Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23 edit

Template:Tank battles 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Nope; WP:TANKS uses it. ∞ Target360YT ∞ (talk · contribs) 11:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Target360YT, check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Tank_battles, zero transclusions at the time of this post. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Frietjes: I see one transclusion. I have never implemented the template into articles because I started being busy and stressed about the time when I created it. If you wish, I could implement it, although it would be quite incovenient. ∞ Target360YT ∞ (talk · contribs) 13:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Target360YT, the one transclusion is "User:Pppery/noinclude list" which transcludes all templates at TfD. so, there are zero actual transclusions. no need to do anything that would be inconvenient, we can just delete it instead. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, got the code working. Forgot to insert the {{{style|}}} parameter. ∞ Target360YT ∞ (talk · contribs) 14:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Target360YT, how do you decide what is included in the list of "Major tank battles that changed the world"? do you have a source for that, or is it just all tank battles with articles? Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Frietjes: Well, all tank battle articles mentioning "major", "important", or "first" (i.e., first tank battle) should be included. I should removed the "that changed the world" text because it's quite opinion based, no? ∞ Target360YT ∞ (talk · contribs) 14:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Target360YT, yes, you should avoid WP:OR/WP:POV, and have a way of generating the list that doesn't require OR/POV. Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Target360YT, I will close this discussion, but it would seem the least POV way of filling it would be to add everything from Category:Tank battles. a tank battle with an article is notable, otherwise it that article should be deleted. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2016 (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).

Template:Teachers 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and blanked Frietjes (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:TemplateSystemSeries 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as unused; pointless template as only one link, the rest are redirects to that same page. --NSH002 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2016 (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).

Template:Tempo series 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all the links go to the same article Frietjes (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:Texas Stealth roster 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and no obvious parent article Frietjes (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2016 (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).

Unused S-line/KSR_left and S-line/KSR_right 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).

The result of the discussion was widthdrawn Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though not used yet, they *will* be used, as the pages where they'll be used get updated with their infoboxes. 2Q (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2Q, it's been a year. should I check again next year? Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know it's been a long while, but I haven't given up on it - I just got distracted with other DPRK railway subjects "oh hey this needs written too!" and then boom. But yes, I'll get onto this! 2Q (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2016 (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).

Template:TextT 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Ultimate Fighter Smashes 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all WP:PERFNAV, Template:The Ultimate Fighter covers the core season/winner links. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Ultimate Fighter seasons 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all WP:PERFNAV, Template:The Ultimate Fighter covers the core season/winner links. Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Ultimate Fighter Brazil 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all WP:PERFNAV, Template:The Ultimate Fighter covers the core season/winner links. Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Ultimate Fighter 1 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all WP:PERFNAV, Template:The Ultimate Fighter covers the core season/winner links. Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Ultimate Fighter 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused WP:PERFNAV box Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Superman/Batman Adventures 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates other navboxes Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Seven Deadly Sins 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and bad for accessibility due to the WP:LISTGAPs Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Mostly empty and thus useless for navigation. Dimadick (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Rolling Stones lineups 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates The_Rolling_Stones#Band_members Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Middle Episodes 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all redlinks and redirects, for season navigation, we have Template:The Middle Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Magic Flute 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).

