Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 4 March 6 >

March 5 edit


Template:Infobox Image Institute of Technology & management 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Image Institute of Technology & management (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template that could be replaced by Infobox university in the article WOSlinker (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Simon Curtis 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon Curtis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates few articles (WP:NENAN); one of the links has been redirected. Template appears to be premature at this time.  Gongshow Talk 23:32, 5 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Farryl Purkiss 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Farryl Purkiss (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not yet very useful; template consists of the artist's main page, an album, and red links.  Gongshow Talk 23:25, 5 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Paola e Chiara 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paola e Chiara (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. Some of the duo's albums and singles are probably notable, having charted in multiple countries. If/when those articles are ever created, then the template would have some value and can easily be recreated at that time.  Gongshow Talk 22:38, 5 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox 1981 hungerstriker 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. Magioladitis (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox 1981 hungerstriker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant and technically inferior to {{Infobox person}} (with which I have replaced the only 11 instances; and thus orphaned). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—as orphaned. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, orphaned bad wrapper without any doc. mabdul 14:29, 10 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox castrum 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 Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox castrum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox military structure}} or {{Infobox archaeological site}}. Only 129 transclusions. A "castrum" was a Roman fortress. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{Infobox military structure}} doesn't cover a majority of the fields (a few example place in roman world, province, commanders, legions, cohorts, alae, classis, numberi, robust_struct, etc.)
  • Even if you use {{Infobox military structure}} and {{Infobox archaeological site}} combined, which will look bad in articles, they still don't cover a majority of the fields
  • It is used on a series of articles on Roman castra, for consistency - they all have common attributes and it enhances the user experience reading and navigating the articles. Many of these articles exist, many will be created
Also, what are you going to do with the information collected in the fields not covered by {{Infobox military structure}}? Simply lose it? I don't think that would be acceptable. There is nothing wrong to have specialized infobox, when they cover a topic very well. This over-generalization effort seems taken to the extreme and it is problematic, especially if collected information gets lost. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Infobox military structure}} has comparable fields. In what way is it "too generic"? Have you discussed these concerns on its talk page, or with the military history project? There shouldn't be information in the infobox, which is not in the article so nothing should be lost. And what about enhancing the user experience reading and navigating articles when some of them use {{Infobox military structure}} or {{Infobox archaeological site}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which are those comparable fields in {{Infobox military structure}}? There are far less fields. I notified the relevant projects, something you should have done as a courtesy, prior to proposing this deletion almost silently. You seem to have an extreme view on generalization at all costs at the expense of specialization. How about creating {{Infobox concept}} or {{Infobox object}} and deleting everything else which is not "generic"? With your logic, everything under Category:Ancient Rome templates will get deleted because there is always a more general template. I don't think the generalization is the answer to everything, much less proposing templates for deletion left and right. How about putting the effort to create something? I am not advocating for keeping millions of templates for everything under he sun, but not everything can be minimized like this.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not clear how a large warning template on the nominated template's page, with a warning transcluded onto every page using it, is "almost silent", but do feel free to report my behaviour to WP:ANI, if you still believe it to be underhand after reading WP:AGF. You might also like to note that Slippery slope arguments carry no weight here. Please kindly address those points I have made (and the questions I have put to you), rather than those you would apparently like to project on to me. As for "putting the effort to create something", I'm happy to let my contributions here speak for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and stop the unproductive arguing). 129 transclusions is more than enough to sustain a box, and this one provides valuable, specific fields that are of supreme use for one exploring the immediate parent topic (which is not military structures). One who turns to these and future pages will want to know immediately the place these castra filled with a Roman system (that is, the "info" of "infobox"). I find Roman military history a painfully dull topic, but the box serves an exemplary encyclopedic purpose. Redundancy can only be an argument against inclusion when the same material is covered in a way that satisfies the audiences of both the daughter class (castra box) and the parent (military structures box): here it is much easier to arrive at info associated with the parent via links in the daughter than to understand the daughter topic via the parent, so there is no redundancy. — cardiff | chestnut — 22:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "only" 129 tranclusions? "only"? I must be missing something here. 129 tranclusions is quite a lot. And this template serves a useful and specific purpose. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -a vauluable template for people researching this topic. DiverScout (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. (not sure why) Diego (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing, as noted at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Template:Infobox dava. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For all of the reasons noted above. 129 transclusions is a lot and there are still many articles where this infobox could be used. Infoboxes represent an excellent to portray information about an example of a particular subject, since they offer an easy way to make comparisons. They are a good way to embellish articles that are light on for content. We need more specific infoboxes on Roman history not less. eg Roman senators, consuls, general, governors etc. The nomination constitutes a form of cultural bias. Question: does the nominator actually make contributions to the Roman history articles or does he just nominate parts of them for deletion? Flaviusvulso (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of transclusions alone isn't a reason to keep (nor for that matter delete); but is included for information. By way of comparison, {{Infobox military structure}} has 3668; {{Infobox archaeological site}} has 81. Your accusation of bias is without merit; and your ad hominem question is both irrelevant and contrary to Wikipedia policies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination does constitute cultural bias. There is a vast disparity in extent of coverage of Ancient Rome between Anglo-American pop culture (for example). The nomination does nothing to address this problem, rather the nomination further exacerbates it unnecessarily. Flaviusvulso (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comments do not substantiate your false accusation of bias, just as your new accusation that "the nomination further exacerbates it unnecessarily" is unsubstantiated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough articles use this to make it worth keeping. Easier to do things with just one template, than have to work through others and add in additional things to cover the relevant information. Absolutely no reason to delete this. Dream Focus 14:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Easier to do things with just one template, than have to work through others" - that is the reason for nomination! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 9 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kshatriya Communities 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kshatriya Communities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is just a POV magnet. It is frequently edited back and forth, usually by anons and usually with the purpose of puffing up their own community or downplaying the varna of another. In almost all cases, the various claims are far more complex than can be shown in a template and as such its purpose is pretty limited. Sitush (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The varna status of castes and communities is almost always too complex, unclear, and contentious to be specified in a template like this with any degree of confidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the creator of the template was informed and has removed the notice from their talk page without comment. Of course, they may yet comment here. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pallacanestro Treviso 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pallacanestro Treviso (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another old, unused, outdated roster: current roster is at Pallacanestro_Treviso#Roster. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. Could've been speedied under CSD-T3. Toohool (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Image-toosmall 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image-toosmall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A rather nitpicky article maintenance tag. Only one usage; if needed at all, it can be placed on article talk pages. But I don't think it is needed at all. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Almcliprequest 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 Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete; unused template with unknown use. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:27, 5 March 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Simpsons episode count 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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn and no outstanding !votes for deletion. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Simpsons episode count (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

You can just write 501, you don't need a template, why not create a template for every word you write. --TBrandley (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Template is used in multiple articles to indicate the current episode count, saves the time of having to edit multiple articles to update the episode count. Dough4872 00:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—this is what transclusion, at its simplest, is all about. Update the number in one (1!) location, and seven (7) locations are updated, and kept synchronized. The purpose outweighs the added length. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great use of transclusion; exactly what Imzadi has said. Update one rather than seven places after an episode? A genius template that saves edits and unneeded time to do so. Nate • (chatter) 04:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good faith but misguided nomination. Snowball keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but won't be needed when (if?) the show ends. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 10:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. It should retire when the show does. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i change to keep per above --Tate Brandley Stockwell 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name speaks itself, is a count. Is ever changing. Keep it as a template like any other variable content. marcoslhc
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_5&oldid=1142562885"