Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21

[edit]

Template:Infobox United States federal proposed legislation

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Infobox U.S. legislation. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox United States federal proposed legislation with Template:Infobox U.S. legislation.
It doesn't make sense to have separate templates for legislation that has been proposed vs. passed. {{Infobox U.S. legislation}} could be easily modified to accommodate proposed legislation. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree, it seems unnecessary for there to be two templates for U.S. legislation, whether it is proposed or passed doesn't require two templates. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Shushugah (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would go further to say that we should look into merging both templates into Template:Infobox legislation. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 03:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - modification could be very easy Pianostar9 (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per OP. --Chillabit (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2021 (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:Rimington-Pace Offensive Lineman of the Year

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails #2, #3, #4, and #5 of WP:NAVBOX. This award is not mentioned in several of the articles listed (randomly looked at four of them, three did not mention), the subjects do not refer to each other at all, there is not a separate Wikipedia article for the award, and it is highly unlikely an editor would link to these players in a "see also" section for one player. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 21 March 2021 (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:Emergency services in Scotland

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 clear consensus to delete this template. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find any evidence for the existence of this so-called "Tier 1 emergency response" designation, and some of the links in the infobox are massively vague like "Scottish local authorities". Elshad (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete @Elshad: the designation does seem to exist (see here), but I agree that it isn't useful. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Tier 1" seems to refer to Category 1 emergency responders as defined under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, schedule 1; "Tier" is simply the wrong terminology. "Local authority" is not at all vague. In general it's an umbrella term for local governments in the UK encompassing many different types (at least five different types just in England). In the specific context of the Civil Contingencies Act it's precisely defined in relation to Scotland to mean "A council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994", i.e. a Scottish council. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but why does it need a navbox? It bascially encompasses most aspects of government services in Scotland. As an example, a similar navbox for England (which doesn't exist, neither does one for Wales) would require the listing of every police force, local authority, NHS trust etc. I just don't think this navbox is providing any meaningful information. Elshad (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I tend to delete here per Elshad's 26 March comment. --Izno (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is useful either but not clearly inappropriate. It does not conform with most of the WP:NAVBOX criteria. --Trialpears (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2021 (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).
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 March 28. Izno (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2021 (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:JS migration

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete template created by since-banned user. Many of the pages that use this template have since been fixed by other users, so the template, and the category it populates (which will be deleted at WP:G8 if this discussion is closed as delete), have become obsolete through lack of maintenance. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:10, 21 March 2021 (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:String quartet compositions

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the same reasoning as to why we removed the "By composer" section in {{Sonatas}}. The selection of string quartet articles here is quite arbitrary and restricted to overview pages. For instance, as there is no String Quartets (Beethoven), he is not included here. intforce (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems that links to string quartets would be a better alternative than links by composer, and that this should precede deletion (to be negated, a hypothesis should always be considered in its best form). Hyacinth (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I personally judge navigation templates by their usefulness to the reader only. A navbox titled "String quartet compositions" should list the most significant string quartet compositions, like its name suggests, not just an arbitrary bunch that happen to have an overview article. Any navigation template related to string quartets that excludes Beethoven, Schubert, Dvořák (just to name a few) by design is not useful. intforce (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added Beethoven, Dvořák, Schubert. Dvořák and Schubert are section links but that's allowed in navboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have a list of composers, List of string quartet composers, but no navbox for them. We don't have specific article on List of string quartet compositions (although articles like String quartet and List of string quartet composers mention some compositions) but we have a navbox for compositions. Seems a little odd. Nigej (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. I will also add that the composers included in this template seem almost arbitrary. For example, I had never heard of Graham Waterhouse until this morning, much less knew he was recognized for his string quartets. But somehow Alban Berg, Anton Webern, Peter Maxwell Davies, Alfred Schnittke, and Tigran Mansurian (for starters) didn’t make the cut? We have Tchaikovsky, but neither Borodin nor Taneyev who were equally important in the history of the Russian string quartet. For that matter, where’s Myaskovsky, Prokofiev, and Shebalin? We got Dvořák, but no sign of Brahms or Schumann. Piston, but no Ives. It just goes on. A very silly, pointless template. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Schumann is there. A navbox is for navigation to Wikipedia articles. At the time of the nomination, it listed all articles in Category:Lists of string quartets by composer (except Ligeti which was created after the navbox and added today). I have expanded the navbox to include section links for everybody else with a subcategory in Category:String quartets by composer. There could also be section links for composers with multiple articles in Category:Compositions for string quartet. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that’s still going to be a no from me. The fact that a nobody is included, but not several historically important and well-known 20th and 21st century composers of string quartets speaks for itself. This template is poor and misleading, especially to a musical novice. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of a navbox is Wikipedia navigation, not to tell what is important. Should it link to Tigran Mansurian#Chamber music which mentions number/title/year of some string quartets but nothing else? I think that would be misleading to users who click the link with an expectation to find more. Or should we only allow easier string quartet navigation when everybody who is judged important have articles about their string quartets? We don't delete Category:String quartets by composer just because some important composers don't currently have their own string quartet category. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Try looking at it from the point-of-view of somebody who knows little to nothing about this music. Whether intentional or not, the template would seem to imply to such a reader that these composers were included for their importance in the development of the string quartet. Nowhere is there any indication that says to the effect that the only reason they were listed in this template was because they happen to string quartet pages navigable via this template. Which is why, to answer your question, it would be preferable to scrap the template or at least assemble it in a manner that has some kind of chronological/stylistic consistency. Which it presently does not, your recent edits notwithstanding. Your concerns are based on your perceived need for this navbox; I simply feel that given how erratically assembled it is, it serves no real need. What need does a navbox of random string quartets serve? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added section links to Berg, Brahms, Ives, Prokofiev. They each have articles about two string quartets. I think that's enough for inclusion in a fairly small navbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is deletion preferable to improvement? Given the specific criticisms this discussion has encouraged, we have plenty of information to improve the template. So why are you whining on a deletion page instead of improving the template and articles? Hyacinth (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please cool it with the personal attacks, friend. Nobody is “whining.” This discussion was meant to solicit opinions, yes? Well, you got one, even if it isn’t one you agree with. You believe there is something worthy here of being improved; I don’t. I also don’t think the problems it has can be easily repaired. There are a lot of composers who wrote notable one-off quartets which have been influential in the development of the string quartet. Why aren’t they here? If more editors turn out to disagree with me and the consensus is to keep the thing, whatever. That’s fine too. But I still think this template is, whether by design or not, misleading and poorly assembled. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think the majority of these links would fail the WP:NAV test. This particular grouping also basically fails every one of the criteria in WP:NAVBOX. --Izno (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Izno and that it just doesn't seem helpful in the end—the inclusion of lists of compositions makes the scope and meaning even more confusing. Aza24 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2021 (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).

