Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 3

October 3

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, unused after multipage table of contents was merged with the header template, and further discussion appears to be happening elsewherePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed after being merged with {{List of arcade video games header}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page and not at the top like they are now. Far from deleting this template, the template should be returned to its former state and a consensus reached before treating a merge as final. Op47 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
except that in this case this is a table of contents, spread over dozens of articles due to the split of the parent article. the standard is to use Template:A-Z multipage list which has hundreds of transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to this standard please. In any case, my point above still stands. All of the articles that I have seen have placed their navigation templates at the bottom, and this is supported by WP:NAV. It may be the case that rather than use the the long winded code that I have used that Template:A-Z multipage list may be better. Even then I would still prefer the transclusion to be on a single template like this rather than on the individual sub pages, so that if in the future it needs to be changed then it is only in one place rather than 26. Op47 (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sure, the standard is Template:A-Z multipage list, and the new system does use a single template, which is the header template. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are getting at cross purposes here, Template:A-Z multipage list is a template. To say "the standard is to use ..." implies that there is something stated in a guideline or a policy. I called it a standard because at work we call the equivalent of guidelines standards and it was just instinctive, sorry to confuse you. The reason why I am concerned is that it takes a lot of work to change articles like this and there are a large number of articles that require this. I would just prefer to be certain that there would be no grounds for changes in the future. The only guideline that I know of is WP:NAVBOX. It states that this sort of thing goes on the bottom. As I said above, the template is obviously jolly useful and I probably will use it regardless. Op47 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a navbox goes at the bottom, the table of contents goes near the top, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Frietjes, I looked on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and it says no such thing. I searched for top, bottom and navbox. I know it seems petty and pedantic, but it takes about 2 hours to split an article, it really needs to be done properly. Before doing this article, I checked the guidelines for WP:NAVBOX and WP:LIMIT (and hence WP:SPLIT) and as far as I can see I followed those guidelines. Without a guideline then it is your opinion v my opinion. I am not trying to argue with you, but I would like the evidence so that if I am reverted by an editor later then I have something to show. Op47 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(long_lists)#Generic_templates mentions Template:A-Z multipage list. again, this is a multipage table of contents and should be treated as such. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not answer my question. You stated that this template should go at the top of the page. I have asked for the guideline that says that. You quoted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and it does not say that. If there is in fact no guideline, then I think we need to have an RfC as this affects a large number of articles and users. Incidently, the section that you pointed to says that this is a navigation template. Op47 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Salvidrin, the point is that the current guidelines that I read (WP:NAVBOX) state the nav box should go at the bottom of the page and do not make the distinction between a nav box and multipage table of contents. If we want to have a, well, professional looking encyclopedia then we need to reach a concensus and if needed alter the guidelines. This is not the forum to do that. Op47 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion above.
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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 19Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:14, 19 October 2013 (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.
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) 01:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom Navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed after being merged with Template:List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom header. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page and not at the top like they are now. Far from deleting this template, the template should be returned to its former state and a consensus reached before treating a merge as final. Op47 (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
except that in this case this is a table of contents, spread over dozens of articles due to the split of the parent article. the standard is to use Template:A-Z multipage list which has hundreds of transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2013 (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.
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) 01:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Korean song (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Six transclusions, Korean songs use Template:Infobox single or Template:Infobox song. eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2013 (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.
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) 01:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only instance was replaced in this change. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2013 (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.
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) 01:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This infobox (currently 17 transclusions) can be merged with the more widely used Template:Infobox television advert, under the name of Infobox advertising. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While this template is not widely used, its coverage is much more broad. It is designed to be used across all advertising media as opposed to this one which is designed solely for television. My counter proposal is to merge the Television advert template into the more broad Advertising template. After all, the TV Advert only has 64 transclusions. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 17:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have updated this template with several new fields that allow it to be used in all forms of advertising articles. It would be better to use the Advertising template as the primary template. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 08:05, 12 October 2013 (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.
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) 01:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hill of Rome 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of Template:Infobox Hill of Rome. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2013 (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.
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) 01:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two transclusions. Suggested replacements: Template:Infobox religious building or Template:Infobox building. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2013 (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.
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) 01:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Playboy Cyber Girl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

15 transclusions, this infobox can be replaced with Template:Infobox model. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2013 (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.
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. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAI Underage League seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-notable template for articles that fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. All five articles linked here are currently at AfD. JMHamo (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:48, 3 October 2013 (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.
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) 00:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rail company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox rail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox rail company with Template:Infobox rail.
From the documentation of Template:Infobox rail: "Infobox rail is used to create an infobox on articles about railway companies". Hence the two templates serve the same purpose, and should be merged. Infobox rail is by far the most common of the two (1803 transclusions v. 96 for rail company). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2013 (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.
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) 00:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox PSL leagues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The only instance was replaced here. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2013 (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.
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) 00:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cinematográfica Águila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navigational template for a production company, that does not have an article, contains two movie links and one director link. We do not have film navigational templates for production companies. Aspects (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2013 (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.