Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 10

< February 9	February 11 >

February 10

Template:Moogfest 2010

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 now that it has been merged with the article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moogfest 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Moogfest 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use content templates which should be merged with the article directly. no need for a template for content. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - PC-XT (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2013 (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.

Template:Mw mages

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 both. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mw mages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mw schools of magic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigate nothing, if this is useful information, just put it in a table in the main article, and don't hide it in a fake navigational box at the bottom of the page. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Separate template is not necessary, and it's ineffective to have every link back to the only transcluding page without even #section links. I'd say merge, but there are already lists. Maybe merge the first one. PC-XT (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2013 (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.

Template:Rob Letterman

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rob Letterman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has directed only three films, two of which are on {{‪DreamWorks animated films‬}}. In short, this navigates one unique article, putting it way short of WP:NENAN and adding nothing but template creep. Last TFD failed to reach consensus. I see no point in a template where only one item is not already on another template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the last TfD for this template just closed about 24 hours ago (see here). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Previous TFD closed with three editors opposing and nobody but the nom supporting deletion, which likely should have been closed as keep. And the nom's premise -- that the navigational function of this template would be well served by an alternative one which lists 12 times as many films without identifying their directors -- makes no sense whatever. (And his argument violates WP:NOTPOLICY (note the irony here). . . . ) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, policy is not set in stone. How does this serve a navigational purpose with only three artcles, especially when two out of three are redundant? Even if the DreamWorks template doesn't name the directors, this template is nothing but clutter. Also, re-nominating after "no consensus" is not disruptive, and don't try to tell me that it is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd care to read the actual comments given in that TfD and not just the nice bold words at the front of some of them, you'd notice that this was not, in fact, a unanimous keep. Still, a relist request would have been a better idea than just starting another TfD, TPH. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, useful navigational template, connecting four articles. navigating by director is the standard for film articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again. HOW is this useful when all but one of those four is on another template?! Answer that, damn it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is simply a hard coded copy of the Category:Films directed by Rob Letterman. Sw2nd (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- so delete all director navigation boxes? Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2013 (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.

Template:Mick Talbot

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mick Talbot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Musician template without links to any albums whatsoever The Banner talk 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just added album In Pursuit of the 13th Note to the template. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another template rushed out in haste by Jax 0677, who apparently wants every musician in the world to have a template. "Related" articles do not count towards a template's five-article count since those articles should not have the template in question on it. Altogether, this links only one article, which is already sufficiently linked from the parent. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Talbot is/was a member of TSC, DMR and the four bands shown in the navbox. I have refrained from creating navboxes for certain musicians because they do not have enough articles for which a navbox would help at all. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And this one doesn't help either, because whatever's in the "See also" should not be using the template for itself. For instance, Taylor Swift's template has Big Machine Records, Best Days of Your Life, etc. in its see also section — but neither of those articles use the Taylor Swift template, and they shouldn't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Taylor Swift did not record Best Days of Your Life. People who are interested in knowing more about Talbot may wish to bounce between articles about bands for which he was a member. Otherwise, without the navbox, the articles do not all connect to one another. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Mick Tayler has any albums on his own name or only as employee from a band? The Banner talk 19:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - To the best of my knowledge, Mick TALBOT does not have his own album, but I don't think that matters. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it does matter! Because a navbox for a musician should show what he has done in the sense of musical achievements. Playing in a band is not a musical achievement, that is a job. The Banner talk 22:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -

Readers may legitimately wish to jump between the various bands in which Talbot has participated, and
People do not "magically" become members of notable bands.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA. Talbot's article links to his works. The articles on the bands he's been in link to his article. This is an utterly superfluous navbox. I'd strongly advise that one of the various editors whose time is being wasted nominating these every week start an RFC/U to get this stopped. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have my backing to start one! The Banner talk 22:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - This navbox has six articles, has all articles about Talbot of which I am aware, and is not 100% superfluous. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You seem to have so many of these templates backwards. The subject was known for being a member of some bands, and he should be included in any band templates. The bands were not famous because he was a member. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Secondarywaltz, because these bands have Talbot in common, he can be the parent article. Chris, as of right now, The Players (supergroup) does not link to Galliano (band), In Pursuit of the 13th Note, The Bureau or The Merton Parkas. The entire purpose of a navbox is to reach related articles with one click instead of two or three. Need I go on? Again, my only musician navboxes that have been deleted are Back From Ashes (article deleted), Kip Moore (superfluous) and No Justice (album articles deleted after navbox was created). Perhaps people should stop nominating navboxes for TfD that don't belong there in the first place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? I still don't see the need for that nav box. The Banner talk 21:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Banner, with all of the Mick Talbot articles the way that they are now, please show me how one can get from every article to all of the other articles in just one click without the navbox (or typing the name into the top right search box). If this is not possible, this demonstrates the need for the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I have heard this argument just a few hundred times before: the articles don't link to each other so I need to make a nav box.. No, my firend, you have to improve the linking in the articles and only make a nav box when there is no easy other way. Saving a lazy reader two clicks is not a proper argument for creating nav boxes. The Banner talk 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - The article for The Bureau is quite lengthy, and it would likely be difficult to find the other five links in this article should they be inserted. If linking is the substitute for a navbox, then please show me what all six articles will look like once the links are inserted. Additionally, the navbox meets the rule of five. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Secondarywaltz and The Banner. This is the wrong approach to interlinking these articles. Instead, textual links should be provided where relevant. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The Bureau is quite lengthy. Please show me what all six articles will look like once the links are inserted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the whole point. Those other articles do not relate except to Talbot himself and he is wikilinked. Sw2nd (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - With the navbox, a person who wants to learn more about Talbot will be able to jump between the articles using the navbox. Without the navbox, this would not be possible. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Navboxes are useful for groups of articles with many links among themselves; if Talbot is the center link between them, and other links are very minor, the box should be part of the Talbot article, instead of a separate template. It might not even be needed, as the only thing not in the article is In Pursuit of the 13th Note, which can easily be added. Some people do like information grouped in charts for quick reference, but I don't think this should be a navbox, at least not yet. If it developed into a more interlinked table in the article, it could become a navbox. PC-XT (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2013 (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.