Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 17
| < October 16 | October 18 > |
|---|
October 17
[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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 20:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Video game companies of the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
In line with the arguments and discussion set out at Wikipedia talk:VG#Ridiculous Template. In short: "Given that all this is rolled up, how is this any better than the Category:Video game companies of the United States link at the bottom?". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This is just an A-Z of loosely-related articles, and completely redundant to the category. Perhaps there would be some merit in a list article (assuming there isn't one already), but this is not appropriate for a navbox. PC78 (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete' Holy cow, this is unesscarily large and is as stated above, quite redundant in comparison to the category. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Categories are not as visible as they are meant for categorizing articles in related topics. A Navbox is meant for new readers to navigate to related articles. Ask any newbie user and they would prefer something which is more visible than categories. Categories are hidden until clicked on. A list article may help but you will get the same problem, a long list of articles streaming down the page which make it cumbersome to navigate. Visik (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. There are way too many video companies out there in the United States for this to be useful. It's too large and not aesthetically pleasing. Lists and categories are much better alternatives in this context.--Hongkongresident (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. There are 239 entries in {{Video game companies of the United States (A-G)}}, 193 in {{Video game companies of the United States (H-R)}}, and 159 in {{Video game companies of the United States (S-Z)}} for a grand total of 591 entries. I can't see how this is helpful for anyone's navigation. I'm adding a proposal to include a "maximum entries" rule-of-thumb to WP:Navigation templates. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete.Too many entries, too large a scope for it to be useful for navigation. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per PC78 and nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:09, 24 October 2010 (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.
- 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 Speedy delete.
Nominating template again. It links only to 5 articles, all of which are already linked through the main article. This is the third time that the template is nominated for the same reason. LoЯd ۞pεth 11:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD G4. Time to salt, perhaps? PC78 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2010 (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.
- 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. Airplaneman ✈ 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Small template with only 4 links, all of them linked from the main article. Not everything is a navbox. LoЯd ۞pεth 11:41, 17 October 2010 (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.
- 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. Airplaneman ✈ 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The template is very trivial and is not helpful for readers. -- d'oh! [talk] 09:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep And delete the category you created.William 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete (and the category, too, but that's a separate discussion), per precedent. This navbox links not to articles about episodes of Mayday, but to articles about the actual accidents which the episodes highlight. There are two potential uses for the template: transcluded into List of Mayday episodes, where it would be redundant to the actual list; or transcluded into the articles about the aviation accidents, where it would be a trivia template.
The fact that Air Inter Flight 148, for example, was covered in an episode of Mayday is an important detail in the context of the list of Mayday episodes but a minor detail in the context of the article about the accident. In effect, this would be like adding a template for Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations to the articles France, Iceland, Vietnam, Japan, New Zealand, and so on, because the countries were covered in one or more episodes of the series. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC) - Keep because it provides a useful method of navigation to other articles about aircraft accidents; for instance, it was the way I first learned about many of them. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: the Anthony Bourdain comparison is not useful and is inappropriate; the episodes not only mention the crashes, they are ABOUT them. To me it is more similar to adding a template for List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes to Hurricane Camille, Hurricane Andrew, etc. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Navbox that links articles based on a trivial relationship. Because of the triviality of the connection, this template is and will likely continue to be excluded from the linked articles. Since the purpose of navigation templates is to link related articles, and this one doesn't, it is useless and should be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (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.
- 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. Airplaneman ✈ 21:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
subpage of {{PD-MNEGov}}; no reason to have a template in another language on en.wp. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, and since it is not in English there is no clear use for it on en-wiki. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2010 (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.
- 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 Substitute and delete, this template is indeed only transcluded on one page, which is in turn transcluded on a few pages. Hence, merging this template with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ will not cause any information to be lost. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Subst and delete: this doesn't belong in templatespace — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - seems to be transcluded on multiple pages. I personally don't care whether it's in the mainspace or the subspace of Talk:Muhammad. It can be improved appearance-wise if having it as text rather than a box is a bother. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- The multiple tranclusions are chain transclusions. (FAQ transcludes it directly, FAQ is transcluded on other pages) — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - nominator hasn't explained why it doesn't belong in template space. It is a useful template for transcluding on user talk pages, as the Talk:Muhammad page gets numerous complaints from Muslims who are offended by ancient Muslim artist depictions of Muhammad. It could be reformatted to look more like a template and less like an article, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. The template is just text and has only one use, which is on Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. The text can be substituted into that page. Keeping a separate, single-use template for just this text seems unnecessary and it complicates that editing of the FAQ page. --RL0919 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2010 (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.