Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 10 August 12 >

August 11[edit]

Template:Hoysala Architecture[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 and redirect to preserve attribution. ~ Rob13Talk 05:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

these image galleries were being used in only one article (Architecture of Karnataka), so I merged them with the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:52, 11 August 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:ArchINFORM[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 2016 August 23. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 23 August 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:CNKI[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Site-specific DOI template; redundant to {{doi}}. Only two translcsuions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 11 August 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:Metavisualizer[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-functioning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 11 August 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:ColumnChart[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use; wraps a link to the non-functioning {{metavisualizer}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 11 August 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:DoD detainees ARB[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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless URL template, with no text content. 179 transclusions.

Typical use: [{{DoD detainees ARB|ARB_Transcript_Set_3_769-943_FINAL.pdf}} Summarized transcript (.pdf)]

Should be Subst:, then deleted.

(TfD template would break instances like that above, and so has been "noincluded".) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've add a vote now to keep, due to nominator returning to editing without explaining what has changed since the last TfD making this template less useful than at that time. Nothing has apparently changed. Thus, no apparent rationale for deletion. Nearly 200 transclusions too. I'm open to further discussion on why this needs to be deleted, but at this time no valid reason has been submitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep url has already changed once. No objection to improving implementation, as suggested in previous discussion, though there may be some issues there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 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:CfDM[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 05:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unusable deletion discussion templates. These templates seem to be designed for use in some hypothetical world where CfD used the AfD system (of one subpage per category discussed). Such a system is not in use. It appears that such a system was briefly proposed and accepted but quickly overturned in 2008. Pppery (talk) 18:35, 11 August 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:Fb team ground Zamalek SC[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 11 August 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:Largest cities of Illinois[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

