Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20

[edit]

Template:Salvador Metro Map

[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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single use wrapper. Clearly not complicated enough to warrant a template even if you're persuaded by "too complicated for the mainspace" arguments. ~ RobTalk 22:44, 20 March 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:NorthstarHiawathaCentral

[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 userfy. Izkala (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use wrapper, only used on a user page. ~ RobTalk 22:19, 20 March 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:Line 1 (Budapest Metro)

[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 Keep (non-admin closure). — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single transclusion wrappers. ~ RobTalk 20:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Discussions like this and this are why route diagrams are kept on a separate page! Useddenim (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Useddenim: Both of those discussions boil down to the fact that you appear to be trying to make this content more difficult for new editors to access due to the fear that they'll break something. That's a view that fundamentally contradicts Wikipedia's basic "Everyone can edit" philosophy. How are new editors to learn if we intentionally hide away bits of content? ~ RobTalk 22:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. A single mis-typed character can easily break a template. WP:Sandboxes are for learning. There's no way I (or any other editor) can watch every single Route Diagram, and a broken diagram is not only useless, but if not transcluded can also affect content on the parent page. So unless you intend to patrol every single page that contains an RDT, I suggest you abandon this crusade against “Single use wrapper”s. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I'm on no such crusade. I nominated some of the tiny templates that clearly do not overwhelm source page content. The dangers of someone breaking a route diagram are no larger than the dangers of someone breaking an infobox assuming editors use common sense and don't mess with the syntax they don't know anything about. Any sensible editor wouldn't mess with the codes themselves, but they absolutely should be able to edit the text (station names, etc) just like any other article content without an extra barrier. See WP:Protection policy for an actual policy that details how infrequently we should implement such barriers to editing. ~ RobTalk 01:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Using these as templates instead of keeping them on the main page helps keep the page uncluttered with BSicon syntax that most don't understand. It just makes the page so much easier to edit this way. I have made three templates today in use on Wilson station (CTA) for that very reason instead of dumping all of that code onto the page. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as per the arguments above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as per the arguments above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. oknazevad (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can see both sides. While there is a strong precedent against most single-use templates, there are also exceptions. The line is rather gray, but if they are in use for a reason, we tend to apply WP:IAR. Eventually, the line often becomes more clear. Some templates naturally merge into the article. Others become clearly separate, as merge problems become more apparent. Due to the keeps here, I would probably say keep for now, and renominate later if there are still issues —PC-XT+ 02:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PC-XT: You may be interested to know the keeps came about largely after a canvassing message was placed on a few talk pages claiming that I was conducting a "crusade" against all single-use route maps. Actual volume of votes here will be unfortunately misleading due to the fairly blatant campaigning. I've since attempted to assure some people that I'm only nominating a few of the smaller and less obnoxious ones that I've come across, and not the monstrosities that clearly would overwhelm the source code if merged into the article, but I didn't get to do that prior to a bunch of pile-on keeps as a result of the campaigning. ~ RobTalk 02:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Not only because the used code is easy to break and hard to fix or edit, but also because separate templates allow the RTD to be used in multiple articles. (Rob, if you care for Wikipedia’s basic "Everyone can edit" philosophy, for which I do, too, then better retarget your attcks on VisualEditor: That is digging a deep trench between a caste of editors who can use wiki codes and those who cannot, instead of elevating all.) Tuvalkin (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tuvalkin: The undo button makes a mistake remarkably easy to fix. These are nominated specifically because they are not used in multiple articles, and I would have no issue with them if they were. And trust me, I'm no fan of VisualEditor. ~ RobTalk 02:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I was a bit strong in characterizing the nominations as “a crusade” (but {{Salvador Metro Map}} and {{NorthstarHiawathaCentral}} did show up within a few minutes of each other, and I thought it was the beginning of a wave, based on the previous nomination). However, I still feel strongly that RDTs should be kept separate for two main reasons:

  1. It’s (unfortunately) remarkable the number of editors who do not use the Preview button and then won’t undo their mistakes. And (IMHO) many of the small hard-coded diagrams seem to be on infrequently-viewed pages, making the likelihood of a more-experienced editor stumbling across them to fix the error much lower.
  2. Consistency. Need I say more?

