Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< February 23 February 25 >

February 24

edit

Template:Songkick

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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External WP:SPAMLINK: also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Pigsonthewing insisted that I relist this rather than close it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a template with 6 uses that serves no purpose except to try to promote a particular website (Which is WP:SPAMLINK). If it is so important to include an external link to this site, than just write standard code for it. There is no need for a template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete: I wasn't really sure how to feel about this one at first. I can see that the listings of past events does provide some encyclopedic information. But it's a commercial website for a company that primarily provides "concert discovery services and ticket sales for live music events". So I do think that it effectively qualifies as #5 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. While it does also fit the first sentence of #4 in WP:NOTDIR as well, that is really about articles and not external links. Perhaps there is another concert database resource that would work better within the policies here, but I don't think that this one should be used for that purpose. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • #5 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID is about "generally" not linking to pages that "primarily exist to sell products or services". The pages at Songkick do not exist for that purpose. There is no link, on, for example, [1] to "buy now", or equivalent. We have no prohibition on linking to websites that are commercial in nature; if we did, we would not have a series of templates for linking to IMDb ({{IMDb name}} has 128627 transclusions; {{IMDb title}} has 155115, etc.), nor a template for linking to MetroLyrics ({{MetroLyrics song}} has 20715 transclusions), for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but I would argue that the pages at Songkick do actually exist for the purpose of selling tickets. The aim of the artist pages is to "Yes, please notify me" when artists go on tour so you can purchase their tickets or to "Track Artist" for similar artists to be notified when they go on tour. That's how Songkick makes money! It's a little different than IMDb and MetroLyrics which iare purposely designed to be databases (making money through advertisements). — MarkH21 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you can argue that all you like, but Songkick do not sell tickets, whereas IMDb are part Amazon, who use IMDb pages to sell DVDs and streamed media. And, again, we have no prohibition on linking to websites that are commercial in nature. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that there is no prohibition on linking to commercial sites, but I do maintain that Songkick primarily exists to (indirectly) sells products and services. It's a concert-finding website with large links for buying tickets that go via ShareASale (giving them a share of profit) to ticket vendors. I agree that WP:LINKSTOAVOID is a general rule and discretion may be used, but in this case I lean against this instance. I am not in strong opposition though, so I will revise the wording of my !vote to "Soft Delete" to reflect that. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, let's establish that Songkick provides encyclopaedic listings of tour histories such as that vouchsafed for in the pink floyd example - more than 1,100 gigs; and that the template under discussion provides a standardised method for linking to Songkick. I'm unaware of another site that provides the level of detail of tours that Songkick provides, but perhaps others exist. Whether or not, our mission, w.r.t. external links, is to point to sites "that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail" per paragraph 2 of WP:EL. This site does that in spades. Next, per WP:ADV "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link." I'm not sure what else needs to be said. It's of benefit to our users to be pointed at a site which provides exhaustive tour histories. There is no prohibition on links because the site owner may make money from services offered from the website. I've read all of the comments above in detail: it isn't WP:LINKSPAM - it's established that it is a valuable resource and that revenue generation is not prohibited. Linkspam deals with "for the purpose of promoting a website or a product" and links to Songkick are not about promoting Songclick and arguments that it is spam are tendentious at best. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY clearly fails: a history of tour dates is of potential real interest to a reader interested in a band. Songkick does not fall under any of the 7 examples of NotDirectory, again, except with the most tendentious of readings. The WP:LINKFARM argument fails, if we presume there is no better resource to point to for tour listings than this one; or if we presume that readers interested in bands will not be interested in tour histories exactly as they're interested in discographies, etc. Number of uses is not any sort of argument for deletion; all templates started with zero uses. I don't think I've missed any other arguments. We didn't write WP:ADV in error. We link to thousands of sites that, incidently, make money out of eyeballs or out of additional services provided. Absent a cogent and realistic contra argument, links to a site which provides valuable pertinent comprehensive information should be supported, and a template that provides a mechanism to make the links should not be deleted. Moreover, it would be a travesty of our policies if the template was deleted merely because of the sort of misguided and erronious prejudice exhibited in some of the !votes above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see I did miss a couple of arguments. The WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 1 argument is clearly horseshit. Article 1 reads "[avoid linking to ] Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Few FA articles on bands will include a complete list of gigs. The content at Songkick is clearly beyond what the FA would include hold. The clause 4 WP:NOTDIR argument holds some water - it's damp, at least; there will be cases where it's inappropriate to provide an EL to songkick. But we completely throw the baby out with the bathwater if we think that the potential for instances of misapplication of a songkick EL renders all applications of a songkick EL invalid. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SongKick is user-generated content similar to IMDB. Source. It is not encyclopedic because it is not a reliable source. It should almost never be used in citations. It might be used sometimes as an external link sections. Also worth mentioning, these types of sites come and go and when they die they present a significant headache for us fixing link rot. That job is made much harder to impossible when the full URL is not in the wikisource but transcluded through a template. Something to consider, these types of external link templates can lead to (effectively) permanent dead links because it's too difficult to write special parsers for every external link template, and the Internet Archive auto-archival tool never sees them. Keep it simple and generic is better off for the long term. -- GreenC 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template is not, nor is tended to be, used in citations. That aside your comment contains only good arguments for keeping the template: as noted above, we have thousands of instances of IMDb link templates; and templates such as this make it far easier to address link rot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. It's not exactly true that a template makes it easier to recover links (e.g. from Internet Archive) if the site disappears. But in the more common scenario of when a site changes its internal structure, having a template allows us to fix all instances of broken paths with a single edit. That's one good reason why we have the seven templates in the {{IMDb}} family, and {{PMC}}, and so on. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2019 (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:List of cult films

