Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 25: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:23, 8 August 2015 editChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 edits →Template:Nursery rhymes: re← Previous edit Revision as of 19:03, 8 August 2015 edit undoAlgircal (talk | contribs)124 edits →Template:Nursery rhymes: rNext edit →
Line 147: Line 147:
*'''Delete'''. Articles do not relate to one another except that they are all nursery rhymes. There seems to be a series of these all created by the same editor. See also {{tl|Party games}}, etc, etc. --] (]) 11:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Articles do not relate to one another except that they are all nursery rhymes. There seems to be a series of these all created by the same editor. See also {{tl|Party games}}, etc, etc. --] (]) 11:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - There are many nursery rhymes, but all of the ones on this list are among the very most well-known and the very most prevalent ones. When dealing with a large body of items like this, it is acceptable to list the ones of top importance and use for the sake of navigation. The fact a category and a list exists doesn't help the reader efficiently navigate such a body. If you were to get ''children{{'}}s book'' focused on these rather than a scholarly or compendium listing, the contents of this navigation box would most certainly be contained within. ] (]) 03:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - There are many nursery rhymes, but all of the ones on this list are among the very most well-known and the very most prevalent ones. When dealing with a large body of items like this, it is acceptable to list the ones of top importance and use for the sake of navigation. The fact a category and a list exists doesn't help the reader efficiently navigate such a body. If you were to get ''children{{'}}s book'' focused on these rather than a scholarly or compendium listing, the contents of this navigation box would most certainly be contained within. ] (]) 03:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:Your comment, which it really is, does not address ] or ].] (]) 19:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:03, 8 August 2015

< July 24 July 26 >

July 25

Template:United States Collegiate Ski and Snowboard Association (USCSA)

Overly large navbox that is more appropriate as a category. torri(/contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Navbox links between universities and not the listed names of the sports teams. Links have nothing to do with skiing or snowboarding. The template is simply masquerading as a list in a navigational template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the links between universities only is a problem. Most of these schools have athletic programs that would be linked if set up that way like normal conferences navboxes. But with this being a single sport conference I have a few issues that I would like to be heard. I posted a notice on a couple of active college sports projects to hopefully get some enlightened views on this topic.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NECBL All-Star Game

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball game}}. Just 13 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox MLB All-Star Game

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball game}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Has essential parameters that the standard doesn't have. TrueCRaysball | 08:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's an annual game, so it also has built in navigation to the previous and next year's games. With some tinkering, I'd imagine it can invoke {{Infobox baseball game}} to get most of its functionality, but this should remain, if only as a wrapper to provide a simplified UI and consistent formatting throughout this series of games.—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • So add the navigation to the generic template. Or use a succession box. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I have no problem if {{Infobox baseball game}} is made into that "generic template" to eliminate duplicate code, but {{Infobox MLB All-Star Game}} should remain as a convenience wrapper. Also, if one looks at a sample transclusion e.g. 2015 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, wikilinks like "Television", "TV announcers", "Radio", and "Radio announcers" currently point to MLB All-Star game specific article. This type of customization is better abstracted through this template, shielding the editor from formatting details and ensuring uniformity across articles in the series. In the future, such refactoring can be done without a TfD if backwards compatibility is assured.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Those links are i) badly constructed, per WP:EGG and ii) in any case not necessary. TfD is th usual forum for discussions such as this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I have no preference on whether those links stay or not per WP:EGG. However, standardized naming conventions and pre-formatting navigation links for editors is enough reason to not delete. Eggs and such might be better discussed outside of a TfD and with domain expertise and wider participation at WikiProject Baseball. I'd like to reiterate that if a wrapper provided the exact functionality and was reliably tested, I don't see where we need the bureaucracy of TfDs for these types of merges.—Bagumba (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Add navigation functionality to {{Infobox baseball game}} and delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I would type out my thoughts, but realize that I would just be repeating almost exactly what Bagumba said. No reason to delete. Go Phightins! 17:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am not opposed to a merge/wrap, but the existing functionality must be preserved per Bagumba. It's not the purpose of TfD to dictate the substantive content of infoboxes, especially when such data is pertinent to the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrapper to be found in the sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: Please take a look-see at Alakzi's handiwork. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't doubt that a wrapper can be done, and have complete confidence in Alakzi's skills. For WikiProject Baseball, I think anyone that wanted to merge and retain a template as a wrapper could just create some representative test cases with side-by-side comparison for quick evaluation. If no functionality was lost, it'd be approved w/o need for TfD bureaucracy.—Bagumba (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Wild Card

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. Consensus herein is for the template to be retained. North America 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball game}}. Used on only 6 articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

Template:Canadian politics/party colours/histogram

I refactored this to create the more generic {{Composition histogram}}. suggest history merging it with that template. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:FIFA Confederations Cup finalists template

