Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 8

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.

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Rococo1700 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Rococo1700 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rococo1700 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Don't delete the information Rococo1700, before the discussion! That is vandalism! Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author does not have a talk page. It would not be easy to inform him about this discussion without making a major change in the template. Without this we could have even greater proliferation, and he would likely feel worse about the process. As it is, we have still not heard from the author. Any suggestions?Rococo1700 (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notified him on his home Italian Wikipedia. —PC-XT+ 06:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a little crowded, but still seems useful as a
  navbox. Some organisation might help (grouped by initial letter of the name, or municipo), but that could be done on the talk page. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • And rename, to balsilica, per below. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Delete, crowded and not much organization per
  Basilica of Saint Lawrence outside the Walls is listed here as Minor; however, it:Template:Basiliche patriarcali lists it as Major; is there a definitive answer?
  SBaker43 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: unorganized and lacks defined inclusion criteria
  ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete, with ~900 churches in Rome, this is better served by a category and list article. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Roman basilicas" or "Basilicas in Rome". If this isn't all of the basilicas, it's most of them and could easily be expanded to being complete. Nothing wrong with having a navbox for all of the city's basilicas. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for Basilicas —PC-XT+ 12:23, 18 February 2015 (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:A.R. Kane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Keep as template creator - five links, not including the one back to the band article. Plenty of scope for expansion, should articles on singles be created. GiantSnowman 12:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:NENAN, because those articles do not (and should not) use this template. And explain to me how the singles have potential, as none of them appear to have even charted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:NENAN is an essay, not policy - and the other links are valid. GiantSnowman 10:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The other links do not aid in navigation, as the MARRS and Colourbox articles do not use the template. So in your opinion, the template would grow more valid if I larded it out with more links to tangentially connected acts and articles? Why not link an article on
  Arcanine since it's a Pokémon whose name sounds like the band's name while we're at it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• delete per nom. Three links does not make for a useful navigational aide, and being a useful navigational aide is the reason navboxes exist - though I'd like to see research on how much our navboxes are actually used. I doubt it's much, but that's a different thing altogether. These links are easily presented in the article proper, and the redlinks are very unlikely to ever turn blue. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, seems fine, and nothing has changed since the last two times it was nominated for deletion. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2015 (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 merge into a combined template, and rename the combination to {{Olympic opening and closing ceremonies}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Games opening ceremonies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Template:Olympic Games closing ceremonies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

• Comment If merged, a new template would be created at {{Olympic Games opening and closing ceremonies}} to indicate the new edit history, with the two old names redirecting to the new name. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I edit Olympic athlete bios frequently, so I am familiar with the structure of our Olympic Games articles and I understand the logic of merging the navbox templates for the opening and closing ceremonies. Having said that, I see a much bigger problem with these templates: 75% or more of the linked ceremonies are red links to non-existing articles, and to my way of thinking, that should never happen. Furthermore, some of these red-linked articles are never going to be created -- does anyone believe that the 1896 opening and closing ceremonies require a stand-alone article? And I'm sure that is true for many, if not most other Olympiads, too. The phenomena of Olympic opening and closing ceremonies as major spectacles/events, notable separate and apart from the Games themselves, is a relatively modern thing. This requires greater discussion, and quite probably should involve a larger discussion of whether we are fragmenting our Olympic articles into too many separate pieces. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't these titles be redirected to the associated games' article? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, Salvidrim, I think it would be entirely appropriate to condense, merge and redirect the separate articles for opening and closing ceremonies into the parent articles for the given Olympiads. But take a look at the 2012 opening ceremonies article: it's a Good Article, literally with minute-by-minute coverage of the opening ceremonies in excruciating detail. Personally, I believe it's overkill beyond reason; no newspaper, magazine or other encyclopedia would ever publish something like it, but Wikipedia lacks independent editorial control and so these articles grow to almost absurd proportions with no checks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! The Telegraph did just that near enough after the opening ceremony to London 2012. Having said taht if you look at teh sources near enough all of the major newpapers/news agencies were doing it. 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.241.163 (talk)

• merge, the notability of the individual articles can be debated at AfD. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, and then rename them to "Olympic opening and closing ceremonies" for length reasons; remember that we're dealing with a template here, which need not have a "full" name. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2015 (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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Firefox release compatibility (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I suggest to substitute to Firefox article. Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 10:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added it to
  History of Firefox. -Mardus (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Substitute and delete. I cannot foresee any further use other than on the article of its only transclusion, mentioned above. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To be fair, this template could be used in both
  History of Firefox, although it does need updating. - 72.182.60.18 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak keep, has two instances. Substituting the template on both articles would cause maintenance problems.
  ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and consolidate with Firefox § OS support history. That'd increase the transclusion count to 2. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, as it does appear to have two appropriate uses, at present. —PC-XT+ 15:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It fits well into both
  History of Firefox articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: It has been updated and is used in
  History of Firefox. --Claw of Slime (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2015 (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 no consensus to delete while there are articles to navigate Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete per Aleksandr's reasoning. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find this nomination bizarre as the articles linked to in the template are well sourced. The groups clearly exist and are covered by reliable sources. Is the nominator's real objection perhaps that he considers the organizations to be illegitimate? If so, that's not a valid rationale for deleting them or this template which aids in navigation among them. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the template itself is not tagged for deletion. Aleksandr Grigoryev, you need to make a protected edit request in order to do this. Without this tag in place for several days, this discussion cannot be closed. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donetsk Republic (political party) which in fact is a public movement rather than a political party. It is a technical term, I agree, but it only shows that whoever created the template his or her familiarization in politics of Ukraine. The reason for nomination is the fact that the article is created by a blocked user and the user whose expertise in politics of Ukraine are in question. Other parties like Communists and Novorossiya do not even exist as they were merged. It is clearly stated in their respective articles. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep while there are articles to navigate, without restricting renomination in the future, if this changes. —PC-XT+ 05:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Creating a template that includes only two barely notable Parties does not make a lot of sense. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator.
  talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: only a few transclusions, one on a page which is going through the AFD process. Could be replaced with a "See also" section in all articles (with a proper portal link), as it contains just 7 blue links.
  ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete per Jc86035, nom, and others ... can be replaced by "see also" links Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Issues of original research abound. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because right now it provides useful navigation. We can do a G8 speedy deletion if all of the navigated articles (the two parties, not the portal and the list at bottom) get deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator's concerns belong on discussions about the pages themselves, not this template. As long as the pages for the parties continue to exist, I don't see a good reason to delete the template. The template is also preferable to a "See also" section since it also provides at-a-glance information on the parties' comparative standing. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:26, 14 February 2015 (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 as too broad to be useful in navigating Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mental disorders as defined by the DSM and ICD (alphabetical list) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Having navboxes that provide alphabetical listings of large topics is not useful. I propose that this navbox, used on only four actual pages, be deleted. I cannot imagine that this sort of navbox helps readers... it should be replaced with more subject-specific navboxes on all pages.

• delete, better served by a category. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (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 as unused and redundant Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City localisation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment template is broken, it's missing a helper template -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to {{
  ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete and/or redirect to {{
  geographic location}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (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 nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:42nd Street Shuttle map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2015 (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.