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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article text transcluded across multiple articles should use LST instead of templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful for reading and editing. Not seeing a convincing reason for deletion. Also not seeing a strong policy / guideline statement underpinning the statement that LST should be used instead. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The same exact display and functionality can be obtained with a less specific template. Example. No reason to have a special template for Cult Films when a generic one does exactly the same thing. -- GreenC 13:53, 28 February 2019 (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:First Lady of Mauritius

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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example of WP:NENAN. Only one First Lady of Mauritius has an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2019 (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:SEPTA bus style

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 speedy delete. Per G7 (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 2#SEPTA style templates. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creator. Cards84664 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2019 (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).

Colebrookdale Railroad S-line templates

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S-line templates for the Colebrookdale Railroad heritage line; many were redirects to the Reading Company S-line templates. Consolidated in Module:Adjacent stations/Colebrookdale Railroad. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2019 (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:TheFinalBall manager

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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 13#Template:TheFinalBall, this should be removed for the same reasons (it should have been bundled into the same discussion really). Nzd (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:56, 25 February 2019 (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:Infobox mathematical statement

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, it would seem that there was a rough consensus not to use this. However, I just noticed that it has been added to a number of articles. I'm still of the view that this is a useless infobox and is an overall negative to articles that use it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (author): Here is I gathered from that discussion at the time. 3 comments (@David Eppstein:, @Purgy Purgatorio:, and @Wcherowi:) were oppositions to infoboxes in general, written in response to my observation that "there is a sparsity of mathematical infoboxes". This seemed to be the case particularly since none of them commented on any aspect of this particular infobox and none of them replied to my responses about this particular infobox. I noted that @Trovatore: found the usage plausible and the given example as useful. I took Deacon Vorbis's comment to be a lack of objection to infoboxes in general but as "not sure much is really gained by having this" for this particular infobox because it "seems to be for information that's usually already in the article lead anyway". Therefore, I began by implementing the infobox in articles where the information was not easily seen in the article lead.
Some reasons for why the infobox adds value to some articles:
  1. Particularly with regards to logical connections (implications, generalizations, etc.), this infobox contains information that is not usually in article leads that adds accessibility and connectedness across mathematics articles of this type.
  2. Depending on the length of the relevant material, the infobox information should not always be in an article lead.
  3. Even if one believes all of this information should be contained in the lead, it usually is not and can be buried under "History" or "Current status" for a level-4 vital article in Mathematics, a good article (generalization of Cauchy's theorem), or even a featured article.
  4. It improves the readability for non-specialists by neatly packaging bigger-picture information, particularly for lengthy articles (which tend to be the most popular ones).
  5. These articles are often intimidating for the general reader or even knowledgeable reader who cannot understand the statement of a theorem/conjecture/etc., but presenting the bigger picture information up front helps contextualize the theorem/conjecture/etc.
  6. The expert reader who "is curious about Wikipedia's coverage" immediately sees the articles on logically-relevant topics.
  7. It does not take up substantial space (particularly when there already exists an image and caption in the top-right corner or when there is a long TOC).
  8. Readers can choose to ignore the infobox.
  9. Its usage is an extension of Template:unsolved which is already used in 247 articles. The reasons for inclusion of this infobox is at least as strong as those for that template.
