Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 9 July 11 >

July 10[edit]

Template:San Diego freeways[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 02:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see similar discussions for DC, Philadelphia, and San Antonio. Rschen7754 21:46, 10 July 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:PD-USGov-DOE-ANL[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 02:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 10#File:Argonnelablogo.PNG. Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Invalid license template. License terms disallow third party derivative & commercial use which is a big no-no. -FASTILY 23:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fastily. There's limits to how far the PD USGov licensing extends, and this laboratory is not under that umbrella. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 15 July 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:Last Comic Standing 1[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 here. ~ Rob13Talk 16:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Template:Last Comic Standing 2, Template:Last Comic Standing 4 and Template:Last Comic Standing 4: Not everything needs a navbox, and these certainly don't. Launchballer 17:48, 10 July 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:Yeshivas in New Jersey[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 here. ~ Rob13Talk 16:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Stated incomplete. 2. Redundant to Category:Orthodox yeshivas in New Jersey, where all but one of the articles (apparently not Orthodox) are already present. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below as well, that guideline says clearly that redundancy between templates and categories is used as a deletion argument, and I have seen it countless times here at Tfd and Cfd. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 10 July 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:Mesivtas[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 arguments that this template is redundant and would be too large to maintain are strongly based in the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX. ~ Rob13Talk 16:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There must be literally tens or hundreds of mesivtas worldwide. This template has only one for the whole of Israel, which is laughable. Keeping that in mind: 1. There is no need to have a template for them all. 2. It is not feasible to have a template for them all, because nobody can make a template of all of them, and because it would be too big. 3. It is not fair to have only part of them in a template on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, Repurpose and Keep Eliminate the entries outside of the United States and rename it to "Mesivtas in the United States". As only those mesivtas with articles would be listed, this would be an effective navigation tool for a far-more-limited number of schools. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you think that there is an editor who can do this job, list more or less all mesivtas in the USA? I couldn't. I think it would be better to make a category Category:Mesivtas, and add all the articles to it. That is something I had considered already regardless of this discussion. The template would be redundant to that category. That way it is not a problem if we miss a few, but in a template, that would not be good or fair. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, the purpose of lists, categories and templates is to work in synergistic fashion to help ensure that appropriate articles are included and created; there is no "redundancy", one is not "better" than the other and we are not forced to choose only one of the options. If we depended on all of Wikipedia being complete, we'd have nothing. Alansohn (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, even per that guideline, templates that are basically lists are redundant to categories, and that is a regular outcome of discussions here. But, regardless, do you think it is a good idea to make the category? Debresser (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% supportive of creating a category to work in parallel with the template. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that the category was created, and all articles from the template added to it, the additional argument of redundancy is added to the original proposal. Alansohn has expressed his point of view that he doesn't see that as an argument, but I do, based on practice I have seen for years here at Tfd and the guideline mentioned above. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there are probably hundreds of mesivtas. Do we really need a template listing all and maintaining the template as well? Having a category is good enough. Maybe, just maybe, a template for a localized region would make sense but a global template is not a good idea. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No policy requires categories, lists or templates to be complete and to delete them if not; the best way to build them is one article at a time and to allow the alternative methods to co-exist synergistically. Do we need this template? No. Nor do we "need" anything on Wikipedia. Let's just blow up the whole encyclopedia and no one will have to maintain anything. Limiting the template to the United States restricts the universe of mesivtas significantly and allows the use of the template as an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being complete is definitely a good thing. But in any case, the argument is more that such a template would be monstrously large. And redundant. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at List of mesivtas, and the management task doesn't appear too daunting. If the list / template gets too large, it's easy enough to break them down into smaller geographical areas to keep them manageable. Can you point me to any policy-based argument that we are forced to choose between a category and a template? Is there is "no need for a template" / "do we really need a template" a valid argument based on some Wikipedia policy or am I missing something? Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to choose, but the 3rd paragraph of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates does say that there is the option to prefer one over the other. In this case, where IMHO a template is not a good idea - including that I think that breaking them up in small templates is also not a good idea, I'd prefer to have the category replace the template, rather than have them coexist. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is no inherent reason to restrict this template to the USA. In view of WP:GLOBAL, I do not think that is a good idea. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Category:United States shopping mall templates, which lists 94 different templates for what appears to be every state in the United States and a few dozen for various cities and metropolitan areas. Take a look at Template:Shopping malls in California, which lists several dozen malls in that one state. There are orders of magnitude more shopping malls than mesivtas, and we don't have a demand that they all be put on one global template nor would anyone ever insist that it is impossible to split them up into sub-templates at various levels. This is how templates work, and insisting that this template should be deleted merely because you have decided that "[you] do not think that is a good idea" seems to accomplish nothing.
