Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14

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 per T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CityRailNSW/Blue Mountains Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Newcastle and Central Coast Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/South Coast Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Southern Highlands Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Airport and East Hills Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Bankstown Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/CBD Metro Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Cumberland Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Epping to Chatswood Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Inner West Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/North Shore Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/North West Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Northern Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Olympic Park Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Southern Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Western Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

orphaned and replaced by other templates, like template:Blue Mountains line colour. Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But even those should be made redundant by the Template {{CityRail color}}.

{{CityRailNSW/Blue Mountains Line colour}} returns a value of {{CityRailNSW/Blue Mountains Line colour}}

{{Blue Mountains line colour}} returns a value of {{Blue Mountains line colour}}

{{CityRail color}} returns a value of {{CityRail color|Blue Mountains}}

It is much better to have just that unified template, which is designed to work with standard succession templates. The problem is obvious when you see that different values are stored in different places. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I agree. I will try to consolidate those as well, but it will take some time. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2011 (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.

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) 05:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

incomplete, too broad of a subject, and replaced by other more targeted templates. Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete meaningless word. Tesla created wireless electricity transmission, but this template doesn't cover that. Nor Graham Bell's optical wireless telephone. It only covers RF wireless tranmissions, and only a small part of that, not even "wireless sets" (ie. common radios). 70.24.248.23 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too broad in scope. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:14, 17 November 2011 (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.

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) 21:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite api (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in two articles since 2007. The template uses two sets of parameters— title/url and path —to refer to an online version and a SDK version of documentation. This violates the intent of

Updated both articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. I'm pretty sure that a general-content encyclopedia should not be sending people to weird and wacky URIs like ms-help:// when they want to look up a source. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to the MS Help page for the SDK, presuming you have the SDK installed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Now orphaned and we shouldn't be expecting users to have prerequisites on their computers to view sources for articles. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 15:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Effectively just an old copy of cite web with different documentation. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2011 (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.

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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian federal political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Canadian political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alberta provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:British Columbia provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Manitoba provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New Brunswick provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Newfoundland and Labrador provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nova Scotia provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ontario provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PEI provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Quebec provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Saskatchewan provincial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Yukon territorial political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Canadian federal political parties (and others above) with Template:Canadian political parties.
I think all the template should be merged into one to make it easier for navigation. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, no. Parent- and child-templates can be useful, especially when there may be cases where using one by itself is more appropriate. Why would we want to put the whole mess of templates on, say, Yukon New Democratic Party? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh No! That would be totally overloaded. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and delete Template:Canadian political parties. The proposed navbox is way too long, and contains unrelated links. To repeat a couple of my points on the talk page, I don't think a reader will finish reading about a defunct party in one province, then want to navigate to a different party in a different province. Combining them all into one list will cause the reader to assume incorrect affiliations,
  Template:NDP, Template:GPC, and Template:Social Credit already link affiliated parties. 117Avenue (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. as per User:117Avenue, Template:Canadian political parties is too large to be useable Gsingh (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I did support the idea, but in it's current form, it is unworkable because its simply too large. I oppose this template, but I am very open to an alternative that would allow something similar to be put in place without taking up so much space. Outback the koala (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2011 (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.

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.