Perhaps there are improvements that can be made, but I firmly believe that there is value in the (even partial) implementation of this infobox to make mathematical articles better-connected (as math is much more connected than math articles on Wikipedia suggest) and more accessible. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that Purgy Purgatorio expressed an opinion against this infobox in particular. In my comment above, I was emphasizing how the comments from that discussion were perceived at the time. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Infoboxes are the norm in our articles and this one seems to have quite sensible parameters. I have previously noticed an absence of such information in maths articles and so this infobox will serve as a useful checklist to help ensure that these details are listed. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The discussion referred to by the OP does not in the slightest constitute a project-wide consensus to prohibit infoboxes in such articles. The ridiculous claim that "this is a useless infobox and is an overall negative to articles that use it" is made with no supporting argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Infoboxes are not the norm (look around math articles), the claim that this one is useless in pertinent math articles is not ridiculous, but inherent from the topic "mathematical statement" (mathematicians would use infoboxes in their statements themselves if they were useful), the talked down discussion reflects a quite solid front, not against infoboxes in general, but specifically against this infobox, and their further broad dispersal. I will not judge Trovatore's opinion. The arguments of the author are weak: Content not in the article is not admissible in the infobox; the infobox is no parallel-lead (2+3); especially bigger-picture-info is no infobox content (4+5); the expert readers are the most annoyed by triviality bites; a fair comparison collapses the TOC; no, it is there, loud and disturbing; spreading shit is not always spreading fertilizer. On a personal matter: I said about infoboxes: I agree to the realm given above where these boxes may find a useful application and I cannot understand how his can be gathered (as) oppositions to infoboxes in general. I perceive the small remark on perception as insufficient. Purgy (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A point-by-point rebuttal:
  • mathematicians would use infoboxes in their statements themselves if they were useful: What does this mean? That if this infobox was useful then mathematicians would have infoboxes in journal articles? Please elaborate.
  • Content not in the article is not admissible in the infobox; the infobox is no parallel-lead (2+3): I never said that the infobox should contain content not in the article. I said that it may contain material not in the lead. Nor did I claim that the infobox should be a parallel-lead; (2+3) is a direct counter-argument against Deacon Vorbis's claim that the infobox seems to be for information that's usually already in the article lead anyway.
  • especially bigger-picture-info is no infobox content (4+5): Just like how countless other useful infoboxes across Wikipedia mention successor/predecessors, relevant time periods, important persons, etc. to connect relevant key points?
  • the expert readers are the most annoyed by triviality bites: If you are saying that the history of a theorem/conjecture and its logical connections to other significant theorems/conjectures are most annoying to mathematicians, then you are gravely wrong. I don't know a single mathematician who would say so. In particular, the logical connection fields of the infobox targets the "expert reader [who] is curious about Wikipedia's coverage" explicitly mentioned in WP:TECHNICAL.
  • spreading shit is not always spreading fertilizer: Thanks for that use of language. — MarkH21 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per author's convincing arguments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Infoboxes are the norm in well developed articles and readers expect them. This infobox provides an opportunity for editors to give an at-a-glance summary of key information in an article for the benefit of readers who simply want to find a single fact. It also provides structured data suitable for use by third-party tools. The microformats emitted include 'vcard' and 'image', although others could be added. --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have nothing to add beyond MarkH21's arguments. Lagrange613 18:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at its attempted inclusion on Fermat's Last Theorem we end up with multiple questionable assertions being made in the infobox. "Conjectured by" may be clear sometimes, but often not; e.g., Mordell famously objected to Mordell's Conjecture being described as something he conjectured; "implied by" will give the illusion of completeness when it will seldom have it; similar to "related to". I don't see any value added by the infobox. Magidin (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just fix what's objectionable in that instance of infobox? Why then argue to delete all instances? Lagrange613 19:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because (i) the problem with "implied by" is structural, not implementation dependent. (ii) The problem with "related to" is structural, not implementation dependent. (iii) The problem with "Conjectured by" and dates is going to be widely prevalent. And (iv) that leaves nothing of worth in the infobox. Ergo, no point in having it. Magidin (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the point of exhaustiveness, I don't think that readers would assume exhaustiveness here, just as one wouldn't for fields such as "Known for", "Awards", "Doctoral students", or others used in infoboxes elsewhere. Regarding the subtleties in whether someone "conjectured" something or not, this is something that can be decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis for more controversial instances. The majority (or at the very least, a substantial portion) of theorems and conjectures are not so controversial as to claims of whether the author truly conjectured something. As with the example of Fermat's Last Theorem, RexxS pointed out that the lead reads "This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637". If it's good enough stated in the lead and article, it should be so for the infobox as well. Subtleties are still discussed in the article and the infobox is never intended nor assumed to have a strict finality just as the lead is not. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Infoboxes are space-wasting but unobjectionable for subjects that can be condensed down to sentence-fragment-level factoids: X is a fire-based Pokemon, first released in YYYY; Z is a footballer who played as a defender for V and scored W world cup goals; you know, material where readers can be expected to have very low attention spans and are just looking for some trivia. Mathematical theorems are not that kind of subject, and in most cases forcing them into this kind of fragment-level sub-idea framework you either oversimplify to the point of meaninglessness or turn it into a game of trivia where only the inessential points of the theorem (like when it was published or who it's named after) are included. This is a very misguided idea and even allowing the template to continue to exist endorses it and encourages its creator and others to spread this contagion among the mathematics articles where it doesn't belong. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Condescension for readers of other areas of Wikipedia aside, I'll respond to the "trivialization" of math articles. There are key relations and data of a theorem that can be summarized. The existence of an infobox giving connectivity to closely related articles and summarizing key points does not trivialize the entirety of the article. It's not like the proper subset of knowledgeable or expert readers not looking for this information will look at the infobox, stop reading, and not find what they were looking for in the rest of the article. In the same way, a reader interested in the contributions of Elias Stein to Calderón–Zygmund theory is not going to be repulsed by the infobox that lists his awards, doctoral advisor, and doctoral students.
Note: the essay that you linked (which I agree with) only asserts that "disinfoboxes" waste space. This infobox, as a general infobox and not hypothetical bad-use cases, does not meet any criteria explicitly mentioned in "Problems" or "Solutions". — MarkH21 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explicitly pointing to indisputable differences is not necessarily condescension and the thanked for, but nevertheless rude formulation of infoboxes not being always fertilizing perfectly applies to the cited contrast. Purgy (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between saying that certain subjects have more associated factoids and saying that readers of certain subjects "have very low attention spans". Likewise there's a difference between just calling something not fertilizing and calling it "shit". — MarkH21 (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, abuse of the domain and implication, and denying facts. I never called boxes shit, but my rude statement is broad enough to hold even for boxes. In advance, please, do not conclude that boxes are worse than shit. Do you still like your creation that much, is it worth this all? Purgy (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I have done is present an argument for why the infobox adds value and present counter-arguments for opposition. I did not provoke "this all" (whether that refers to your block, your rude statement, the edit warring by others at FLT, or anything else) and I am not going to involve myself with these distractions anymore. This is getting off-topic. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, your responses to my comment are perhaps valid arguments for why Pokemons and footballers should also avoid infoboxes. They are not good arguments for having infoboxes on articles about mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then would you mind explaining how any of my arguments are for Pokémon and footballers not having infoboxes and how any of them are not a good argument for mathematical articles? — MarkH21 (talk)
You are saying that it is incorrect to characterize readers of Pokemon and footballer articles as being so shallow that they want their material pre-digested into sentence-fragment-level pieces of marginally-relevant trivia. That does not address my main claim, that this same level of predigestion is bad for mathematics articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mistake to assume that there's something special about mathematical articles (or any other sort of article, for that matter). They are just as liable as any other to have a reader come along and simply want to rapidly find a factoid: "What was the author's full name?"; "What year did Fermat describe his theorem?"; "What other theorems are related?". If we can give concise answers to these sort of questions, then we do the reader a service by collecting them together in a predictable place and manner. Readers expect that and that is the essence of what an infobox is (although it can be other things as well). The majority of our best articles have infoboxes, not because the editors of those articles enjoy deriding their readers, but because they understand that there are many sorts of readers. Not all will want to read the whole article to find a single piece of information. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Yes, that is true of the first 8 words of my response to your !vote. The rest of my comment starting with I'll respond to the “trivialization” of math articles directly addresses your main claim. — MarkH21 (talk)
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:Kamil Bednarek

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) Hhkohh (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This singer's navigational template consists of four links and none that are albums or singles. The singer's article is the only article where the template is in use and the other three links are a band they were a member, a redirect back to the singer's article and a reality show they were on. This clearly fails WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2019 (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/2019_February_24&oldid=886669736"