athletic Association rivalry navbox

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, I will merge the old history as requested. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colonial Athletic Association rivalry navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subset of Template:Colonial Athletic Association football rivalry navbox. GoingBatty (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose {{Colonial Athletic Association football rivalry navbox}} created 2013 should be merged into {{Colonial Athletic Association rivalry navbox}} created in 2011 regardless of which one is more comprehensive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @TonyTheTiger: - Are you making the suggestion because of the dates of creation, the name of the templates, or both? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless expanded – This navbox previously included some basketball rivalries, but with VCU and Old Dominion having departed the conference, only football rivalries remains and it is now essentially an incomplete version of {{Colonial Athletic Association football rivalry navbox}}. If there is a push to expand this navbox to include other notable non-football rivalries for CAA schools, that would be okay with me, but as-is this navbox does not need to exist. WildCowboy (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WildCowboy. As stated above, these two navboxes are now basically just duplicates of each other, except that Template:Colonial Athletic Association football rivalry navbox is a better navbox, being both more complete and more precise. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. The football navbox supercedes this. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 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:Objectivism talk

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) 00:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was an idea for a template to coordinate discussions across multiple pages of a WikiProject. It was never used except for the example posted on a Talk page (now archived). The archived example should be subst-ed out and this aborted template deleted. RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 10 November 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.