Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 17

< July 16	July 18 >

July 17

Template:Japanese Bibliography project

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Bibliography project (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

better to just use {{WikiProject Japan}}, since this template will not pass any additional options to the parent. Frietjes (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD T3 Illia Connell (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Physics equations navbox

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Physics equations navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I propose to delete Template:Physics equations navbox along with both its sub-templates, Template:Physics equations and Template:Physics equations (eponyms). This template is a grab-bag of links to completely unrelated topics. Putting this template on a page is even less sensible than putting "See also: Category:Physics" or "See also: Physics" on a random physics page. Yes, I do want readers to be able to browse different physics articles, but there are 15000 total physics articles! These 100 are NOT by any means the 100 most important or the 100 most basic out of 15000, they are essentially 100 random ones out of 15000. (The fact that they are "equations" does not make them a separate category in any meaningful or useful sense. Almost every phenomenon in physics is associated with an equation.) I don't see the purpose of presenting readers with 100 links to random physics articles. A link to the physics portal is already on many physics pages, and serves the same purpose in a much more successful way, i.e. it introduces readers to the many physics resources on wikipedia. Steve (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

indifferent, but if it is deleted we should have a category. if it is kept, we should remove the $\delta S=0$ $\delta S=0$ graphic. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply For what it's worth, I do not strongly object to having a "Physics equations" category. --Steve (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have any of the advantages of a good navbox (see WP:NAVBOX). Takes up a lot of space, but few of the links would be relevant to any given article. Contributes to template creep. More focussed navboxes like {{Physics operator}} are useful, but most equations don't need an equation navbox. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fair enough. There are the categories [[Category:Equations]] and [[Category:Theoretical physics]] anyway. z = z² + c 21:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you should properly tag the two subtemplates with deletion banners as well, since they are full templates and can potentially be used separately. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. z = z² + c 02:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revise. There is plenty here to salvage. I don't buy the "completely unrelated topics" rationale, and I doubt anyone else does either. Perhaps these templates can be turned into an article? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I wish you wouldn't speculate on what other people think. You can speak for yourself. My question: If you turned these templates into an article, what might be its title? What might be its first sentence or two? --Steve (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Physics equations already exists. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is probably a useful way of organizing this information, but this template is not it. -- Selket ^Talk 15:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{physics equations}} (which is transcluded by this template) is probably sufficient for general navigation in the genre. The eponyms navbox is potentially useful for the specific pages it navigates, though I'm prone to thinking it's overreaching. We don't need a wrapper for the pair of them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steve's reply below. ~~the wrapper template, but~~

Keep the two sub-templates which could be used independently as needed, or both included on an article if appropriate. If the some of the topics are unrelated, then fix the templates rather than delete them. The existence of a category does not preclude the existence of a template - see WP:CLN Illia Connell (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Illia Connell (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply I am arguing that the articles in the subtemplates are related in a superficial way that is useless for navigational purposes, i.e. a reader looking at one article in the template will have no special interest in viewing another article in the template afterwards. I am arguing that the templates are analogous to Template:Physics articles whose titles have eleven letters. If that is the problem--and you can agree or disagree--then it is impossible to "fix the template". Fix it how?

The criterion of one subtemplate is "physics articles with the word "equation" (or a synonym) in the article title". The criterion of the other subtemplate is "physics articles with the word "equation" (or a synonym), plus the name of one or more humans, in the article title." Why are these random and superficial?

Because the articles with the word "equation" or "law" in the titles is just a tiny fraction of the articles that are about equations or laws. For example, the torque article has about six major "equations" or "laws" of physics in it (equation relating torque to force, torque to angular momentum, torque to moment of inertia, torque to power, etc.). But the article is not included on either template because these title is just "torque", not "torque equations". Ditto with friction, electroweak interaction, entropy, numerical aperture, and on and on. To include all "physics equations", the template would be at least 10 times larger. Moreover, all physics equations were discovered by humans (duh), and it is random chance that led some laws to be named after the people who discovered or popularized them, while others were not. --Steve (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.