Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 14

< September 13	September 15 >

September 14

Template:Unavbar

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 as replaceable by {{navbar}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, very few uses. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other templates that offer similar functionality to this template? If so, redirect to those templates... if not, can we try to merge this one's functionality into those templates? Delete or redirect if it is deprecated and obsolete... no point in keeping a template that's no longer used or needed. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deprecated in favour of what? This template is currently in use, and without something else to replace those uses I don't see what basis there is for deletion. PC78 (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete. It is currently an exact copy of {{navbar}}, ~~but is still transcluded on some 20+ user talk archive pages. If those are changed to navbar, this could be deleted.~~ — Edokter • Talk • 22:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, it wasn't clear from the documentation of {{navbar}} but I see now that it can be used for any namespace and not just template space. But would a redirect work? It looks like the user namespace is hardcoded into {{unavbar}}. PC78 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Navbar should handle all namespaces. — Edokter • Talk • 23:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you missed the point of my comment. The user namespace appears to be hardcoded into {{unavbar}}, in which case a redirect would break existing transclusions. PC78 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it it were to be redirected, the hardcoded code would no longer be present, and the multi-namespace code of {{navbar}} would handle the namespace. But since it is now orphaned, it doesn't really matter. — Edokter • Talk • 23:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the links in {{unavbar}} intended for userspace would have switched to templatespace, which is the default in {{navbar}}. But yes, this is of course no longer an issue either way. :) PC78 (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now orphaned. This was only being used on four pages and has now been replaved with {{navbar}}. No value in a redirect; the default namespace for each template is different, so the two are not directly interchangable. PC78 (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2010 (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:Infobox Sagan 4

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) 23:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sagan 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be unused, possibly just a test. Code and docs are an unaltered copy of the comic infobox. Creator hasn't edited since February. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be an aborted attempt at coming up with an appropriate infobox for ...whatever the subject matter is supposed to be. I've put a PROD on the article in question, which would obviate any need for this infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:52, 16 September 2010 (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:2010 Georgia Football Schedule

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 all after substitution. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Georgia Football Schedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template; contains content that should only be displayed once on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this template along with others (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) per previous precedent.»NMajdan·talk 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comment from nominator and Nmajdan. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 12 per NMajdan and nominator. cmadler (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to any deletion, these should all be subst'ed into the 12 team articles. cmadler (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all transclusions of these templates in the article space and made any needed substitutions. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and subst/cleanup. De FaultRyan 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary given that the templates will only be included on one page. Ryan2845 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2010 (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:User tl-Tglg/doc

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 speedy delete as G8. NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User tl-Tglg/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete – documentation of deleted template. No links or transclusions. Couldn't find a relevant speedy deletion template. McLerristarr / Mclay1 05:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD G8: "subpage of a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion". So tagged. PC78 (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User tl-Tglg Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2010 (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:The CW Television Network (The CW)

