Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 9 April 2019

February 4

Template:Amy Adams sidebar

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 per precedent Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Amy Adams sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per precedent set in discussions for other similar templates, this is redundant to the main article with only three links that are all contained on main page and thus this template should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per precedent —PC-XT+ 15:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• delete, as discussed before. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent: no sidebars for actors and most other persons. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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:First Families of Pakistan

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 merge. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:First Families of Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Political families of Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:First Families of Pakistan with Template:Political families of Pakistan.
Template:Political families of Pakistan has all of the links from the first families. Redtigerxyz 20:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - It is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages navboxes that they exist to provide links to navigate among existing Misplaced Pages articles. First, these templates are completely redundant to each other for navigation purposes: the Political Families template includes all 13 of the families listed in the First Families (presidential families?) template. Second, 8 of the 13 articles listed in the First Families template, and 22 of 30 articles listeed in the Political Families template are red links to non-existent articles. Both templates should be deleted for the high percentage of non-existent linked content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• I think these have enough links that they can be merged and the red links commented out until the articles are created. The first families could be placed in a separate section, if the difference is notable. —PC-XT+ 15:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @PC-XT: I've seen fewer than two thirds working links cited as a reason to delete in the past; the Political Families template has less than 30% (8/30) working links to existing articles; the First Families template has less than 40%. may be a case of "too soon." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Dirtlawyer1, I've made that argument, myself, but in a deletion discussion, if half the pages don't have other navboxes, I usually !vote "keep for now" on condition that the red links are commented out, (as long as there are enough working blue ones.) That way, there is still the option to nominate later for deletion if the links don't fill out. Merging is basically the same thing, but would reduce it to one template. —PC-XT+ 07:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Template:Political families of Pakistan should be the main. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• merge, seems sensible. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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:The Times They Are a-Changin'

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 as redundant to the track listing template Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:The Times They Are a-Changin' (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recreation of deleted template. I quote the previous nomination, "There are two quite similar templates for each of these albums which navigate to and are transcluded in the same exact articles. The other templates are track list templates, such as {{Blonde on Blonde tracks}} and {{Highway 61 Revisited tracks}}. Outside of location, they serve the same function so, really, only one of each needs to exist. I'm nominating the navboxes because 1) similar ones have been deleted in previous TfDs and 2) track list templates exist for other Dylan albums that don't have a complete set of articles for each song and, thus, no navbox at all. All are categorized under Category:Bob Dylan album navigational boxes." Richhoncho (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Aids in navigation. Why would we want to delete something that aids in navigation? A reader reaches the bottom of the page and wants to know how to get to the next song on the album, for instance. Besides, there are articles within these templates besides the track listing (also, I have not yet made an albums footer for the navboxes). - Bossanoven (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Query - Can we get a comment from two or more WikiProject Albums members? What is the established WP:Albums consensus regarding a navbox footer for an individual album that includes a linked list of the individual song tracks from the album? Is this a standard practice -- yes or no? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have left a TfD notice on the WP:Albums talk page, requesting the participation of knowledgeable WikiProject members. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete – Clearly redundant. I also question how these album templates are being used. For example, the Template: Bob Dylan (album) (mostly a covers album) is added to song articles that only mention Dylan's version in passing (his covers arguably not being notable). ("Talkin' New York", "Baby, Let Me Follow You Down", "Song to Woody", "See That My Grave Is Kept Clean", also have two templates as do most of songs on The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan.) Similarly, Template:My Generation (album) is added to their covers of "I Don't Mind", "Please, Please, Please", 'I'm a Man". There should be some threshold for adding these templates for cover songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Navigating between the different tracks of an album is what we have the track listing templates for. If the album doesn't already have a track listing template (and this one does), just create one. A track listing navbox is totally redundant.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete – per Ojorojo and Martin IIIa. Seeing that the Who's My Generation has been mentioned above, it's worth noting that similar templates appear in Beatles album articles also, together with new Categories listing each album's songs. I don't think it's yet the case for Times They Are a-Changin' song articles, but with these new "Songs from " cats, we end up with a third list of album tracks each time. "Taxman", for instance, carries the Revolver tracklist template in the infobox; Template:Revolver at the end of the article; and then Category:Songs from Revolver below that … Excessive, to put it mildly! JG66 (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to the track listings —PC-XT+ 09:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• delete or delete the tracking listings, but we don't need both. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant template per the comments of WikiProject Albums members above; WP:ALBUMS clearly has a strong preference for a list of linked album tracks within the article over a bottom-of-the-page navbox. This is an example of an entirely appropriate formatting preference within the province of the WikiProject, and I see no particularly good reason based in policy or the guidelines to question it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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:Another Side of Bob Dylan

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 as redundant to the track listing templates Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Another Side of Bob Dylan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recreation of previously deleted template. I quote the last nomination for ease. "There are two quite similar templates for each of these albums which navigate to and are transcluded in the same exact articles. The other templates are track list templates, such as {{Blonde on Blonde tracks}} and {{Highway 61 Revisited tracks}}. Outside of location, they serve the same function so, really, only one of each needs to exist. I'm nominating the navboxes because 1) similar ones have been deleted in previous TfDs and 2) track list templates exist for other Dylan albums that don't have a complete set of articles for each song and, thus, no navbox at all. All are categorized under Category:Bob Dylan album navigational boxes." Richhoncho (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Aids in navigation. Why would we want to delete something that aids in navigation? A reader reaches the bottom of the page and wants to know how to get to the next song on the album, for instance. Besides, there are articles within these templates besides the track listing (also, I have not yet made an albums footer for the navboxes). - Bossanoven (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Why are both of these types of templates (navboxes and track listings) needed when the serve the same purpose by linking to the same exact articles and transcluded on the same exact pages? One or the other should go. Since not all Bob Dylan songs have an article for each album (nor needs one) and the fact that other Bob Dylan album navboxes have been deleted in TfD before, I support this nomination to delete the navbox. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 21:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete – Unnecessary, essentially duplicates the existing template Template:Another Side of Bob Dylan tracks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Navigating between the different tracks of an album is what we have the track listing templates for. If the album doesn't already have a track listing template (and this one does), just create one. A track listing navbox is totally redundant.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete – per Ojorojo and Martin IIIa. JG66 (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to the track listing —PC-XT+ 07:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• delete or delete the track listings, but we don't need both. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant template per the comments of WikiProject Albums members -- see my comments in the related TfD discussion abve. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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:PropertyLink

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 per nom

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

Unused, undocumented, no links to it or any clue in its history what it's for. Functionally it just wraps a call to Module:PropertyLink but that itself is little used, I think as the functionality has migrated to Lua itself. I.e. today this would just be done in Lua (in an infobox say), making this redundant. JohnBlackburne_deeds 16:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• delete Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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:Burgan SC

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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Burgan SC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN, plus only one of the links bar the one to the parent article actually link to what the navbox says, the rest just to general articles that may or may not contain some relevant content. Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• delete, appears to violate WP:EGG. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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:USA-MA

relisted at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_12#Template:USA-MA. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)