Template:Lists of Russians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

To be perfectly clear, I do not want to have this template deleted, but I would like a discussion regarding the restriction of its use. It is clearly a good way to navigate between list-articles. I placed a bot request here, to ask for assistance in removing it from articles that are not either (a) lists of Russians or (b) about groups of Russian people. A prior TFD, in December 2009, closed with a strong suggestion to limit its use. Since then, the usage of this template has only increased. We do not put "Lists of Brits" at the bottom of every single article about a British person, nor do we put "Lists of Canadians" at the bottom of every single article about a person from Canada. Thus, we should not go down that road, and should remove this template from articles about individuals who come from Russia. The goal of a navigation box is that it is there to navigate between articles closely related by subject. The general rule is that if the article is not directly linked in the navigation box, then the navigation box should not be at the bottom of the article. My reason for opening a discussion here, is to have the discussion in a centralized location, since I was told that the "bot requests" page was not appropriate. In addition, there was one editor expressed the opinion that this template should be placed at the bottom of every article about a prominent Russian artist. I do not think we should edit as if segments of WP are walled gardens, with local rules about navigation boxes. If this template should be used at the bottom of articles about individual people, then put at the bottom of every article about an individual person from Russia. Otherwise, remove it from all of them. Otherwise the criteria is simply subjective. thank you. I am going to notify all participants int he discussion of the prior TFD, and participants in the discussion at BOTREQ. I was not able to notify Modernist, since his/her talk page is locked. Also, as suggested, I will notify WP:Russia and place a note at WP:VPR. I will try my best to notify everyone who has been previously involved. I am also unable to tag the template, since it is protected. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is plain ridiculous. If it's used at Wassily Kandinsky or Ilya Repin that does not by any way, shape, or form, mean that it has to be used on every Russian in the encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia - and every single entry here is unique, by the way. This is a ludicrous argument that if it is used in a few artist articles it has to be everywhere...Modernist (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the specific criteria for determining that set of a "few artists"? We will need this specified before a bot can remove the template from the rest. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use the bot, I'll re-add the few after the bots job is done...Modernist (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what will you do when this happens? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the bot is done I will re-add where it is useful...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give us your definition of "useful", though? I just don't see how a generic list of lists of people is of any help in any articles about individual people, even if it is just a small group. What value, for example, does it add to the article about Ilya Repin? I can see how a similar navigational template listing the Russian painters could be useful there, but why this one? Just wanted to clarify; thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2011; 14:20 (UTC)

It actually depends upon the questions that define the specific artist I'm using it with - but here are a few questions that the context the template provides might be useful in answering - why did Malevich - a major pioneer of abstraction in the 20th century suddenly start painting peasants in the field; Why did Kandinsky get out of Russia? What was the political context. What was

Impressionist peers? What prevented him if anything economical or political from seeing his peer groups work in Paris :) ...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm, I'm not sure I follow... These are all good valid questions; I just don't see how they are answered by having a "List of Russians" template at the bottom of an article about an individual person; a list which basically just points to other lists of Russians by occupation? Surely specific questions like the ones you listed above are best handled in the article body, not via a template?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2011; 16:18 (UTC)

The basic idea behind this template is that by making 2 clicks (less than on some templates with collapsible sections) you go to a list containing the person on whose bio the template was placed. Then you have the annotated information on related persons from the same profession and nationality, not just plain listing like in categories. This is an alternative and in many aspects more convenient way to navigate between people when compared to categories. GreyHood ^Talk 16:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied below.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2011; 17:19 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of the anon IP above (who invited me to comment here). As I expressed in the previous TFD, this template should not be added to every article about a Russian person; it should only be used on the articles linked in the template itself. If a bot is necessary to remove it from other articles, I wouldn't have any problem with that. Robofish (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the proposal as well (and I was not aware that the usage actually increased since last discussion!). It just makes sense—navigational templates are supposed to help with navigation between the articles listed on those templates. For individual articles, we have categories which work a lot better than this template.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 14, 2011; 21:54 (UTC)
• I agree that it shouldn't be used on biographies generally. However, I certainly can't imagine the case of all biographies - if there are individual Russians on which it might be appropriate, that's fine. But I can't imagine that number being over a dozen, let alone the 2000+ reported at the Botreq. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the above - I've used the template on only a few individual articles...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice left at User talk:Modernist#List of Russians. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  thank you for leaving the note. As far as individual biography articles about Russians, those cases are far better served by either a more restrictive template (like Russian Impressionists, or Russian Artists) or by simply putting a link to the appropriate "List of" article in the see also section. To do anything else is a slippery slope back to where we are now. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• TfD tag/notice added to template. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it is worthwhile and should be a Keep. As already discussed ad-infinitum- a few individual article concerning important visual artists benefit from the template, and are using it...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is suggesting to delete the template. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you've seen this tag - or no? [1]...Modernist (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So corrected, here. Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I thought "TfD, so add the TfD note" and forgot to check the content of that note. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the IP's proposal to remove it from all individual biography articles, and there is nothing particular about Russian artists that should require a special exception. Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree, in my opinion it is useful - thanks for removing the deletion template by the way...Modernist (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restrict to List articles only – Restating my remarks made at the previous page: this template provides links between List articles only, and so should only be attached to Lists. This template is a (supposedly) comprehensive collection of all the List articles based on Russian heritage and it might be useful for readers and editors to go from one list to another, but it would not be of any use to someone looking at single biographies. The focus of the template is simply much too large. For example, with the previously-mentioned visual artists articles: how would it do any good to a reader to be pointed towards List of Prosecutor Generals of Russia and the Soviet Union? A single "See also" entry tailored to the article – see List of Russian artists – would obviously be much more appropriate than this template. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that me, the creator of this template, has not been notified, while other participants of the AfD have been. I've made this template and put it onto many pages long ago while I was an unexperienced user still, so I've done some things wrong. That gained attention and the design issues were fixed during the AfD. I've stopped adding the template to new pages, but as far as I know, some editors liked the idea and continued adding it.

