Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 20 February 22 >

February 21 edit

Template:Infobox astro object 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) 00:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox astro object (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (16 transclusions)
Template:Infobox open cluster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (160 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox astro object with Template:Infobox cluster.
Most instances of the "astro object" template are on articles about clusters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose We would then lose a template for astronomical objects that do not have specific template for itself. And we have many cluster articles, so it should have its own infobox template, and should not be merged into astro object either. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we would not. We would have one template suitable for use for both clusters and other objects. The requirement for separate infoboxes in contingent on the necessary parameters, not the number of instances (which, at 160, is in any case quite small). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your proposal nomination doesn't indicate which way the merger is to proceed, (such as merging astro objects into cluster). Merger into the generic will greatly complicate parameterizing open star clusters and consistency between the various star cluster templates. The generic template should not support parameters for values for a specific type. Template maintenance should be open to members of thw wikiproject, not so restricted as to not have members available to maintain the wikiproject's own templates. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The nomination doesn't indicate which way the merger is to proceed, because that is something for this discussion (note: it is a discussion, not a vote) to decide. Nor is this necessarily a question of merging one template into another; we could, for example, merge both templates into a new one, with a new name. Or we could merge the parameters of Infobox astro object into Infobox cluster, hypothetically supposing the later had better technical features, but then give the resultant template a new name, or call it "Infobox astro object". And note that these templates are not owned by any wikiproject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support – it may be, as long as there are other templates for other unknown objects. For instance, Hanny's Voorwerp. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many more object types than we have specific infobox templates for, and not every object currently has an infobox, so if we eliminate the generic box, we will no longer have an infobox to use on such articles. We do not have a void infobox AFAIK, for instance, nor one for LQGs, black holes, objects of unknown character, etc. While we have many open star cluster articles, so should easily be able to support a separate infobox type for its own articles. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose – "Most instances of the 'astro object' template are on articles about clusters" means the original editors didn't use the right template (probably b/c "infobox: cluster" is vague and currently up for renaming to "infobox: open cluster") and someone needs to edit those pages; it doesn't mean the infoboxes should be merged. Would you propose a merge between 'infobox: globular cluster' and 'astro object' if most astro objects referred to globulars? (the answer should be a resounding NO) 'Astro object' is very broad, 'Open cluster' is not. Both are useful within their respective scopes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it means that the templates are largely interchangeable, because most of their parameters are the same. Note also that the astro object infobox has a |type= parameter which can take a value of [[Open cluster]], or whatever". You advance no reasons was to why separate infoboxes are needed. The requested move you cite was made after this proposal, by the first objector to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The purpose of an infobox is to immediately identify the type of object to the reader. A merge destroys this, no matter how well-intentioned.
        'Infobox: cluster' is not distinguishible simply b/c no one put links to open cluster information on the bottom yet, as is normally done on {{infobox globular cluster}}, {{infobox galaxy cluster}}, {{infobox supercluster}} templates. I support an edit to put links to open cluster info at the bottom of 'Infobox: cluster' before I support a merge of cluster and globular cluster, before I support a merge of astro object with cluster. I also support an edit to 'Infobox astro object' to include a broader set of parameters applicable to disparate phenomena than I do any merge. Also, the community should do what best serves the reader, common sense, and organisation than arbitrary nomination times.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The purpose of an infobox is to immediately identify the type of object to the reader I have no idea what led you to believe that, but no, it is not. Even if it were, the |type= does that adequateley. Merging redundant infoboxes best serves the reader, common sense, and organisation, as explained at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • From the WikiProject:Astronomy. Your reference is to an essay. This is not policy, as noted in its header, and I believe reasonable control should be left to the parent WikiProject (excessive use aside; i.e. your other recent noms here seem justifiable).
