Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 4 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martijn Hoekstra (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 12 February 2015 (→Template:Burgan SC: close as delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:41, 12 February 2015 by Martijn Hoekstra (talk | contribs) (→Template:Burgan SC: close as delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< February 3 February 5 >

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)

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)
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. JohnBlackburnedeeds 16:33, 4 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)

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

Template:USA-MA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:USA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template appears to be redundant to {{flag|Massachusetts}}, which it wraps. There are no similar templates for other states, though this appears to be an extension of {{USA}} and this state's name is one of the long ones... —PC-XT+ 10:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I have changed to Propose a merge, where a parameter would be added to {{USA}} for states. Instead of {{USA-MA}}, it would be {{USA|MA}}. Thoughts? —PC-XT+ 10:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Query for @PC-XT: Do any of these proposed new or merged formats exist for flag icons of other states of the United States, or, for that matter, the states or provinces of countries other than the United States? Do templates or redirects for flag icons of other states employ U.S. postal code abbreviations, as this one does? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That's part of the reason I wanted discussion. I haven't checked all the country codes on all 3 lists, but {{USA-MA}} is the only template I know of its kind, though {{US-MA-stub}} is a redirect to {{Massachusetts-stub}}. (US-MA is a ISO 3166-2:US code. There are codes for other country divisions, as well, based on 2-letter ISO for the country part. {{US}} redirects to {{USA}}. Canada would be {{CA}}, which has been deleted multiple times, so I am not sure it is related. {{DE}} is unrelated. Massachusetts is the only US state with templates named this way, that I know of.) {{GER/Nazi}} displays a variant, so may be considered close, but the loop error in the documentation makes me think it is nonstandard. (The way to fix the loop would probably be to either merge it to {{GER}} or rename it to {{GER-Nazi}}, but if renamed, it would still have problems with the code. I added documentation to {{USA-MA}}, which works except for calling the state a country and the code ISO. If you take out the code parameter, it gives {{?}} as the usage.) Germany has two templates: {{DEU}} (3-letter ISO and FIFA) and {{GER}} (IOC) but its documentation says FIFA uses GER. {{GER/Nazi}} has no {{DEU/Nazi}} counterpart. Template talk:USA has a suggestion to show variants, which could still be done, though {{flag}} already provides this feature. Otherwise, I don't know of a Misplaced Pages standard in this area. —PC-XT+ 13:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC) I asked at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Template names for principal subdivisions of countries —PC-XT+ 13:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Of course, custom documentation would need to be created in any case of variance from the current standard, so I'm mostly wondering how these subdivisions should be handled, or if they should be handled. {{USA}} would need custom documentation, for instance. That would also fix doc problems for the Nazi flag, the MA flag discussed here, and any other variants. If we can decide on a standard way to support them, the documentation template could be changed to allow them, instead. —PC-XT+ 15:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete {{USA-MA}} and do not create any other templates of this form. Templates such as {{USA}} were created about 10 years ago and led to the creation of WP:WikiProject Flag Template soon afterwards to accommodate more than just country flags. The consensus was that templates such as {{flag}}, {{flagicon}} etc. ought to use full names (i.e. {{flag|Massachusetts}} instead of using codes, to improve the readability of wiki markup for subsequent editors. The "country code template set" was retained since many of those codes are well-known by many editors (USA, RUS, CHN, etc.) but I assert that in many cases it is still preferable to use the complete country name to avoid confusion. (Quick, what's the country code for Malaysia?) Furthering that thought, if we created "shorthand" templates for country subdivisions, it would be logical to use the ISO 3166-2 code, but that dramatically increases the complexity of wiki markup. Is there any benefit whatsoever in using {{DE-BY}} instead of {{flag|Bavaria}}? I think it's a very bad idea to develop a full set of code-based flag templates for country subdivisions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)