Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 27 March 29 >

March 28 edit

Template:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template's history seems a bit fishy to put it politely. It was taken to TfD in 2009 and ended with an outcome of delete. It was later re-created 3 years later by one of the editors that opposed its deletion. The template itself is just too huge to be useful for anything. It's so big that whoever maintains it (if there is anyone) doesn't even care that it's not even placed on all the articles it links to (WP:LINKBACK). This template should have one of two outcomes - either be deleted, or if decided to be kept, split into districts templates which follow the 5 points at WP:NAVBOX. Gonnym (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, content is simply not suitable for — or useful as — a Navbox due to it's enormous size. BLAIXX 13:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No purpose for such a huge template, interested users can get to List of United States Representatives from New York or United States congressional delegations from New York. Reywas92Talk 19:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Contents betters as a category or list page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a whole category Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes. In general on WP, don't we usually have a consistent policy for a category such as this. I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a rationale to keep. However, in this case, I am trying to gage what is a correct outcome based on what seems to be done with other states. New York has had more past reps than almost any other state so it may need its own precedent. Is this so much larger than {{Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania}} or {{USRepOH}} that it should be treated differently. Ohio (e.g. {{OhioRepresentatives01}} seems to have WP:PRESERVEd the template content as if the navbox purpose is useful, but needs to be kept to a reasonable size. Can Reywas92 explain why deletion is preferable to splitting like Ohio has done. Virginia also has {{VirginiaRepresentatives07}} but no other districts? If this outcome ends in deletion, can the content be restored in the district-by-district format like Ohio.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. @Blaixx, Reywas92, Tom (LT), and Gonnym: are you aware that following the 2009 TFD deletion it was recreated in 2012 with functionality to display only a single district. It is suppose to be rendered using syntax like {{tl|Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York|3}}. You are acting as if the problem is that it is displaying all 45 districts everywhere. It is not suppose to be showing more than one district on an article page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the pages it's transcluded to that I checked use this functionality; all use the full template. While several other states have all-emcompassing navboxes like this, others only have one for the current delegation (or the delegation for certain Congresses). Using such formatting to only display one district would be preferable to creating separate templates for each, but I don't actually think any of these district-based templates are actually useful since redistricting often makes it irrelevant that X and Y members both represented the Nth district since they may be completely different areas, and there are typically succession boxes in the footer. Reywas92Talk 03:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzpoll, BrownHairedGirl, Cerejota, Kraxler, Twp, Izno, Benjiboi, Astuishin, Fram, Carnildo, William Allen Simpson, Markles, AKMask, Ikip, Nabla, Docu, Phoe, and Garion96:, You participated in the 2009 Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives discussion, which resulted in Delete. In 2012, the same content was recreated as {{Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York}}, which has the functionality to display only a single district ({{tl|Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York|3}})) The new version of the template is now at issue here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or shrink: Either cut it down to show only the current representatives, or delete it. It's unusably large as it is. (I don't have access to the previous one, but as I recall, it was similarly intimidating.) --Carnildo (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Idiotic. Listify it of no current list exists. Garion96 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Massively oversized, for all the reasons discussed in 2012. As the nominator of the 2009 TFD, I am surprised to see that this was re-created. I am also very sad to see that it was recreated by @TonyTheTiger, who had created the earlier template on 28 November 2008, and participated in its TFD (where he made repeated allegations of vindictiveness against another editor). So there is no way that Tony could have been unaware of the fact that he was re-creating content deleted by consensus. And indeed the edit summary of his re-creation[1] explicitly says recreating page ... but nowhere in the revision history or on the face of any revision of the re-created template or in the discussion which Tony participated in at Template talk:Members_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_from_New_York is there any mention by Tony of the consensus to delete.
Finding this resurrection being debated only a day or two after Tony's vexatious, wikilawyering, self-contradictory and explicitly WP:OWNership-driven[2] request for deletion of another of his creations was snow-closed as "endorse" suggests that there is a long-term user conduct issue which needs to be addressed elsewhere.
Tony's claim above that the template is supposed to be used with a parameter to display only a single district does reflect the version that he created.[3] However, in 2015 that was converted[4] by @GoldRingChip to the all-in-listing which see today. That change is not directly Tony's fault, but it was facilitated by Tony's decision to recreate a variant of the deleted template rather than create separate templates for each district, and by his failure to reference the TFD decision at any point after his re-creation.
It may be that the contents of this re-created template could be usefully split into by-district templates. As others have noted, even a single-district template has a serious problems, in that the redistricting means the same district number applies at different times to radically different areas. That makes these navboxes a template equivalent of the deprecated WP:SHAREDNAME categories. (This is a peculiarly American issue; in many other countries, such as Ireland and the UK, constituencies get descriptive names rather than numbers, so a shared name has significant geographical continuity). However, since the practise of creating navboxes by US House district number without regard to redistricting seems to be widespread, an RFC would be needed to end that practise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyTheTiger, I wouldn't recommend re-creating a page which was deleted by consensus unless there has been some discussion somewhere agreeing that a modified version would be acceptable. But if you are gong to recreate a page which was deleted by consensus without such a discussion, then you should clearly what you have done, and why.