single use, should be merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just pointing out that you can't merge then delete something per WP:MAD Pppery (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A cut down version could be beneficial in the city articles demographics section. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:39, 12 August 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:Largest cities of Arkansas[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 04:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kansas version, because included in Template:Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:30, 11 August 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 Surreal Life[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) Primefac (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. A navbox just detailing performers in a reality TV show is just an extension of the same principle. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For the same reason we have the guideline WP:PERFCAT for categories. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, better to just link to the parent article for the cast list. this is also different from other navboxes since the celebrities are not primarily known for being on The Surreal Life. Frietjes (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • improve Instead of deleting this particular template since it is the only one for its parent show just a simple restructure of the template so it contains information similar to {{Big Brother in the United States}} or {{Dancing with the Stars (United States)}}. A complete delete could cause someone to recreate the same existing template. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you take out the participants all you are left with is a couple of links, which isn't enough to warrant a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah see your point on that one then delete as per nom ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete. I'm in favour of deletion for the reasons given above, but as there is no list I think one should be made, possibly in the existing article (perhaps a list for each season). I believe an "improved" template would only include links to The Surreal Life and The Surreal Life: Fame Games, so would be pointless. anemoneprojectors 11:22, 20 August 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:Celebrity Big Brother[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. The consensus here favors deletion, which happens to also match the long-running overall community consensus that is repeatedly found at TfD. While the arguments used in establishing the longstanding consensus here, they typically include WP:NAVBOX (which suggests using navboxes only where readers would want to navigate from any one article to each of the other articles), WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (as the cast articles almost certainly shouldn't all have a navbox for every show/movie they've participated in), and the sentiments behind WP:TEMPLATECREEP. ~ Rob13Talk 04:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. A navbox just detailing performers in a reality TV show is just an extension of the same principle. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For the same reason we have the guideline WP:PERFCAT for categories. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, better to just link to the parent article for the cast list. this is also different from other navboxes since the celebrities are not primarily known for being on Big Brother. Frietjes (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if indeed we are not meant to include cast. If the cast are removed, then the template is redundant to Template:Big Brother UK, which contains links to the list of celebrity housemates and each individual series. anemoneprojectors 10:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I honestly can't see anything wrong in the infobox whatsoever, it has links to every series and its contestants, Wikipedia has gone crazy with these stupid infobox changes lately, even ones used for years without changes are suddenly becoming messy. I mean to delete this you might as well delete the {{Dancing on Ice celebrities}} one below also. Superdry19 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an infobox, it's a navbox. And yes, {{Dancing on Ice celebrities}} should be reduced to only contain the seasons and articles that are directly related to the production of the TV series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are just as useful as all the other templates for TV shows and I don't see any policy that forbids or even advises against them. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a longstanding consensus not to include cast or crew in navboxes. That is basically all this is... --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not cast or crew - they're real people rather than employees or fictional characters. Jim Michael (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A celebrity appearance in a television show counts as the same thing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who (other than you) says that they count as the same thing? Their stay in the BB House isn't acting or guest-appearing. They're not presenting or performing. They're not working with or for the show, the channel or the company that produces the show. BB isn't scripted - it's not even structured reality. They're contestants who live in the BB House for the duration of their stay. Jim Michael (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are useful and yes, maybe the celebrity is known for other things but the vast majority of celebrities who enter this show are hardly known for a lot in anyways. Also, if you're going to delete the Big Brother one then delete every reality show template. Reli source (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't WP:USEFUL, it causes WP:TEMPLATECREEP. Yes, we should reduce or delete any navbox that only contains a list of celebrities, per the longstanding consensus not to include cast or crew in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not more useful than List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates, which is the place to go to find a list of Celebrity Big Brother housemates, rather than a navbox. I'm sure the other templates will be discussed in due course. anemoneprojectors 20:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't only contain a list of celebs - it also contains links to each series. Jim Michael (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are already covered at {{Big Brother UK}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not cast or crew; they're contestants in a reality show. Jim Michael (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm in favor of deleting all these templates because there is a list page containing all the same information. Each of the series main articles also has a sidebar linking each contestant (celebrity & civilian) to either their own Wikipedia article or links them to the season/series they participated in (see Big Brother (U.S. TV series) for example.) Also for each season of a notable series there is a page listing participants of that particular season if they are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article (i.e. List of Big Brother 18 houseguests (U.S.), List of Big Brother 17 housemates (UK).) Templates like {{Big Brother in the United States}} lists the winning contestant from each season and a link to an article for more information about them along with key visible people like the presenters of the program. Templates like {{Big Brother UK}} are similar just omit the presenters currently. With so many places to find the same information here on Wikipedia we don't need these templates and they cause WP:TEMPLATECREEP. For shows like {{The Surreal Life}} that template can be restructured similar to one of the existing Big Brother series templates instead of a complete delete. This same discussion can also be applied to the templates of the Dancing with the Stars series as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:23, 18 August 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:California toll roads[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. WP:REFUND into userspace applies for anyone seeking to create a bridge-only navbox, although there's no guarantee that won't swiftly find its way back to TfD. ~ Rob13Talk 04:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. This is better suited by a category, especially as many of the express lanes don't and shouldn't have their own article, and the list will keep growing as HOT lanes become more popular in California. Rschen7754 03:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If it means anything, this use to just list the San Francisco Bay toll bridges, before I was bold and added the other roads.[1][2] Would there be consensus to revert it back, or would that sort of be redundant to the "Bridges" row in {{SF Freeways}}? Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think {{SF Freeways}} should exist either, for similar reasons. A template of the SF Bay toll bridges might be useful, though I'm not really sure that it should exist. --Rschen7754 04:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what this template was when I made it, a listing of the Bay Area bridges in one section, but it somehow evolved into what it is now. I'd love to revert it back to a bridge listing (as it saves clicks when browsing around for local bridges). --wL<speak·check> 09:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we already have precedent for deleting navboxes like Washington metropolitan area roads and other regional road groupings. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the current form, or revise to a bridge-only box. Either would account for the consensus against similar navboxes for highway listings in the US. Imzadi 1979 → 08:31, 15 August 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_August_11&oldid=1138533176"