Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 7 May 9 >

May 8

[edit]

Template:Tram in Algeria

[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 merge to Template:Rapid transit in Africa. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Tram in Algeria and Template:Urban public transport in Egypt with Template:Rapid transit in Africa.
These templates have the same scope as {{Rapid transit in Africa}} and should be merged into this one, as was done at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 19#Template:Urban public transport in Algeria. Gonnym (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 8 May 2019 (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:1500sProtestantwomen

[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More suitable to categorise this as Category:16th-century Protestant women. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep--I made this template for women who were a factor in the Reformation, either theological or political. You can't call them all "Reformers" because that would be only the theologians and would also exclude the ones whose role included influencing which type of Protestant church there would be. I went through the plausible 16th century women by nationality categories as well as the list on Women as theological figures to find possibilities. I did not include ones that were women who just happened to be Protestant because it was common in their area. The title of the template is now 16th century Protestant women in the Reformation and I have added four subcategories--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just a seemingly random set of women from the 16th century. Either there should be article about whatever links them or, failing that, a category for them will suffice. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (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:Steelers1946DraftPicks

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no navigational links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejgreen77: I opposed the rest of these TfDs but on this one (at the moment) he has a point as only 3 pages are linked to this one, I thought 5 was the minimum.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seconding Ejgreen77 with the fact that further discussion should take place at WT:NFL, for there are a large amount of templates of this style and category that will need to be taken into account if we delete a small portion of the templates but not all of the templates. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the template's now doing what it's designed to do, and deleting one item out of a series is only good if there's a particular problem with that one item. Please renominate all of them if you disagree with the idea of having a navbox of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2019 (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:Rand Paul series

[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Rand Paul and {{Rand Paul}}. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - duplicate of {{Rand Paul}}. --Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further, as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. As for "NOTDUPE", actually read what it says. I wasn't against having a navigation template, just not a side bar. These navigation templates aren't different than any other bottom navbox and should be placed there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x10) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x11) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one specifically. links to only 5 articles, plus one sub-section. All are easily and logically found on the original Rand Paul page, which also has {{Rand Paul}} Hydromania (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As per TheSubmarine, this sidebar is beneficial to navigation. Although a separate Rand Paul category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE. I will change my comment to Keep if we can WP:IMPROVEIT. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (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:Ælfgifu theories