• My position on that template is simple: it is small, always collapsed, doesn't harm the biography pages and provides some of the very useful links to the lists, which provide a good background information on some of the most important people from a category related to a biography page where this template is placed. This is an alternative and in many ways much better way to navigate between people then the usage of categories, which provide only the plain listing with no additional information. I've intended to use the template not on every biography page, but only on the pages of people featured on the lists in the template.
• There are similar templates on wiki, for example Template:Aviation lists, placed in thousands of articles related to aviation, not only lists. And seems nobody finds it problematic, because the template contains really useful lists, which summarize the aviation subject and contain links to many related aviation articles.
• I'd agree that placing more specific subject-related templates to biography articles, or just placing the links to relevant lists to the See also section might be a good solution. But that will require much work, and we haven't those more specific templates so far, and the
  Template:List of Russians is a good and universal alternative to be placed on little developed articles. Just similar to the way Template:Aviation lists
  is used.
• I do not really understand why some editors launched a campaign of massive deletion of this template. Does this massive removal really improve Wikipedia and in what way? GreyHood ^Talk 00:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For my part, I am not part of any "campaign". But I do hate clutter. A templates is only useful if it provides links to closely-related articles, not vast forests of information. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have found it useful, and others are just free not to use it if they don't need it, just like with any other template. The campaign was started by IP editors who probably are the same person. Also it is likely the same person who started the AfD last time and with whom we had disagreements on the question of placing the template to the biographies of Russian persons of non-Russian ethnicity, which might be the real motif behind the action of the IP. GreyHood ^Talk 10:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to make a better case than "

secret agenda argument, I really don't care who is or isn't Russian, but very much believe this is useless (or at least no better than {{Pokémon}}) clutter in individual biographies. Many of these articles already end in multiple templates; increasingly unwieldy walls of such links provide less aid to readers in navigation. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• The better case has been made. As I have already said this absurd
  WP:ILIKEIT can go on infinitum; the template is needed selectively to provide important context on a few articles. Because a few of you want to dictate its use and/or get rid of this template simply doesn't cut it...Modernist (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No restriction, the template can be used selectively on biographies additionally it is both valuable and useful. Thanks to user:Greyhood for creating a valuable template and useful tool for the encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the wrong forum to discuss which articles it should be used on. Obvious keep and restrict it to articles that actually link to the template. Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates would be the usual venue. AfD (formerly called Articles for Deletion) is usually for potential deletion discussions. I have added {{rfc}} to the top of this section. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No restriction, selective use on biographies, that's my position obviously. Not sure if it should be discussed here at all per the comment above. GreyHood ^Talk 10:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• List articles only, please. No exception for artist biographies. As I stated elsewhere (and per prior TfD), readers of biographies are not especially likely to need to jump to otherwise-unrelated lists connected only by nationality. As SteveStrummer notes above, no convincing case has been made for a special inclusion in Russian artist biographies. At 2000 articles, this template is massively overused. (I was invited to comment by 198.102.153.2.) / edg ☺ ☭ 11:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The case has been made - this is an encyclopedia and we create articles, using various tools, information, references, templates as needed. No other special case needs to be made This

