Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16

March 16

Template:Eva Longoria

Template:Eva Longoria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Not exactly a comprehensive body of work! Rob Sinden (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event

Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox sport event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event with Template:Infobox sport event.
Very similar templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rail transport in Catalonia

Template:Infobox rail transport in Catalonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Truly massive infobox–sidebar combo, which is variously redundant to {{Infobox rail line}}, {{Transport in Barcelona}}, {{Trambesòs}} and {{Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya lines}}. Alakzi (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sydney public transport

Template:Infobox Sydney public transport (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox rail line}} or {{Infobox water transit}}. We don't need separate infoboxes for each city's public transport systems. Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Replace and delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Maintained

Template:Maintained (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is all sorts of trouble, though it claims it doesn't imply page ownership, it really does. It doesn't really have a positive use, if and editor wants assistance they can use the page history, not this ownership implying tag. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, for the above reasons; and because the template can't be relied on: the editor listed by it for Ronald Reagan hasn't edited for over a year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any great value in this template, but I do see potential ownership problems (whatever the template says). When people, especially newcomers, see editors named in the template they're inevitably going to see them as experts who are expected to be consulted. If you want to help others with a specific article, all you need to do is watchlist the talk page and jump in and help when anyone asks. You don't need to be named explicitly in a template. (And as Andy Mabbett suggests, people will surely waste time chasing up outdated templates.) Squinge (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep It's a good starting point for some editors, some of them new. If they have questions or concerns about an article, they have an individual editor to go to, rather than take a shot in the dark. In my experience, the template only "implies ownership" to those who have a habit of establishing ownership over articles, and the editor listed is a threat to them. If ownership becomes a problem with an editor listed in the template, it can be dealt with at the appropriate noticeboard. As a community, we are to take responsibility for how we edit or "maintain" an article and encourage editors to do the same. I fail to see how having editors taking responsibility and being a go-to person is a bad thing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. How can it not imply page ownership? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Because the template specifically says, "This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute." Besides, templates are inanimate things and actions/ideations of ownership can only come from an editor. If an editor is signing up to be a page maintainer for the wrong reasons, that will become clear and the problem dealt with appropriately. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • This is not a comment underneath a comment by User:Winkelvi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Per WV. Just because a few people misuse the template does not mean it should be deleted. Handle the troublemakers instead. I'm the primary editor on many lemur articles, and this template helps readers and newer editors get in touch with me when they have questions about sources or want information about other lemurs I haven't had time to write about. The article Small-toothed sportive lemur wouldn't be a FA if it wasn't for this template. Someone apparently saw this template on another lemur article, wrote to me to inquire about this obscure lemur, and that gave me a reason to write up the article. This template is not only applicable to articles primarily written (and fully developed) by a single writer, but can also be used by multiple individuals on collaborative projects. Let's stop focusing on the negative and blaming the template for bad editor behavior. The text of the template quite clearly states its purpose. – Maky ^« talk » 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Just because the template says that it isn't meant to assert article ownership doesn't mean that the real purpose of the template isn't to assert article ownership. Just calling the dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. The purpose of the template, no matter what it says, is article ownership. Get rid of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. I understand the intent behind this template. Let's say someone had done a lot of work putting together resources for a rewrite of Onychophora and stuck this template on its talk page (note: this is a hypothetical example; it's not in use there). Then, later on, an editor looking to blue link the peripatopsid genus Kumbadjena might know to shoot that editor a message to see what sources are out there, or even get easier access to paywalled stuff. Yay, the encyclopedia wins! But I bet that's not the way it's mostly being used. Despite The Treachery of Disclaimers it looks like a page ownership notice. People who want to communicate their willingness to assist with editing and sourcing have Talk pages and Wikiprojects to do just that, and don't require a template to do so. This, in contrast, adds little benefit at a great deal of potential cost. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary and an invitation for page ownership. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete this OWN bait. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) bus station

Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) bus station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox bus station}}, which contains all of the key fields. We don't need to list all station facilities; see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I thought {{Infobox station}} had been amended with additional parameters to make {{Infobox bus station}} redundant as well. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:James Bond film crew

Template:James Bond film crew (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe film crew and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 12#Template:Star Trek film crew

Incoherent groupings which do not aid navigation. These shouldn't be encouraged, the same way we do not have cast navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. That's a complete mess. Alakzi (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Zombi series

Template:Zombi series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substantial duplication. All links are included at {{Living Dead}} Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)