            From Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation: "A separate infobox isn't a measure of importance, but of difference from other subjects." Open clusters are very different than an infobox which literally refers to all other astronomical bodies which don't yet fall into a template. You missed several key parameters which exist in {{infobox astro object}} but not in {{infobox cluster}}: "propmo", "radvel", "pecmo". The former 2 can, in fact, arguably be incorporated into cluster with little problem. The latter, however, refers to objects at cosmological distances, which in no way applies to clusters. If this escapes you, please stop merging outside of your scope. In fact, I could, and should, add several other parameters to astro object to be even more all-encompassing, and potentially EXclusive of open clusters, be it applied to some non-cluster object.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  19:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't say it was a policy; I said it explained why merging similar infoboxes is a good thing, which it does. But thank you; as its author, I've clarified the wording. And no, having some parameters which are not mutually common does not prevent us merging infoboxes where a large number are used mutually. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • If/when {{infobox astro object}} is fully developed (ideally it contains most/all parameters from all other existing astronomy related infobox templates, as its description suggests), then, by your logic, all other astronomy infoboxes should be merged into {{infobox astro object}}. I hope you see the exception to your rule in this case.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • If their parameters are largely overlapping then yes, they should. Do you contend that that (overlapping parameters) is the case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The following is a complete list of parameters which are in {{Infobox astro object}} but not in {{Infobox cluster}}: |image=, |caption=, |credit=, |mass_msol=, |age=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You missed |propmo=, |radvel=, |pecmo=; |pecmo= being the most relevant to this discussion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I didn't - but I have the two template names the wrong way round. That should read: parameters which are in {{Infobox cluster}} but not in {{Infobox astro object}} = |image=, |caption=, |credit=, |mass_msol=, |age=. The image parameter set should always be available; which leaves just two parameters distinguishing the cluster infobox from the more generic one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose; the purpose of the two templates is drastically different. One is a specific template for open clusters, the other a generic template for all astronomical objects without a better category. By this logic, merging {{Infobox astro object}} with any astronomy infoboxes would be good, which is clearly false. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50-50– I think they are very distinct, one is for clusters and one for objects not yet having any category (or with an unclear nature). But for all of the 57 billion celestial objects discovered to date, I think it's unlikely that they're very unusual. Astronomers already classed them, and we have the templates. I also think it would be very unlikely that Template:Infobox astro object will be used, since we already knew a lot about our universe. But comment, there are no infoboxes concerning LQG's, stellar streams, and others, so if they are notable then we can create them. However, we must note that of all the dozens of LQGs discovered to date, only three have their own articles (Huge-LQG, U1.11 and the Clowes–Campusano LQG). So the choice is yours, my friends. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • you already lodged an opinion, this is a second !vote, you should change it into a comment instead. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying that we should create a separate template for every object, only for those that we have significant number of articles for which a separate template can be supported (such as open clusters) separate from a general template. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment– If the intent here is to, over time, migrate templates to have some sort of awesome connectivity with WikiData, then great, lead with that. However, a full and clear explanation of that intent, WikiData, and a project timeline should be made, and not a weak "well... the parameters are kinda the same" excuse. The reactions from the community will be vastly different.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're confusing two issues. The two templates should be merged, regardless of Wikidata. And we're likely to move toward importing data from Wikidata, regardless of whether or not they are merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No parameter mapping is provided, so the proposal is incomplete=incorrect. Listing a difference (which was added later) is a start, but does not prove or explain what or how content is to be merged (semantics, knowledge). -DePiep (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No parameter mapping is required. Once again, you are inventing "rules" on the fly. You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have nothing to say about .... 'Nuf said. I propose procedural close as no consensus, for nom disruptitive discussion behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to infobox astro object or a new name, and everyone here needs to assume good faith and quit calling this stuff "disruptive." Focus on the efficiency of not having 10 gazillion templates for every nuance. add parameters as needed, no need to make the changes before the proposal is decided, obviously. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking comment— If we merge this, what would be the templates for other astronomical objects? Just for example: Green Bean Galaxies, hypervelocity clouds, dark clouds, galaxy filaments, SCP 06F6, etc. I assure this would simplify templates, but you cannot mix oil and water. I would be an absolute faggot if I created an article which scientists say as very mysterious and very rare, and finding no templates. Just to assure you there are dozens of types of astronomical objects with no templates. So what will be the implications and effects if you merge them? SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 10:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What template would you use at present? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment— I'm not sure, but did you put into consideration the distinction of the two templates? I think you are saying like: "Hey! I propose something. Let's mix oil and water because they're both liquids.". Let's put it again, in a very broad perspective. If we merge astro object with star clusters, that would cause a giant problem on the WikiProject Astronomy. There are other objects with no templates, and they need the astro object infobox. You are trying to mix a cat and a mouse. Please give us the sinister implications and reasons why we need to merge this. Their similarities in the data does not necessarily mean we must merge them. But just to be honest I don't see significant similarities of the two templates. Regards? SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 14:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rather than discussing your overly-vivid imaginings, lets return to your specific question: You're not sure what template would be used, now, but you want to have an answer to that question for some hypothetical future? That's not relevant to the issue at hand. Please, though, explain, exactly, how merging these templates "would cause a giant [sic] problem on the WikiProject Astronomy"? Regarding your latter question; I have already referred to Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, you want to know the problems when you merge this? I will plan to make a big project for the branch of large-scale structures. I am now researching about papers about the Komberg–Kravstov–Lukash LQGs. They are about 20+ LQGs there. I plan to make a single article discussing all of them: "Komberg–Kravstov–Lukash LQGs". And not only that, I will plan to create articles about superclusters, galaxy filaments, and notable voids. I will start at early March and it will be 40+ articles. Now, as far as you are concerned there are no templates for LQGs, voids and galaxy filaments. There are no templates for associations of objects other than galaxies. There are lots of them, associations of nebulae (Lyman-alpha blobs). All of them need the infobox astro object template. That's why it will cause a giant problem. purpose of infobox astro object is to be the template of unusual and rare astronomical objects with no templates on Wiki. If we merge them, surely the unusual astronomical objects will have no more templates. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. You again assert that there will be a problem, but do not say what it will be, nor why you supose that there will be a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. "What"– Many astronomical articles that need the infobox astro object template would lose it. "Why"– The infobox astro object has very specific reason and purpose. It is very different from star clusters. I suppose that there will be a problem because infobox astro object has a very different use. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Many astronomical articles that need the infobox astro object template would lose it". False, Please don't invent reasons to object, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • What?!? You're just ignoring me. What makes you think that I will invent reasons? That is true, as many articles really need that template. Merging them would do more harm than good. And what do you mean I've invented it? It was the same as IP 67.70.35.44's comment: "We would then lose a template for astronomical objects that do not have specific template for itself". Many astronomical articles would be affected by this merge. They're made for very different purposes. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 13:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • SkyFlubbler Just to (hopefully) clarify; I oppose merging myself, but I'd like to stress that if we would add the properties of infobox cluster to infobox astro object, which is what a merge would entail, nothing would happen to existing uses of infobox astro object. With a switch on the "type" parameter of astro object, we could even make it so that the colors scheme of infobox cluster would be used, and the see also added to the bottom if the infobox is used with type=cluster (or type=open cluster). Note that I don't support that merge, but that it's not at all the case that anything would break. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose; Keep. Unique template to clusters and not to celestial objects generally. Having gone through the entire listings for 12/21, I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic astronomy. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic Wikipedia template function, the key issue is whether the the similarity of the parameters in the nominated templates, not the differences between clusters and (other) celestial objects generally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like what I've said, you cannot mix oil and water just because they're both liquids. The same as this: their identical parameters does not necessarily mean that they must be merged. Obviously you are like merging a shoe store to a book store. If you merge them into one, it's either they will ran out of books or they will ran out of shoes. As far as you know they have both parameters because they're both astronomical objects. In astronomy, many objects are similar, in parameters and characteristics, but they're distinct in a way. They're not as identical as you might think. I checked the two templates and the one links to astro objects and the other to star clusters. Regards? SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your analogies are false. A better analogy would be merging a template about buildings that are shoe shops with a template about buildings that are book shops. And we have: {{Infobox building}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • My analogy is "false" because you don't get what I'm saying. Infobox astro object has a very different purpose. Colloquically speaking, these templates are both for astronomy; they have parameters for absolute magnitude, epoch, coordinates, etc., because those are the basic data for an astronomical object, so expect that they will have very similar parameters, except for one. The star cluster templates link to star clusters at the very bottom, whil infobox astro object is for astronomical object article. Suppose an article about a void has the infobox astro object. If we merge it, one will read the article about a void but in a infobox about a star cluster. That would make confusion. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your analogy is false because it does not apply here. What "books" or "shoes" would a merged template run out of? Your assertion that "one will read the article about a void but in a infobox about a star cluster." is equally false. Since you continue to make such unfounded assertions, I'll be devoting less of my time to replying to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just applied it to show what would be the problem when we merged this. That analogy is not on Wiki, it is like an illustration. Okay, let's apply it to Wiki. Suppose the infobox galaxy and starbox templates. They have data on classifications, magnitudes, epochs, etc, but should we merge them? Certainly not, because a galaxy is a kingdom of stars, while a star is just a star. Please take into consideration their distinction. Infobox star cluster is for small groups of stars, while infobox astro object is a serving template for different astronomical objects. But wait a minute, you said my assertion is false. Why? (bold for extremeness) Why those assertions are false? I answered you with utmost respect, but all you can say is my reasons are false? As far you are concerned you are against WP:CIV. At my review in your comments, you are not displaying an appopriate behavior. You can just say: "SkyFlubbler, your assertions are not quite true because....", not those kind of comments. Explain it to me. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 13:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Infobox astro objects purpose seems to be to provide an infobox for rare objects for which no other infobox works properly. For astronomy, I don't think that having a very broad base infobox of which other infoboxes can derive is a good idea; the base thing that all astro objects have in common is that they're not on earth. A hypothetical {{Infobox something on earth}} would be far narrower in scope than an infobox astro object. That, even for me, goes too far. The only reasonable properties you can assign to such an unknown thingy are the basic physical quantities: mass and angular momentum, and observational data. While those properties are also used for other objects, it's for me too broad to be a suitable base for further modules. Having the same base for e.g. a supercluster and an exoplanet is for me a bridge too far. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as Pigsonthewing is banned from "discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes": see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing and infoboxes. I am counting a "Merge" as a removal. However I think it is better if we just oppose this. As we need a general box for things that slip between cracks, that are not clusters. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging is not removal; and this proposal will leave a template which is suitable as a "general box for things that slip between cracks, that are not clusters". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand your assertion "general list that slip between cracks". As far as you are concerned, astro object infobox hasgalactocentric radial velocity, redshift, luminosity distance and its own category, which makes them entirely distinct, making it impossible to mix them to form a general list. Regards? SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I count:
Strong oppose: 4
Oppose: 3
Neutral: 1
Conditional support: 1
Support: 1
What exactly is the definition of "unclear consensus"?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  20:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I should've left a note. The nominator questioned my close on my talk page, so I've undone it. Alakzi (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have consensus, close this; why was this relisted? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote, and a number of points raised during the discussion remain unaddressed; not least that the cluster infobox has very few parameters that are not in the more generic template; and whether the parameters you added to the latter during the discussion are actually used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's irrelevant that parameters were added during the discussion; that is, after all, how the GA/FA/etc. processes, and WP in general, work.
      If the main issue is "very few parameters that are not in the more generic template", then table this arbitrary template discussion (inititiated by other editors' mistaken transclusion over {{Infobox open cluster}}, now fixed, all of which makes it seem like you're fishing to try to find a legitimate argument) and open a wider one comprising all astronomical templates which meet said criteria, if that's what you really want to accomplish.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - This is one of a series of recent TfD wherein merges have been proposed to create a generic "master" template for a group of related uses. Sometimes, such a master template makes sense; sometimes, it does not. I don't pretend to be an expert, or even a particularly well-versed generalist, regarding astrometric subjects, but I think I can make a pretty good layman's common-sense determination how to balance the maintenance convenience of a master template vs. the ease of use of a specifically-tailored template in a particular. In order to make that determination, I ask the nominator (or another proponent of this merge) to provide a post-merge parameter map; I also request that the editors who oppose this merge provide a list of parameters that are inappropriate to share between the generic and specific templates. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2015 (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:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 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 relisted on 2015 March 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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:Sambassadeur 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 as undisputed request Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

One link and one transclusion, both the same article. I redirected the album article as it was unsourced and the same info existed in the main article. No navigational use. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 10:41, 21 February 2015 (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:Miss Universe 2015 delegates 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) 00:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miss Universe 2015 delegates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template of participants without parent article The Banner talk 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep, this won't be used for about 10 months, but is a useful place to collect the names of the contestants who will be appearing in this future pageant. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, forgot to mention: created by someone blocked for sockpuppetry. Extensivelky edited by another editor blocked for sockpuppetry. And the parent article is deleted as being a crystal ball with no date known. The Banner talk 13:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a series of very useful navigational templates. Crystal ball concerns are alleviated by long history of this annual event with roughly zero chance of not being held, just like other upcoming competitions with uncertain dates such as the 2024 Summer Olympics or the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. - Dravecky (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that there is no "Miss Universe 2015"-article any more as it is removed as crystal ball. The Banner talk 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is being added to the articles of the winners of the various national pageants, who are scheduled to appear in "Miss Universe 2015". Those articles exist, so there is a navigation rationale. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the rationales from Dravecky and Margin1522. WordSeventeen (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There should perhaps be a navbox for all title holders, but having one for each year's contestants verges on fancruft. Also, if AfD thought MU15 to be WP:CRYSTAL territory, why would we wanna keep its navbox? Besides, the existence of a parent article is one of six prerequisites laid out at WP:NAVBOX. Alakzi (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2015 (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:Acme aircraft 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, general consensus is that navboxes with only one link are unnecessary. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Acme aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of templates is that it improves navigation between related article. This template navigates between only one article and its parent article. Normal wikilinking can solve this, no need for a navigation templates that does not help navigating. The Banner talk 00:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per The Banner's nomination rationale. We don't keep navboxes with two working links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don;t think the company even needs an article, it could just be rolled into the aircraft article, since that's all there is to the company. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly no need for this navbox. The two articles that use the template, one of which is a one line stub, are linked to each other so it serves no useful purpose and is redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as established in the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_WP:NENAN and also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_38#Mass_nomination_of_aircraft_manufacturer_nav_boxes_for_deletion the decision was made to retain all WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes regardless of the number of links, as they form part of a set of standard page layouts that provide a uniform experience for readers. The nominator was part of both those discussions and is well aware of the outcome of those consensus debates. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that the WikiProject Aircraft discussion linked to says "Here on WikiProject Aircraft we have had a longstanding practice of creating nav boxes for manufacturers who have two of more aircraft models" (emphasis added). This template includes only a single aircraft. Why is such a template worth having? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as explained by User:Ahunt part of a series of navboxes as discussed previously. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Ahunt: @MilborneOne: Guys, I do extensive work with several different WikiProjects, and I favor giving the projects the latitude to design their own graphics, navboxes and other linking systems, but I do not favor giving the projects a veto over well-established guidelines of Wikipedia-wide general application. With two working blue links to existing articles, you do not get a navbox, and we have deleted other navboxes with three and four links, and those with more red links to non-existent articles. Please review WP:NAVBOX. This navbox does not serve a valid reader navigational purpose. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Dirtlawyer1: if you read the very extensive debates at the links I provided you will see that we have a wide consensus to do just that. There is no policy or even guideline that is being broken here. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "wide consensus" is that wide that you need the not-relevant NENAN-discussion to give your arguments a glimmer of hope... The Banner talk 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – While it may be counterintuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, WikiProject Aviation's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), these are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a difference between "a few" (= more than one) and "one". The Banner talk 20:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many, many Campaignboxes with only one link. Mojoworker (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's reason. Hajme 14:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I could see keeping this if there were two sublinks, but not if there is only one. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2015 (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:!-!! 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 per nom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:!-!! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:!-! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Br!-! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unnecessary templates, when escaping a pipe is needed, we have {{!}}. Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all please. Tables are sufficiently complex without introducing pointless alternative methods that will only confuse editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW delete after dealing with the only transclusion on Johnathan Gray. Seemingly pointless and unused templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all the above. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment {{!-!}} has been around since 2006 -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Pointless and confusing. Templates are to save typing, these only require more typing and more template knowledge. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • More typing?
{{!}}-
{{!}}
is 12 characters while 
{{!-!}}
is 7; etc. And the only people using these would be the ones that have template/table knowledge since they work for escaping the pipe and bang. Though they may indeed be not necessary. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And
|-
|
is only 4 characters. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is impossible as a template parameter, since pipes are special characters. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the primary purpose of these templates. The docs state they are there to replace wikicode. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be the primary purpose for all templates of this type (ie. descendants and derivatives of {{!}} (template named bang which creates a pipe) ) for use when wikicode interferes with itself. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{!}} (which is built-in and no longer a template, by the way) is essential because tables use the pipe symbol in the syntax. The templates recommended for deletion here are confusing because to use them an editor needs to understand the underlying syntax and the new syntax introduced by these templates. Further, many editors understand basic tables but would not understand what these peculiar variants do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_21&oldid=1144159065"