  WP:ILIKEIT can go on infinitum; I'm using it in a few articles, because it improves those articles...Modernist (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • My main exposure to this template is the edit war to keep it in Kazimir Malevich,[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] where the sole editor for retention gives "says who" as their rebuttal to other editors removing it on grounds of ...
    • non-specific template
    • instructions on that very template
    • This article is not a list
    • Readers of this article aren't especially likely to need to jump to unrelated lists of Russians

  ... to which the current discussion adds ...

  • WP:CONSENSUS established in prior TFD
  • Excessive template linkage may diminish aid to navigation

  You have not made your case beyond

  WP:ILIKEIT. At least GreyHood is trying to give a reason. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You have not made your case except via

  WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - There is no consensus whatsoever about its use at at the Malevich article. I see a few anon IP deletions with some bogus sense of authorization, continously deleting it. You are implying there is consensus - when that would render this entire thread as irrelevant. As I stated I'll use it where I think it works...Modernist (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I stumbled across this template when reviewing some articles on Olympic athletes and realized that even some of the smallest stubs on athletes who were eliminated in qualifying rounds were equipped with it. In my opinion this template generally should be used in list articles only. As the template documentation correctly states, it may also be a helpful addition for some general articles like Russia or Russians. But it should not be used in biographical articles on individuals. As was previously stated, that's what categorization and also WikiProject templates on the article talk page are good for. --Phileasson (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Use only on the pages the template links. That is the typical use of navigation templates, and I see no unusual use case here. If an individual subject was (say) a Russian field marshal, then editors could put
  List of Russian saints, etc., at the bottom of the field marshal's bio. The continuing expansion of use for this template also flouted the consensus from the previous TFD. --RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment (copying an answer above) The basic idea behind this template is that by making 2 clicks (less than on some templates with collapsible sections) you go to a list containing the person on whose bio the template was placed. Then you have the annotated information on related persons from the same profession and nationality, not just plain listing like in categories. This is an alternative and in many aspects more convenient way to navigate between people when compared to categories. GreyHood ^Talk 16:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why can't this same result be achieved by placing a link to the appropriate list in the "see also" section of an article about the individual? This way one would not have to dig through all the clutter in the template to find the link. A link to the list of Russian artists in Ilya Repin is a lot easier to find in "see also" when it is not buried between links to the lists of scientists and chess players!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2011; 16:39 (UTC)
    • That's a reasonable argument and I've already agreed with this point above. In many or even most cases, though, several lists are relevant to a person, or even a dozen or more, like is the case with Mikhail Lomonosov. The template takes less visual space then several lists and is (was for me) a bit easier to place en masse.
    • I agree, however, that more specific templates or placing lists to See also is a better solution. But this is not the reason to remove this template from bio pages completely without immediate placing of something instead. But if it is removed, and at the same time a more specific template or links to relevant lists are inserted to the article, I have no problem with that. And still, in some cases, it might make sense to use the template instead of a large collection of lists in See also. GreyHood ^Talk 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see; that's where we have common ground. It seems to me too that a bot run would not be the best option. While I am still opposed to placing this template in articles about individual people, I believe it should be replaced with a more specific nav template where one is available and with a link in "see also" when one is not. Is this approach something you'd favor as well? Or is there something else I haven't addressed?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2011; 17:19 (UTC)
        • That's OK with me. In fact, I myself stopped adding this template to pages long ago because I saw there are better ways to improve navigation, but since that required an additional work and since I hadn't inspiration for that, I left the situation as it was, allowing the users who liked the template to expand its usage (and I believe nor me nor those editors did anything wrong). One more point only briefly mentioned here, is that the template should be used also on such related general pages as Russia, Russians, Culture of Russia etc. GreyHood ^Talk 17:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restrict to lists only (and only those linked from this template). And I am not convinced that it is particularly useful even there. IMO, categories do the things way better, contrary to what some people claim above. Colchicum (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restrict usage to lists only as per some above comments is the best way to solve this. Greyhood mentions {{
  Let's dialogue 08:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restrict to lists, or articles linked directly from the template. Far too wide ranging in scope to be of use on the vast majority of biography articles, and simply clutters those pages.
  Benea (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restrict in the manner in which nav templates are intended to be restricted; that is, only put it on the articles listed in the template. As said by others, the slightest exception has already been used to add it to other inappropriate places, and noting the one or two appropriate lists in the "see also" section will do a better job serving the navigational purpose.--~TPW 22:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restrict to lists, or articles linked directly from the template, per nom and guidelines for navigational boxes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:05, 5 December 2011 (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.