[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. There is no prejudice against a REFUND if the template/content is then converted into an article or otherwise used directly in one. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused chart template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This template just presents one possible answer to a web of hypothetical relationships for which there is no scholarly consensus, with as many different versions as scholars who have published on it. I suspect this chart was prepared by someone who was entirely unaware of the century of medievalists who have produced alternative reconstructions of the same set of vague relational statements and possible associations. It is inherently POV, and there is no way to fix it - one can't present in a single chart the different mutually-exclusive permutations, nor would having the numerous charts necessary to summarize all the alternative solutions workable. When it comes down to it, this template can't help but produce more smoke than light. Agricolae (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now linked again from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, as it was until November 2018 when User:Agricolae removed the svg of the chart and the link to the template it was based on. The section discussing these theories is well-referenced and notes that they are only tentative and not conclusive. They are not just some individual editor's flight of fancy. It is notable that Agricolae did not remove the text. Why then remove the diagram, which merely illustrates what is written in the text and makes it easier to follow? I have therefore restored the diagram to the text, and the link to this template which provides clickable links, and from which the svg diagram was created. Jheald (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template was also similarly linked from Æthelstan Half-King, which Agricolae also removed (diff). I haven't yet restored the revision there, but it seems to me it would be similarly useful to illustrate Æthelstan's direct family, and it did state that the possible connections to the Anglo-Saxon royal family should be regarded as tentative. That seems to me an appropriate presentation, so I would be fully minded to restore it there too. Jheald (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed it, because it gives a misleading simplistic representation of what is a very complex issue, even with a caveat (that we both know will be ignored) about it being tentative. Agricolae (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: And you also removed it from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, where it directly corresponds to what is written in the text there? Jheald (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed it. I thought I would have made this clear by saying in my previous response that "I removed it".
We do no favors by making a pretty chart template that hides the tenuous nature of these guesses (and completely ignores alternative reconstructions), a chart that can (and no doubt will) then be placed on other pages that lack even the context of the problematic discussion found on the Ælfgifu page. That one could select different sources and end up with a different chart with different relationships (e.g. with Æthelfrith the son of Æthelhelm and father-in-law of Æthelgifu via marriage to Eadric, thereby turning almost all the blue people green, or perhaps aqua) just demonstrates we shouldn't be memorializing any single set of hyper-speculative guesses in this way. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The chart has faults but I do not agree that it is worse than useless and should be deleted. It does show the two alternative lines which are discussed by modern historians and in the article and will help the reader. The fact that other versions, which are not mentioned in the article, have been discussed by scholars is not a reason to delete the chart. The main fault with the chart is that it is not referenced. It is not satisfactory to rely on referencing in the article on Ælgifu, which in any case is very unsatisfactory. Also the article does not cover all the (possible) relationships shown in the table. The descent from Æthelred I is supported by Yorke and Wormald, but not that the line went through through Æthelhelm, which is claimed by genealogists and rejected by historians. It should be removed. The alternative of descent from Ealhswith's parents is supported by Stafford but only discussed in detail by Hart so far as I am aware. I am not familiar with the details of this theory and they need to be fully referenced to Hart. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I would not object as much to this chart were it to be restricted to the Ælfgifu page where the details are discussed, but were that the case it could just be a chart and wouldn't need to be a template. The whole purpose of making it a template is to propagate it to pages where it is not discussed, where it will appear undocumented as if it were established genealogy and the existence of alternatives will not appear. Fundamentally, though, the whole thing is so speculative that it should only be mentioned in overview, not attempting a generation-by-generation ancestry. Agricolae (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agricolae's analysis. I'm not qualified to assess the details of that analysis but I trust it particularly since the events occurred over a thousand years ago. Given that the template is unused and that it probably presents a misleading picture, it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not transcluded, but it is not unused -- it is linked to in multiple places where the SVG version is shown -- on the Ælfgifu page, on the Ælfgifu talkpage, and on the description page of the SVG itself. The advantage of the SVG is that it can be thumbnailed. But the advantage of the template is that it contains active links which the SVG does not; it is also the raw material from which the SVG was created, and from which any modified version (presumably) would need to be created. Jheald (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the disadvantage is that it allows the such widespread distribution of material that fails to meet some of the most basic standards of Wikipedia - the argument that it is helpful on the original page to show this one scholar's pet theory as described in the text is completely invalidated when the same context-free chart is then transcluded onto other pages that lack any description or relevant context whatsoever about the level of guesswork involved. It is engineered to propagate a POV. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The chart was unused at the time of nomination as it had been deleted from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, but it is specifically intended to show the two lines of descent discussed in that article and in my view does help to explain them to readers, subject to the improvements I suggested above. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not used in article - a template is not an article. It should not be linked to from the article namespace, but should be transcluded. If it fails in this task, then there is no reason for it to be kept. --Gonnym (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 8 May 2019 (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:Angola Squad 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4th or lower place squad, not notable, and duplicates 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup squads, 2006 FIBA World Championship squads, and 1998 FIBA World Championship squads. for prior discussion see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, ... Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2019 (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:Red Rose Speedway

[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 songs from the actual album have articles while everything else with links is redundant to {{Wings}}. With the number of non-linked items as well (the entirety of side two and most of the outtakes, the article for Red Rose Speedway provides better info on those groups, and none of which aids in navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Nom was inadvertently removed the day after it was listed and has not been able to receive proper discussion. Could this be relisted? Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2019 (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/2019_May_8&oldid=902964020"