Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17

[edit]

Template:Formula One on BBC

[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template for article which has been deleted.Tvx1 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Tvx1 20:27, 17 January 2017 (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:List of United States Post Offices

[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 and replace with a "See also" link. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is too huge to be useful and duplicates the list-article List of United States Post Offices. Its faults, and faults of a related postage stamp template, were discussed with its creator when it was being drafted but they went ahead and created it anyhow. Its creator was new to templates then, I believe, but time has gone by and it is time to delete it. It renders "What links here" useless at any page included in it, because it makes more than 500 (i think) inbound links from its more than 500 (i think) items. This has recently been a bother to me, trying to develop some of those articles. I think it is implausible that any readers wish to navigate by it, instead of by the list-article. It is inferior at each page where it is used to having a simple "See also" link to the list-article. The template list is both duplicative and inferior to the list-article. It would be difficult to maintain and no one is maintaining it. I know for a fact that a number of post office articles that were redlinks in the list-article have been created, and they have not been added to the template. It would be hard to figure out which are the missing ones, and it would be unrewarding to go through the effort. doncram 20:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back when it was created and was criticized at their Talk page, the creator somewhat confusingly opened Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_3#Template:United_States_Postal_Service to propose an even worse idea, of having an even bigger merged template. That was rejected, with two editors (besides me) commenting strongly that this template should be deleted. The closer ruled only on the not-merging, and suggested that the deletion should be proposed separately, which is what this is. I am now notifying all participants of that discussion. --doncram 20:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Navigation box connects more than five related articles, has had a great deal of effort put into it, and it would be extremely time consuming to remove the template from the number of articles on which it exists. However, if the navbox cannot be kept, it should be redirected to {{USPS}}, so that people can quickly navigate from it to other navigation boxes. Besides, it would be arduous to merge this into {{USPS}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 500 or so manual edits adding it to articles were wasted, that was clear back then. However, a bot implementing a deletion decision here will do the deletion at all the articles. NO, its contents will not be merged into another template to overwhelm it too, that is nonsense. The USPS template has what is appropriate: a single link to the list-article. --doncram 22:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely splitting the template by state would create numerous templates having just 1 post office (two states) or 2 (about 4-5 states) and a New York State template would be too huge to be useful. It leaves the same problem as before: the template list already doesn't match up to the post office articles out there, and splitting it does not fix that. Nobody would or should maintain 50 separate templates. The bot removing the template from the 500 or so articles can just add a "See also" link to the list-article, perhaps linking to the corresponding state's section: "For other post offices in Nevada, see List of United States Post Offices#Nevada." Or perhaps just replace the template by the USPS template, which includes a link to the list-article. Let's not create work that doesn't serve readers. --doncram 22:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Back in November, in addition to other advise about some of this editor's other unwieldly templates, I advised the creator this was not a useful template being way too big and complex, and that we already have the useful List of United States Post Offices that works. I also specifically advised him NOT to add this template to any article before it was ready for prime-time but he ignored that advise which is why it is now in several articles that he decided to add it to despite contrary advise. Unfortunately, he made a lot of work for himself that will hopefully be undone. However, those edits can be removed. This template really does not work, it duplicated entries in the list and splitting is no better as justified by Doncram. Jax 0677 still suggests redirecting it to the {{USPS}} template that is still a mess to which he has also ignored my advise which is based on more than 10 years editing philatelic articles here and 35+ years of philatelic knowledge something, even over a shorter time frame, he does not have. Personally the {{USPS}} template too should be deleted or needs very very serious editing, being a hodge-podge of badly categorised links. Template maintenance is so much harder than creating them. Just the other day I found 4 more Irish related FAs I knew nothing about for {{Irish Featured Articles}} that I try to maintain, try that for the approx 900 post offices that could be in this template. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too large to be useful. There are somewhere around 30-40000 post offices in the US (depending on where you look), not to mention closed and historic post offices. Even if you consider that most post offices are unlikely to be notable, a search here for post offices on the National Register of Historic Places (which will be notable) turns up over 900, and when you add in larger facilities in major cities and post offices that double as federal courthouses or office buildings, you end up with potentially over 1000 articles (existing or not) that could be part of this navbox. We have a list and a series of categories that serve the same purpose, and they're much more effective than this template. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be fair to the template creator, perhaps existing guidance in Wikipedia is deficient, and perhaps should be updated. They commented above citing essay wp:NENAN, with which I was not familiar, which seems inadequate to this situation (it seems to suggest the sole issue with navigation templates is that they might have too few links; it does not acknowledge that the opposite situation is a problem too). The editing guideline wp:CLT is better, and actually provides quite relevant guidance:
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
  5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate.
Do not rely solely on navboxes for links to articles highly relevant to a particular article. Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia which accounts for approximately 30% of readers.
Notice that here, relating to criteria 5, there is no way in hell that an editor would be inclined to link 500 or 900 other articles in the SEEALSO section, suggesting that usage of this template is not helpful. While criteria 1 and 4 are perhaps met, criteria 2, 3, and 5 are not (criteria 3: The articles do not refer to each other, not to any extent at all really, in fact; criteria 2: The subject of the template (all U.S. post offices) is not naturally referred to in every article.) This guidance is lacking in the wp:NENAN essay; I may make some edits there and invite others to do so also. --doncram 18:52, 18 January 2017 (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:Nations at the 2015 World Sprint Speed Skating Championships

[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2017 (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:Nations at the 2015 World Single Distance Speed Skating Championships

[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2017 (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:Veryshort

[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 speedy delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unnecessary. A very short article will be labelled as a stub, which invites its expansion. There is no need for a template to convey the same message more loudly. The third sentence of its message, " If an article consists only of a sentence fragment, use {{db-a1}} to identify it for speedy deletion instead. " is positively wrong: a sentence fragment may well have enough context to identify the topic of the article (eg "British Olympic swimmer of the 1930s": a fragment, but plenty of context and ineligible for A1). PamD 17:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The creating editor tried to sort those 17 out - unfortunately by replacing the template with {{stub}} which was (a) always in the wrong place, at the top of the article, and (b) in almost every case redundant because the article already had a specific stub tag in the correct place at the bottom of the article. I think I've now cleaned it all up. PamD 16:51, 19 January 2017 (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 World Equestrian Games country

[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 on 2017 January 25 Primefac (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (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:Stranger Things

[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. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links two articles only, which makes the navbox unnecessary. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2017 (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:Southern Rocks Squad

[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current squad template for cricket team, now obselete as the team was disbanded in 2014. Jellyman (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2017 (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:Medcom box

[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. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Not sure what it was intended to do. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:49, 17 January 2017 (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:Curcuminoid

[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 on 2017 January 26 Primefac (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2017 (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:Biogeochemical cycle

[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. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Biogeochemical cycle, even if fully expanded to contain all the members that are in said category. Not useful for helping users move between topics. WP:NENAN also applies. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – these global cycles are major drivers of ecosystems and major determinants of world ecosystem health. The integrity of the cycles is coming under increasing pressure and threat from anthropogenic pollution and climate change. In fact, climate change itself is driven by several of these cycles. So far Wikipedia has hardly touched on the relevance of these cycles across many areas. Existing articles on cycles need expanding and a number of new articles need writing. It is a well defined, strongly interconnected area of looming significance which lends itself quite naturally to being organised around a template. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2017 (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/2017_January_17&oldid=1142562411"