It's odd that you didn't do that when you recreated the page, and even more surprising that you didn't mention it in the discussion at Template talk:Members of the_U.S. House_of Representatives_from_New_York#multiple_districts. Odd too that you responded twice in that discussion without a ping, but somehow stopped noticing anything when the page as restored to something like the deleted version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, IIRC, I pinged the closing admin about recreating it with single district functionality. What I recreated was originally very different from what had been deleted.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does look like this template is very bloated. (I can't imagine what a California one would look like.) Do with it as you will, with my approval. I'm sorry to have made a mess of it. —GoldRingChip 21:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and shrink to list of current representatives. I think such a template would be very useful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 3 April 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:Dts/sandbox/doc 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox does not use this page, but uses {{Dts/doc}}. The examples is only used in the sandbox/doc. Gonnym (talk) 18:11, 28 March 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:2015 Latvian Higher League table 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merged with article with attribution per this discussion Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-confirm my vote. These are all speedy requests which unfortunately cannot be speedy, so the additions don't change this for me. The templates are all the same - data that was merged into the article based on previous discussions, TfD and consensus that these should be placed in the articles and not in stand-alone templates. --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 09:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nominator @Frietjes: has added a number of templates to this nomination after my !vote (see here). Those templates should be removed and re-nominated separately. You should not bundle after people have started discussing. GiantSnowman 07:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have stricken your !vote and invite Gonnym and Tom (LT) do revise their !votes if the don't agree with the additions. Frietjes (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go ahead. I do not think these will reverse. So please do not ping me/reinvite me to vote if Frietjes adds more templates here. Hhkohh (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No change to my vote nor reason for this - no need for templates if on parent articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:33, 1 April 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:Miss International titleholders 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 merge to Template:Miss International titleholders. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:MissInternationals 1960–1979, Template:MissInternationals 1980–1999 and Template:MissInternationals 2000–2019 into Template:Miss International titleholders.
The 3 templates should be merged into one complete template, similar to other "Miss X titleholders" templates. The merged templates should be deleted and not redirected, as any appearance in an article will be a WP:SURPRISE link as the result won't be a list of winners from a specific year range. Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as only one navbox is needed here, although there's no harm in redirects from the smaller templates as this will save replacing on every article. --woodensuperman 16:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 30 March 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:Miss World titleholders 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 merge to Template:Miss World titleholders. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:MissWorlds 1951–1959, Template:MissWorlds 1960–1979, Template:MissWorlds 1980–1999, Template:MissWorlds 2000–2019 into Template:Miss World titleholders.
The 4 templates should be merged into one complete template, similar to other "Miss X titleholders" templates. The merged templates should be deleted and not redirected, as any appearance in an article will be a WP:SURPRISE link as the result won't be a list of winners from a specific year range. Gonnym (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as only one navbox is needed here, although there's no harm in redirects from the smaller templates as this will save replacing on every article. --woodensuperman 16:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 30 March 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:Volleyballbox collapsible 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 merge to Template:Volleyballbox. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Volleyballbox collapsible with Template:Volleyballbox.
I previously nominated {{Volleyballbox2}} to be merged with {{Volleyballbox}} here and later edited in a comment to include this one, but since I did not do it proper, I guess it needs to be re-done. This template is deprecated in favor of {{Volleyballbox}} and has only 1 usage. Gonnym (talk) 13:56, 28 March 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:Moldovan parliamentary election, 2005 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Full table is in 2005 Moldovan parliamentary election Hhkohh (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a different table is used in article. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another reason why separate templates, which conceptually a neat idea, can lead to problems down the track. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 30 March 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:Mauritanian parliamentary election, 2001 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Probably already merged into 2001 Mauritanian parliamentary election Hhkohh (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a different table is used in article. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another reason why separate templates, which conceptually a neat idea, can lead to problems down the track. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 30 March 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:Maltese legislative election, 2013 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Probably already merged into 2013 Maltese general election Hhkohh (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a different table is used in article. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another reason why separate templates, which conceptually a neat idea, can lead to problems down the track. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 30 March 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:Mali presidential election, 2002 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Hhkohh (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a different table is used in article. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another reason why separate templates, which conceptually a neat idea, can lead to problems down the track. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 30 March 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:Mali parliamentary election, 2002 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Hhkohh (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a different table is used in article. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another reason why separate templates, which conceptually a neat idea, can lead to problems down the track. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 30 March 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:Manichitrathazhu character map 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 2019 April 5. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 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:Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana character map 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 2019 April 5. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 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_March_28&oldid=1072192653"