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. North America 21:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

a template that links non-useful templates. not used on any article... Koppapa (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

Template:PlaneFreak Studios

Textbook WP:NENAN. Well, not so textbook. Only used in one user's userspace to navigate between WP:FAKEARTICLEs. —Keφr 08:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

EGAFD and BGAFD templates

The websites (http://www.egafd.com/) and http://www.bgafd.co.uk) haven't been accessible since June 1st and there functions are redundant as Template:Afdb name, Template:Afdb movie, Template:IAFD name and Template:IAFD movie serve the same purpose. WikiU2013 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends.
  • "Male name" could be deleted: not/seldom used, plus egafd/bgafd just have succinct info about males, by choice.
  • "Movie" templates seem not/seldom used. May be redundant with other templates.
  • For female templates, egafd/bgafd are NOT redundant with other sites. Being European-only, they often provide more complete info for European actresses/films, plus unique self-compiled photo galleries illustrating physical characteristics. The info presentation is very different than on iafd and afdb, and then there is/was the forum area and a more open and easy way of contributing and interacting with editors for anyone interested. It's a real shame the sites are down given the amount of unique info found there, especially for old/European titles. There's been a claim by the site owners (and great hope from users) that the sites will be up again in the future, but for now we have the not-quite-up-to-date-but-still-useful web archives.
It would be a shame to drop links to such a great database. A site being down is in itself not a good reason to drop its support entirely; references to archived versions can be useful too, and you can't simply drop links where they're used to source facts in articles. And, if we drop afdb too, we'll have to rely on imdb (very incomplete info for porn) and iafd (American releases only, and, by the way, a ridiculous practice of altering movie names (and so often their meaning, in French for instance) by always dropping the starting determinant -- a very bad thing to do for a reliable database).
To summarize my pov, keep only egafd_name and bgafd_name. They point to an information mine on European actresses not found elsewhere (i.e. American sites). -- 83.101.43.209 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep unless the websites don't come back. In no way are these templates redundant. As the IP editor wrote, the databases at BGAFD and EGAFD include many people and films not covered by AFDB and IAFD. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Misplaced Pages Pornography Project has maintained for quite some time that both the British Girl Adult Film Database and the European Girl Adult Film Database include European adult films, which are often not covered by other databases, and that both their filmographies are reliable. They can continue to be useful even if the websites themselves never come back online, as their information has apparently been archived online. While I've rarely come across the use of "Egafd male name", "Egafd movie", and "Bgafd movie" templates in Misplaced Pages articles, that doesn't mean that they serve no use at all. Guy1890 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Baby games

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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:NAVBOX 1,3,4.

None of the articles are strictly baby games. It currently holds 4 articles tenuously related to "baby game" whatever the definition. And lastly, and most importantly, we don't have an article "baby game" that can satisfy WP:NAVBOX 1 and WP:NAVBOX 3.68.148.186.93 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

Template:Nursery rhymes

A category for nursery rhymes and list of nursery rhymes already exist. The navbox is redundant and useless since it is a duplicate of the list. Further subcategories such as the current "counting rhymes" are useless and pointless as nursery rhymes have too many overlapping characteristics. In addition, this does not aid in navigation and the nursery rhymes are unrelated except for the fact that they are nursery rhymes, hence the existence of list of nursery rhymes and the rightful deletion of this template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep The category and list article may exist, but navboxes serve to navigate you to other related articles quickly. Nominator hasn't given a proper reason to delete. TrueCRaysball | 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per WP:CLN, since the template does not provide navigation value in addition to the category or the list--a navigation template should organize the information differently and at the moment it's not. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that is a reason to delete due to duplicity and redundancy. Additionally, the protocol that you request is the fact that it fails WP:NAVBOX 1.68.148.186.93 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that's lazy editing what you're advocating. "Why fix it when I can just TfD it?" TrueCRaysball | 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What is there to fix? Its a hodgepodge of nursery rhymes where they have no connection with each other. This is strictly what we are not supposed to do per WP:CLN.68.148.186.93 (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to both a list and category. --torri(/contribs) 20:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Articles do not relate to one another except that they are all nursery rhymes. There seems to be a series of these all created by the same editor. See also {{Party games}}, etc, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are many nursery rhymes, but all of the ones on this list are among the very most well-known and the very most prevalent ones. When dealing with a large body of items like this, it is acceptable to list the ones of top importance and use for the sake of navigation. The fact a category and a list exists doesn't help the reader efficiently navigate such a body. If you were to get children's book focused on these rather than a scholarly or compendium listing, the contents of this navigation box would most certainly be contained within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Your comment, which it really is, does not address WP:NAVBOX or WP:TG.Algircal (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)