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 Week connection between articles. Salix (talk): 09:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The CW Television Network (The CW) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and the shows don't have any connection besides the network in which all aired at some point. Bisbis (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't see which paragraph(s) at WP:NOTGUIDE you have in mind. I am instead looking at WP:NAVBOX#Properties and I think it just about scrapes through. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there is only a weak link between these articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteVerbatim from the template's talk page, where I first objected to it.
Listing currently airing shows is very guide-like. However, my main concern remains that these series have nothing in common other than airing on the same network. Imagine if there was a similar navbox listing all series that have ever aired on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox, and that it appeared on the article for every series that's listed in it. They would be ridiculous. There's no difference here; the smaller size does not make the content any more appropriate. It's an inappropriate trivial connection at best. Besides, not everything needs a navbox.oknazevad (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm curious...are you saying to get rid of all television network templates? What about Template:ABC Family, Template:Nick at Nite, Template:CNN, Template:MSNBC Programs, Template:The Weather Channel, Template:Cartoon Network, etc.? Or, phrased differently, what makes The CW template different and up for deletion discussion? I can understand your argument of WP:NOTGUIDE for templates such as Template:CNBC weekday schedule history, Template:CNBC Europe Business Day, and Template:CNBC Business Day, which clearly resemble a TV Guide. I just don't see the argument in The CW template. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each one should be adjudged individually, but those are a mixed bag at best. The news channels examples do have something more in common, namely the same production companies behind each series. That is also true for some of the Cartoon Network series listed, but not all of them; indeed, that navbox is exactly the sort of mess I was talking about. Navboxes shouldn't try to cover the complete programming history of a network, that's what list articles are for. Those are, once again, my issues with the CW one; the only connection each of those series has is that it happened to air on the CW, and that the navbox is trying to cover the entire list of shows ever aired by the network, which is what the List of programs broadcast by The CW article is for.oknazevad (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in addendum: The is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. oknazevad (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether this is a useful navigation tool. Will readers looking for an article on Gossip Girl really need to know what other programs have aired on The CW at some point? And is that even why we're here? There doesn't seem to be a use cases which would warrant adding this to articles, which obviates the need for it to exist. Furthermore, this is a somewhat minor example: doing the same thing for the likes of BBC1 would be quite obviously unworkable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Redo just delete all the shows and make the whole bar the "Related" tab. Matty-chan (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment - Matty, I don't exactly understand what you are suggesting, can you elaborate on it? ChaosMaster_Chat 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's saying that we should just remove the series listings (as those are the primary objection) and make the entire template just the last section. Which raises the question of den having the template, as the whopping four links are already on the main CW page, and easily added to the see also section of the other three. It becomes a WP:NENAN issue then. Also, what's the reasoning behind your "keep", as you neglected to mention it?oknazevad (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A case of over-templating gone too far certainly. Completely unneeded featuring cruft only popular among CW-philes (nobody except those at the stations themselves watched what was part of the CW's afternoon block under the syndication heading), Moonlight and Jericho should certainly be there at all, because they don't need to be in them at all if they were just used for repeat filler, and having items such as The CW's Tampa Bay and Philly stations is incredibly superfluous (both have thus been removed by me from each of the articles mentioned and the template for that reason). If people want to know the CW's programming history, look at the network's article and "list of..." article. And I'm not even going to say how incredibly stupid it's going to look by 2020 (think a 50-line template) if kept in its current form. Nate • (chatter) 04:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment I would advise a nomination for deletion for both the ABC Family and Weather Channel templates, along with the CNBC 'schedule' templates, which seem to consist of things easily covered by the "list of..." articles and in the case of the Weather Channel template, filled with cruft easily covered by the Weather Channel category; 80% of the programs mentioned are best described as just 'weather forecasts presented under a title' (and I could say something about the unsourced articles for said shows but that would be a frustrating exercise to go through putting AfDs through), while the other part deals with Weather Stars, the local forecast system used by the network and of interest only to the biggest WC fanatics. Nate • (chatter) 05:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Navboxes are to connect same topic articles together. From WP:NAVBOX "Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" A television networks air a lot of different shows and besides the network these have nothing in common. Shows sharing nothing but the network do not help the reader understand the show better, and I for one do not see the need or use of reading up on America's Next Top Model when reading about Supernatural. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but then, you can use this navbox to see which shows air on the CW. Maybe we can take out the former programing list and just link that page (the former programing article) in a Related catagory, just to show currently airing programs? That would have some logic to it, rather than deleting the whole thing. Out of all of the navboxes on Wikipedia, I don't think this is the one that should be deleted, but rather restructured to make it more navagational friendly. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no salvaging this template; both topics mentioned are covered quite fine by the List of programs on the CW and the current year TV schedule, along with the network's own website. With only ten current programs the need for a template for a network which is only five years old and is in some threat of being dismantled is superfluous, and there is certainly no need for further categories to speak of. Nate • (chatter) 05:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even then, the connection between shows has no user relevance. I can see the point of a navbox for The Disney Afternoon, because all those shows are aimed at the same audience. But a blank network navbox does not have that, networks air all types of shows, aimed at different audiences. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is too fine grained. I could see having a navigation box which links between more high-level articles (e.g., "list of shows"), but this isn't it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:22, 23 September 2010 (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:Infobox Polish politician

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 after conversion to {{Infobox officeholder}} or its various redirects Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Polish politician (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently ported from the Polish Wikipedia along with a bunch of articles way back in 2006. Currently this infobox is used in 460 articles, but the sparsity of parameters make it almost useless and vastly inferior to the standard {{Infobox officeholder}}. PC78 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. {{Infobox politician}} (a redirect of Infobox officeholder) can be used instead. Please find more that we could delete/merge on this direction! -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About time. There were (and still are) some useless Polish-related infoboxes that could be merged, e.g. {{Infobox Warsaw}}. - Darwinek (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2010 (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.