Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7 edit

Template:XBIZ Best Supporting Actress 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 2020 January 15. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2020 (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).

Texas county navboxes 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination of a smaller bundle. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass nomination of a bunch of Texas county navboxes, per the outcomes at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 16#Template:Terrell County, Texas and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 18#Template:Loving County, Texas. WP:NENAN, all of these have 2-4 bluelinked names in them (and in a remarkable achievement, Template:Crockett County, Texas only has 1!), so they have no to almost no use as navigational aids and only serve to be unhelpful clutter. (First time doing a bundled nomination at TfD, so if I've managed to bollox something up definitely let me know) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any that are used on four or more pages, like Template:Gray County, Texas and Template:Ochiltree County, Texas and many others (see here and here for example). Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go through and mark all the ones with 4, for ease (I caught a couple with 5, I've marked the ones with 4 as * and 5 as **). I thought 5 would be the best threshold; 4 still seems a bit less than would really be helpful and easier to handle with a simple list on that county's page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These mass nominations are a bad idea, these need to be gone through to determine what's useful and what isn't. Discussions at a couple other templates don't dictate that these all are useless and should also be deleted. WP:NENAN is an essay, not policy or even a guideline, so I'm not seeing why it should dictate a mass deletion of useful navboxes. It's even more hilarious when the author of an essay tries to cite it as a rationale in a deletion discussion. ♟♙ (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestion at the Terrell County discussion was to mass nominate, as having more than 50 discussions about the same issue is monstrously inefficient. And please tell me how any of these are useful, besides WP:ITSUSEFUL. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to present a legitimate rationale for deletion besides an essay and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Deleting everything at once because "it's easier" is wasteful and destructive. ♟♙ (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did present a rationale; that having a navbox with 1, 2, 3, or 4 links is unnecessary clutter. It chews up space where a simple list in each county article would be far more efficient. There's no good reason to have the same discussion more than 50 times if it's all addressing the same issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I dispute that deletion rationale with the counterargument that Navboxes are much more consistent across the board and cleaner than using something different for every article based on an arbitrary number decided by one or two people. ♟♙ (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, now I see where you're going. The issue I have with that is that it's not standard practice to have navboxes for such small numbers in any other area (for instance, there's no navbox for Ram Jam albums because there are only 3 possible entries), and having that there actively interferes with getting to better-populated and more helpful navboxes (in this case, for instance, all of these counties are noted in in their respective regions of Texas navbox). But that's just me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) I also want to dispute the assertion that many or most of these can never be expanded beyond an entry or two. In just two days, I've expanded two of them (Deaf Smith County and Parmer County) to 6 and 7 entries. It's true that this part of the US is quite sparsely populated, but that doesn't mean there are or were no settlements there. EDIT: Crockett County now has 8 entries. ♟♙ (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2020 (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).

WP-list 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 relisted on 2020 January 15. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2020 (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/2020_January_7&oldid=935982452"