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Rob13Talk 04:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and rejected the day it was included Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The template may be viewed as a pop culture bog by some at WP:OPERA, but WP is a pop culture dominated resource and the value of the template to WP:MEDIAF and WP:FILM make it worthwhile. It is highly inconsistent with MEDIAF style to remove such templates because of the existence of an overlapping category. Additionally, As I was creating these templates for a broad array of operas, I kept the WP:OPERA project in the loop.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Opus33 please come and explain why Multimedia franchises should eliminate templates in favor of categories.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have other such templates linking cross-media topics, e.g. Template:Figaro Trilogy, this one seems fine to me.--Smerus (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could Frietjes care to explain what do you mean by "unused and rejected the day it was included?" In my opinion, the template is useful and it has been there since 2012. --Jay (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whjayg, Over time (some in 2012 and some much more recently) Opus33 had removed the template from all of its uses under the belief that if there is a Category:Works based on The Magic Flute, this template should be removed. I reverted all of those edits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the explanation, Frietjes and Tony. However as I said earlier, I believe the template is useful and should be kept. --Jay (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly, I need Opus33 to pop in here to resolve some things, since I think he has been removing cross media templates in many other uses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.B. At User_talk:Opus33#Template:Adam_and_Eve, Opus33 called my attention to this edit. I believed that readers interested in the subject matter of The Creation (Haydn) would consider Template:Adam and Eve to be a useful navbox. Seeing The Magic Flute edits which had a broad array of edit summaries and his comments regarding Adam and Eve, I need Opus33 to comment here before I have to start digging through his past contributions to find other inappropriate template removals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming Tony will, as they say, Assume Good Faith, as I do, I can tell him that I think templates are redundant (in light of the category system), are visually ugly, emphasize trivia, and (above all) totally wreck the wonderful utility What Links Here, which, before people started putting in those templates, was a great way to browse Wikipedia. I haven't made up my mind whether to edit-war on these, but I feel pretty firm that they hurt article quality and ought to go. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. so you are against WP:NAVBOXes. Is it possible to summarize the templates that you have removed entirely like The Magic Flute, so I can get an understanding of what is going on. In terms of edit warring, I don't think an individual should make the decision that they don't like NAVBOXes. I think in the area of WP:MEDIAF and similar crossmedia templates, it is wrong for an individual to decide to run around undoing work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well really now, Tony -- you certainly didn't consult with other editors when you invented and installed the template. Opus33 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of creation, from the perspective of WP:OPERA, their was no consensus in discussion. At that time, GuillaumeTell and Michael Bednarek were against the templates, while Kosboot supported and Voceditenore stated that the deployment should be subject to expert scrutiny. A few months later, the main debate was whether the templates should appear on the composer's page per this discussion. I believe that the implication was that they have some use, but not on composer pages. I did not restore this template to Mozart. I recall no discussion of these at WP:MEDIAF, where I presume they would have had more support.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That latter discussion also included input from Almost-instinct, Smerus, and Gerda Arendt, who may also have an opinion on the matter here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Templates like these (Opera navboxes) are not WP:NAVBOXes in the sense that Operas by composer templates, Music awards templates, or Film director navigational boxes are. The latter provide links to a well defined and comprehensible list of items with unambiguous inclusion criteria. The former border on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:ESSAY, and, in extreme cases (Template:Faust with >150 entries), have no navigational value. E. g., why is "Åh Amadeus" included here but Mozart and Freemasonry isn't? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if nothing else because it is useful in articles for non-operatic works based on Mozart's The Magic Flute and it should not have been summarily removed from those. I honestly don't follow the argument for a template like that "hurting article quality" because they are "visually ugly" —simply use the collapse option if you don't like it. The argument that it is redundant to the category system is flawed. They are two different ways of finding related articles—not mutually exclusive. The average reader, as opposed to a regular Wikipedia editor, is unlikely to use the category system. Category:The Magic Flute has had on average 3 views a day in the last 90 days (the article itself had an average of 1,164 views a day). And frankly, many category structures are opaque, inconsistent, and misleading. They also assume that the reader already knows what they're looking for by being overly specified into subcategories. And how on earth do these templates "totally wreck the wonderful utility What Links Here"? Again, that's a utility used more by editors than readers. We are writing for our readers not ourselves. Here's the list of articles linking to The Magic Flute produced by "What links here". Note that I've set the list to hide the transclusions from templates but it still contains well over 1500 articles. How is that a "wonderful utility" for finding key related articles quickly? This is not say that some of these templates don't need to be monitored for accuracy and amended where necessary, but it's not a reason to delete or remove them wholesale. Voceditenore (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Templates such as this are more useful than categories for navigation. Any reader can get an overview of a subject and its impact at a glance. Great encyclopedic value. And most of them are visually appealing. Dimadick (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2016 (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).

Template:The Lily Bard Mysteries 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

basically all red links Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2016 (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).

Template:TheBus route info 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems useless. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:34, 24 November 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_23&oldid=1073609757"