Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 24 December 26 >

December 25

[edit]

Culture of Country sidebars

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete all of them, although there seems to be some consensus that at least one of them is of little value Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

large sidebars which duplicate the culture section in the corresponding {{Country topics}} footer navigation boxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on technical grounds. The proposal is too far reaching at present time, because many articles which use the above templates do not display the {{Country topics}} footer. Poeticbent talk 18:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poeticbent, clearly we can make conditions for deletion of these sidebars that (1) the corresponding {{country topics}} footer template is on the page, and (2) any missing important links in the sidebar are merged into the footer templates. the idea that the large scope of this nomination is a problem is counter to the advice given at this tfd which objected to the limited scope of nominating only one. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to say that, but my position has not changed. The TFD you linked (above) and closed without consensus does not warrant the sheer scope of your current proposal. In my view, this is a make-work project of limited importance, created to keep a person from being idle. I would love to see what other Wikipedians think about this. Poeticbent talk 15:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I fail to see any duplication here. Dimadick (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dimadick, if you check the links in {{Culture of Albania}} and {{Albania topics}}, for example, you will see the duplication. the same is true for all the others. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Frietjes: You say that these templates duplicate each other but the fact is that there are notable differences between them. The footer templates are very broad in terms of subject matter. They do not inspire further reading relevant to culture specifically. The {{Country topics}} footers offer only the bottom slots called {{{culture}}} with links to parent articles. Meanwhile, the culture templates often include drop-down menus with additional links relevant to culture such as lists of World Heritage Sites, Authors, Poets, Artists, Painters etc. Poeticbent talk 18:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally speaking, infobox templates as supposed to repeat information already present in the body of articles, per policy guidelines. They are not meant to include elements not confirmed elsewhere. The {{Culture of Andorra}} is an example of how things can go wrong. But look around. The {{Culture of the United States}} is a good example how the original culture template can work to the benefit of all readers. Poeticbent talk 19:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The better culture templates tend to be more exhaustive. The scope for culture on topic templates has to be brief almost by definition. There is some reduplication of course but that's not the same thing as evidence of redundancy. The latter should warrant deletion. Shared content only appears to be a problem for those countries whose culture box is not yet well developed. -- Lestadii27 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too. I agree with the arguments presented above. Honestly, to me it appears that the culture templates are more beneficial than harmful. -- SILENTRESIDENT 22:32, 7 January 2017 (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).

Template:Infobox open cluster

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 January 8 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 8 January 2017 (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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 15th PGD

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. REFUNDable if enough new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:24, 2 January 2017 (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).

Template:Asian Cuisine

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 January 6 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2017 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_25&oldid=1057279325"