I think you mean to refer to WP:WORLDVIEW (rather than WP:GLOBAL, but the absence of Template:Shopping malls in Zimbabwe (while Category:Shopping malls in Zimbabwe exists) doesn't mandate deletion of all other shopping mall templates. For that matter, List of shopping malls in Zimbabwe has a number of red-linked articles for malls and a continent-wide template for lists of shopping malls in Africa.
WP:CLN does in fact specify that there are some limited circumstances where one choice is better than the others, but there is policy to back up those explicit exceptions.
Given that I and other editors are more than willing to maintain templates at various levels along with the associated articles, why should we delete this merely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Alansohn (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't (to the best of my knowledge) a template for Shopping Malls in the US, it's always by State or region. That can be done for Mesivtas I would imagine, but having it worldwide is the issue. I wouldn't have a problem with a template on a much smaller level, like Mesivtas in the US or Mesivtas in NY, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 13 July 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:KP QWP & others[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 here. ~ Rob13Talk 00:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be a reason to put the number in a template rather than just directly in the single article in which it is used. WOSlinker (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The templates are for use in the political party's article, plus the article for the legislative body. Except for "PakSen JIP" (which was previously created for Senate of Pakistan, these other templates are new and have only been applied to the party-specific articles. Eventually, I will add them to the articles for their corresponding assemblies, where they can also be used for calculated values for the size of ruling & opposition coalitions, as well as a count of total vacant seats. The objective is to reduce editing time, page histories, and errors. Farolif (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are kept, then each of them could do with some documentation stating what the figure represents, as at the moment, it's not very clear. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:14, 10 July 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:Apex Online Racing[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. Undeletion may be possible in the future if more articles are created. ~ Rob13Talk 02:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox just consists of redlinks, so is not very useful. WOSlinker (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the articles have been completed, you'll find their drafts here. Holdenman05 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template should be drafted along with the articles, at least until there are more than 2 blue links, but they do seem to be on the way, so maybe it doesn't matter too much... —PC-XT+ 05:10, 14 July 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:Hungary squad 1997 FIFA World Youth Championship[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 Relist (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 21:49, 1 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:Corruption in India[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 to delete, but this may need significant changes to be useful. ~ Rob13Talk 02:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to give this another try, because nothing has changed since the previous nomination. You might wonder at this nomination, because it seems at first to be an entirely reasonable topic. However, if you dig a little deeper, you find that a) the main article covers little or none of the subjects in the template, b) the list of scandals and involved individuals is incredibly arbitrary and ad hoc, with no systematic inclusion criteria, and c) the creator and the other major editor have both been indeffed for socking, which strongly suggests that maintaining NPOV was not the highest priority of the folks who created this. Also see WP:TNT; this might be a legitimate topic, but if we need a navbox about it, we need to start over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Template created in 2011 has been edited by multiple editors here not just two and if there is any issue that can be dealt with through normal editing.This is very valid topic.Further if there were any issue with the inclusion criteria or any other issue with the template this could have been raised in the Talk Page of the Template.But None have been raised in over 5 Years even once.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pharaoh of the Wizards, ordinarily, I would agree with you. I do not lightly nominate this for deletion. Yet I spent quite a while figuring out how to make this a reasonable set of links, and come up with nothing. The set of scams is entirely arbitrary, as is the list of people, and the miscellaneous links. The "legislation" section is the only one that makes any sense. Do you have any suggestions? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest deleting all entries in "Scandals" section and only keep List of scandals in India maybe somewhere in footer. From "Anti-corruption activism" I suggest deleting all biographies and keep only articles related to movements/groups etc. Rest whole template seems okay to me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message .What to add and remove is a content issue ,Anyone can make any change in the template with a Edit summary and talk page message if it is major change.But as other editors are also involved it is better it be the talk page of the template Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per the above, this discussion hasn't reached a conclusion with regard to what this template, if kept, should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:32, 10 July 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_July_10&oldid=1143743129"