Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 7

< March 6	March 8 >

March 7 edit

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 March 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Template:Video game music 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It may not directly violate any guideline, but I see it as too overly massive with anything related to the realm of game music being dumped in here, including software used. It should be split into two more manageable parts, if not just deleted outright. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Far too large of a scope for a simple navigation template. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd vote for keep if it was smaller. It does feel super bloated in this moment. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split into smaller navboxes, the topic of "video game music" is way too large for just one single navbox covering everything.--Alexandra IDV^talk 22:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or... limit to Scenes, technology, sound formats, and related genres. Listing every composer, composition, and concert article is indiscriminate. Why not have a navbox for every film composer, or album cover artist. TarkusAB^talk 22:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories exist for this, it's just overextended and unnecessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Split into Template:Video game music & Template:Video game musicians: Looking at Template:Baroque music, game music also merits a template pulling together information about it, and at a similar but reasonable size compared to other music templates. That said, the version of this template that was being voted on (since updated) was indeed bloated. Rather than urge deletion or dismissive claims of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'd rather make it more manageable, since I'm an editor that leans to inclusion, as well as being bold with edits. The composer lists definitely became bloated as editors tacked on names, so I've reduced the number of composers to 20 per region, though I also don't want to get into edit wars with people on who I took out. You could also consider categorizing composers by console generations or their initially notable decade, e.g. 3rd generation: Koji Kondo, Nobuo Uematsu, David Wise; 4th generation: Yasunori Mitsuda, Masato Nakamura, Yoko Shimomura; 5th generation: Grant Kirkhope, Michiru Yamane, etc, but that may not be as intuitive as the Japanese and Western split right now. In any case, I've significantly slimmed and consolidated this template where I could, per my takeaways of the discussion so far. I'd like to think that it's now more reasonable given my edits, but always open to other criticisms. Liontamer (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the culled list is subjective, and it will eventually just bloat back up again in time. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I can definitely see that happening. I've replaced the individual composer listings with a link to the VGM musicians list. The links to articles on compositions & scores are limited to ones with more substance to their articles, but if this became a problem, it could also be replaced by a list link. I believe that should take care of this, i.e. save the template from deletion. Liontamer (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undefined scope, indiscriminate mess. {{Video game musicians}} is a TERRIBLE idea. Imagine if we had a navbox for {{Heavy metal musicians}}. This is what categories are for. --wooden superman 10:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment, this version does seem remarkably better. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why THOSE soundtracks, though? It seems totally arbitrary and chosen by the creator of the template. I still think this template is totally pointless._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, there are a lot more soundtrack/music of series articles that aren't mentioned here, when there is no clear reason for it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:54, 11 March 2018 (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:Footer Olympic Champions Women's mass start 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 relisted on 2018 March 15. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer_Olympic_Champions_Women's_mass_start (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).

Template:The Great Canadian Baking Show 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Great Canadian Baking Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. --wooden superman 13:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume it will become large enough to warrant a navbox. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:08, 8 March 2018 (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:Human cell types derived primarily from endoderm 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 convert to list article. Because these three templates aren't terribly large by themselves, I am recommending this be done with two steps. First, each template will be moved to the article space. Second, the contents be converted to a list article at List of human cell types derived from the germ layers giving proper attribution. These steps can happen in either order and the articles turned into redirects when it is complete. An optional third phase, which I will likely perform via bot run, will be to add the new article to the "see also" section of the pages where the template(s) were removed. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Human cell types derived primarily from endoderm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Human cell types derived primarily from mesoderm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Human cell types derived primarily from ectoderm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These three templates serve no useful navigation purpose, and only contribute to navbox clutter. They depict articles formed from one of three common embryological cells lines.

This format is more appropriately portrayed in a list - I propose a move to three list articles of the same names as the templates. This has the additional benefit of being able to provide contextual information and being able to link to said lists appropriately. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 08:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and accept suggestion per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
move and repurpose per nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (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:SCRIPPS NET 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 relisted on 2018 March 15. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SCRIPPS_NET (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).