Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24 edit

Template:Infobox Philippine Congress 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, it's not clear how it is redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Philippine Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox legislature}}. Only 4 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, pending a demonstration of how it is redundant (i.e., a diff showing the conversion, or some analysis of parameters to be added and information that would be removed). Frietjes (talk) 23:22, 26 September 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 Online Publication 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Online Publication (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 26 September 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 KL Monorail Line 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 after substitution. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox KL Monorail Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use, hard coded instance of {{Infobox rail line}}. Should be SUBST: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete after merging with the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:24, 26 September 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.

Ireland hurling templates 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 merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox All-Ireland Club Hurling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox All-Ireland Minor Hurling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox All-Ireland Under-21 Hurling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Near-identical templates; the different types should be a parameter in a merged template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge, adding a type parameter to change the label linking. Frietjes (talk) 23:25, 26 September 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 statue 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 redirect. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox artwork}}; only three transclusions - fewer than the number of statues already using {{Infobox artwork}}. A redirect would be appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and then redirect and make artwork agnostic as to what kind of artwork it is, it currently seems to be specialized for paintings. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, I took care of the replacements. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 5 October 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:¡Uno! track listing 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:¡Uno! track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and, with only links to two songs, unneeded. Navigation already satisfied with chronology in infobox and the {{Green Day}} navbox. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep These templates are now being created to replace the now-outdated sequencing track list in single and song templates. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with navboxes, the singles chronology or anything else. This concerns single and song templates, and are used in all developed articles. Examples are: Princess of China with Template:Mylo Xyloto track listing, Burn It Down (Linkin Park song) with Template:Living Things track listing, Money (Pink Floyd song) with Template:The Dark Side of the Moon tracks and We Found Love with Template:Talk That Talk track listing. Wikipedia needs to advance, and I mean no offense whatsoever when i say this, but people like you aren't helping. RazorEyeEdits (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their primary purpose is for navigation, so they may be useful when all or nearly all songs from a particular album have articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has now reached links to three articles. The accepted number for Track listing infobox templates. RazorEyeEdits (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Razor. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 21:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These things just clutter up the infobox and serve no useful purpose that I can see. The infobox already links to the album article, which of course has the tracklist. What point is there in putting the entire album tracklist in multiple articles, particularly in the infobox? It seems to me to fall well outside the purpose of an infobox, which is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". The entire track listing of an album is not a "key fact" in articles about individual songs from that album. This is "unnecessary content" as far as an infobox is concerned. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the infobox into which this template is placed {{Infobox single}}, already contains a chronology field to display/link to the previous and next single. Combined with the navbox {{Green Day}} at the bottom of the page, we are more than fulfilling navigational needs. Anyway, the purpose of an infobox isn't navigation. I don't see any use to having the entire album tracklist within the infobox of every article about a song from that album. The infobox already contains a link to the album article anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The template serves no purpose since the album has only a few singles. – Zntrip 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, just bloats the infobox when the complete list of singles is already listed in the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep personally i think it makes life easier if we had templates like these in more articles, they're very useful in an infobox. I agree with illazilla about key facts and everything, but i don't think this applies, considering these templates are a clever way of putting navigation at the top of the page. I think this kind of stuff should be ruled under navboxes instead of infoboxes. 58.106.249.222 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which just makes this redundant to the {{Green Day}} navbox, which already has links to each of the three songs that have articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A general-purpose template of this sort may be useful, but as it is this is trivial text substitution. it can easily be recreated if anyone wishes to work on generalising the layout and proposing more formal incorporation into our music articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 26 September 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.