Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 12

< June 11	June 13 >

June 12

Template:Pop

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) 02:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template created for just a few listed songs, most of them redirects and do not have article. Has no benefit to the encyclopedia. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 21:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to use the standard methods for navigating between articles. this is redundant. Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 17 June 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:Great Stella

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) 20:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Great Stella (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused/no transclusions, redundant to {{Stella image}} FASTILY 20:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as redundant; this name doesn't seem to be as common, anymore. —PC-XT+ 06:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's redundant to the template the nom mentioned. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:53, 18 June 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:Mary

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sidebar, redundant to {{Virgin Mary}}, a navbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very strongly oppose deletion Navboxes can't be used mid-article. The sidebar is a useful, even more concise summary of the most important things. This is a very, very long standing template, too, used in several articles. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 15:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously redundant, as it includes the same links. In response to the above: You've provided no reason why it's desirable to have this mid-article. A navbox is just as concise while offering even more links that a reader may find useful. Age has nothing to do with merit. ~ Rob^Talk 21:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I believe other users have now provided specific reasons why it's desirable mid-article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jujutsuan: I've seen no such rationale. "Sidebars are common" doesn't dispute redundancy, nor does "to be less of a nuisance". In fact, those two rationales don't say much of anything; they're not based in our reasons for deletion or any policy or guideline. Actually, looking at the guidelines, navboxes and sidebars are so close to one another that they share a section in our relevant guideline. See WP:NAVBOX/WP:SIDEBAR. These are two navigational templates within the same area. ~ Rob^Talk 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the sidebar takes up too much space, and interferes with images and other floating content. the navbox is a better method for navigation which doesn't suffer from the same issues. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: To remedy the image-interference problem I would suggest making the categories collapsible. That would probably cut it at least in half until the reader chooses to expand it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: there is no reason why we cannot have both a navbox and a sidebar. That is a common situation. The two serve slightly different purposes; the primary article is a broad overview and different perspectives of Mary are covered in various sub-articles, which can be easily found through the sidebar. It is used on many other articles too, where it has an advantage in being more prominent than a navbox. The template should be discussed on its own merits and not whether it crowds the article. A separate argument should be made for removing the image from the lead, if crowding/aesthetic reasons are the main concern. -- Hazhk (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sidebars are common templates. Brought the image down from 200px to 120px which makes for a leaner template and may actually look better at this image size. Randy Kryn 12:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so as to be as little nuisance as possible to readers and efitors in this area of interest. Thincat (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is exactly the sort of thing that sidebar templates are made for - very closely related set of articles on a specific subject for which there is a lot of information. Unlike navboxes, sidebars strongly suggest further reading to the reader; they're a way of admitting that the constituent articles cannot individually fully explain the overarching topic. That's the case here - many articles on a single religious figure. Jhugh95 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to BU Rob13 and Frietjes' votes above. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It adds value by selecting the most significant topics on Mary and helping our readers navigate between them. Redundancy on its own is not a problem, otherwise we won't be summarising every article into a lead section. Deryck C. 16:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:TFD#REASONS. Redundancy is reason #2 for deletion. You may also wish to read this essay, which has wide consensus at TfD, to learn more about why redundancy is undesirable. ~ Rob^Talk 06:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I usually think of navigation being at the top and/or bottom of web articles. I don't usually look in between for navigation. It's non-standard. On Wikipedia, I go to the bottom, to navboxes and categories, unless I see a convenient link or sidebar. I think navboxes are preferable to sidebars, and there is some precedent to having one or the other rather than both, but I currently don't have time to look at enough articles/usecases to give a firm !vote. —PC-XT+ 06:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be wrapped up and closed. The consensus is rightly to keep the sidebar. 148.88.244.75 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 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:DoukkalaAbda-geo-stub

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) 20:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DoukkalaAbda-geo-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use. Since replaced with other stub categories because the region no longer exists. ~ Rob^Talk 18:44, 12 June 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:Ownwork

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) 20:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, ambiguous/misleading, redundant to {{GFDL-with-disclaimers|migration=relicense|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} FASTILY 09:49, 12 June 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:Infobox economist

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 June 20. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox economist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox academic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Cc-by-sa-1.0-map

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) 20:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0-map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused/no transclusions, completely redundant to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. FASTILY 00:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:52, 18 June 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).