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 per T3. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CityRailSydney/Navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Navigation begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Navigation end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Blue Mountains Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Blue Mountains Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Newcastle and Central Coast Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Newcastle and Central Coast Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/South Coast Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/South Coast Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Southern Highlands Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailNSW/Southern Highlands Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Airport and East Hills Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Airport and East Hills Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Bankstown Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Bankstown Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Cumberland Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Cumberland Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Epping to Chatswood Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Epping to Chatswood Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Inner West Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Inner West Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/North Shore Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/North Shore Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/North West Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/North West Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Northern Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Northern Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Olympic Park Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Olympic Park Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Southern Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Southern Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Western Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CityRailSydney/Western Line stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

now replaced by

• Agreed. Except for a litte problem that I have viewing that new template. "Suburban" and "Interurban and regional" lists don't wrap. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, I think I fixed the wrapping problem. let me know if there is still a problem. Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (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.

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future spaceflights (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If filled out completely, there are far, far too many spacecraft to be included in a template.

• Keep - this template doesn't appear to be too big in practice. --MarsRover (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Only because it is extremely incomplete, and I don't see the point in filling it out. There are approximately 100 spacecraft launched per year, most of which are under development and known about for three or more years. --
  W… 01:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Well, this was created during a CfD discussion. A category does not assist navigation in any way as well as this template does and tends to have fewer eyes on it. Large templates are not bad. If there are simply a large number, the various years could be automatically collapsed and the reader can only open the years they are interested in. However this is a navigation template and it appears to be serving that purpose. Being incomplete is not a reason to remove it. Is there an argument that it does not improve navigation? Solutions exist for the future problem you are predicting. When the problem arrives if can be addressed. In the meantime, I'm not seeing a reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It can be expanded, and then the years collapsed and only shown on the year of the relevant spaceflight on the article.
  talk) 00:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This sounds appealing as a visual solution, but does collapsing a template with a huge number of links (when this becomes the case) still present a technical problem?
    W's point that this could present over 100 link per year suggests an unwieldy template requiring frequent updates. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment. I think the fix for this would be a change in scope, but the current caption Examples of planned future spaceflight doesn't seem like something that merits a template. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a change made by another editor. It is now back at the title that matches the box name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrrrgh. "Events which have not yet happened" is not a stable navigation list. We shouldn't categorise things simply by their not having happened yet. Future events can, if necessary, be categorised and navigated by (future) year, but they absolutely shouldn'y simply be lumped into "future". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Not in violation of WP policy, deficiencies can be handled through many means, and the template's list is not meant to be "exhaustive" anyway, we are volunteers after all, not NORAD.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it becomes too large, it can be split, or subtemplated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:43, 29 November 2011 (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.

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 maintenance/author request, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RichardcavellBot-Rove (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Specific template belonging to a denied, inactive bot. Not useful. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not in useCurb Chain (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - The template is not needed. The specific task that it applies to was denied approval. I am the bot owner (Richard Cavell) and creator of the template, but my primary computer (which contains my Wiki password) has temporarily gone down so I'm logging in anonymously. - 114.77.240.9 (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2011 (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.

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 redundant/test page, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Random Information (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Random indeed. Redundant to

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.