Useddenim (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts on those points:
  1. Editors not checking their edits is a problem. I'm not sure this is the best solution, but I'm willing to consider it, at least for certain cases.
  2. I am generally a fan of consistency, but it could be argued both ways, here: Consistency among single-use templates on the wiki in general is part of the reason for nomination. Consistency among this kind of project template is certainly desirable. I would like to avoid pitting global and local consensus against each other, if possible, meaning I would rather not consider consistency any further in this discussion.
—PC-XT+ 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was fairly new to deletion discussions, I tried to follow the guidelines, but still left some otherwise appropriate notices with WP:CANVASS#Campaigning wording. Luckily, they didn't seem to influence the discussion, and nobody complained, but I was still rather embarrassed when I realized it, later. A fairly large number of templates I created/used had been nominated at once, which tends to make such slips more likely. As a nominator, I have learned that notifying project talk pages myself helps to reduce sore feelings that may be present, and a welcoming notice makes it a little easier for others to assume good faith, (though it can still take a lot of patience from everyone.) Discussion of these templates as single-use may be a sore spot for this project, but it looks like we are coming to a more cooperative stance, here, which is a good sign. Hopefully, we'll all have a productive conversation, and come away with a good feeling and better understanding. Cheers! —PC-XT+ 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 06:32, 21 March 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:Current events/revisedlayout

[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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 29. ~ RobTalk 19:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like Portal:Current events/Calendar box (which is currently at MfD), this template is also unused. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 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:Lamar Lady Cardinals basketball coach navbox

[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. The original rationale for deletion no longer applies, as articles have been created for several other coaches. I see no reason to relist this. ~ RobTalk 18:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for deletion. What makes this navbox different from numerous others associated with women's college basketball that are not. Articles exist for two of the coaches. That's one more article than several others that I looked at. I would think that if this navbox is flagged for deletion, the others should be also. Here's a quick list of others meeeting the same criteria of "just two pages". Boston College Eagles - two; Connecticut Huskies - one; Duke Blue Devils - one; Georgia Lady Bulldogs - two; Hofstra Pride - two; Iowa Hawkeyes - two; Iowas State Cyclones - one; Liberty Lady Flames - one; Michigan State Spartans - two; Mississippi State Lady Bulldogs - two; Nebraska Cornhuskers - one; North Dakota State Bisons - one; Notre Dame Fighting Irish - one; Ohio Bobcats - two; Oregon State Beavers - two; Sam Houston State Bearkats - two; San Diego State Aztecs - two; San Diego Toreros - one; St. Francis Brooklyn Terriers - one; Syracuse Orange - two

LUSportsFan (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument against deletion. The purpose of a Navbox is to navigate between multiple articles on a related topic. The conensus of multiple TFDs is that two links isn't enough and that templates shouldn't be created till the articles are created. Since you brought the other templates to my attention, I will go through them and see any should also be nominated. Right this minute, I don't have the time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case and consensus, I have no problems with deleting the navbox for now as long as the WP:TOOSOON criteria is applied equitably. As a guideline, what would be considered enough articles to warrant creating a navbox? There are at least two other coaches for this particular navbox who I think would qualify for an article or at least an article with several coaches listed. One of those coaches (Al Barbre) took the team to the 1991 NCAA Division I Tournament Elite Eight. The team was pretty much a "Cinderella" team in that tournament with wins over the Texas, LSU, and Arkansas teams. Another coach on the list, Pat Park, was a very successful head coach for several women's sports in the early days of women's college sports. She's a member of the National Collegiate Golf Coaches Association Hall of Fame and received several other honors over her coaching career. Here's a link to a recent article about Coach Park.[1]
I don't know whether or not the remaining coaches would warrant a standalone article. They would probably warrant being included in an article covering several coaches. I held off creating the two articles I thought met a materiality test (Park and Barbre) because sufficient citations aren't available over the internet. Those two coaches along with several others were before the internet. I will need to go to printed media or microfiches of that media from back in the day to provide supporting sources. I think lack of easily accessible electronic sources is most likely the challenge for a lot, if not all, of the coaches in the other navboxes listed above.
Thanks for your help.LUSportsFan (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Former LU coach Pat Park to be honored". Lamar University Athletics. Retrieved March 12, 2016.
Just an update: Eight articles are currently linked to the navbox following recent creation of articles for Leonard Davis, Liz Galloway McQuitter, David McKey, Al Barbre, Charlotte (Chickie) Mason, and Cindy Russo.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 02:03, 20 March 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_March_20&oldid=996209311"