1961 and 1962 United Kingdom local elections

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates of Template:1961 United Kingdom local elections and Template:1962 United Kingdom local elections respectively. All templates in Category:United Kingdom local elections navigational boxes should take the form YYYY United Kingdom local elections, not United Kingdom local elections, YYYY per WP:NCELECT. I have moved most of the templates in the series that didn't follow this pattern, but for some reason the '61 and '62 templates had versions using both forms. Both are used on a few articles, so it would be best to redirect to the correct name. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:59, 21 March 2021 (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:Today's featured article request

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 March 28. Izno (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (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:Bangladesh–Pakistan relations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 keep. Izno (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the other templates I'm nominating for deletion. Infrequently used, another generic template about two country's relations. Doesn't do much for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "infrequently used" argument is unconvincing, since it refers to the current state of the template and articles, rather than how they should be. Where the template fails WP:NAVBOX is at the 3rd and 5th points. Many articles in the events and conflicts section should refer to each other, but {{Bangladesh Liberation War}} already provides navigation for them. If one picked two random articles (excluding the war-related ones), there likely would be no reason for one to refer to the other in the text or "see also" section. There is a strong bidirectional relationship between each article and the subject, but the lateral relationships among articles is weak or nonexistent. Therefore, Category:Bangladesh–Pakistan relations is a better way of associating the articles than a navigation template. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please note the relevance of WP:NOTDUPE and WP:CLNT. Also WP:ORPHS (orphan status) is an argument to avoid specifically in template discussions.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Worldbruce, by "Infrequently used", I mean unused on a large scale, and frankly it is convincing as it doesn't fulfil its purpose for navigation. Prisencolin, that's not enough to keep the template. Not sure what other reasons you can state for leaving it alone. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Does this template aid navigation? Maybe, although a number of the links don't seem to include this template, so obviously the template can't aid navigation if it's not there, eg Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Nigej (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2021 (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:Bangladesh–India relations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 keep. Izno (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the other templates I'm nominating for deletion. Infrequently used, another generic template about two country's relations. Doesn't do much for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over 50 pages and cloud be expanded. Tharun S Yadla (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2021 (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:Danish parliamentary election, 2007 navigation

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept in 2008 when it was fresher. No other Danish election has a navbox. The only election articles are 2007 Danish general election and Results of the 2007 Danish general election. The rest is Danish parties and politicians. {{Danish political parties}} connects parties. All the politicians were running for parliament, the only election. They were party leaders in 2007 but don't need a navbox for that. The Prime Minister is elected by parliament among its members. "Candidates for Prime Minister" is an unofficial term for the leaders of two blocs. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2021 (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/2021_March_21&oldid=1019087582"