Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 28

< April 27	April 29 >

April 28

Template:HK route nav

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) 00:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HK route nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{HK routes}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with standard succession boxes. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This is how most route articles are formatted. A nav box at the bottom, and a route box underneath/in the infobox. See Beiyuan Station for an example. Mamyles (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rethinking that, I agree with the comment above. Standard succession boxes would have the same effect. Mamyles (talk) 22:58, 16 May 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.

Template:Philippine Film Awards Season

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) 22:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine Film Awards Season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one blue-link, which redirects to another article. The other redlinks were prodded a while ago. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, pointless Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The one blue link only redirects to List of Filipino films in 2012. It does not cover any awards. I do not see a purpose for this navigation box. Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 6 May 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.

Template:Australian criminals

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) 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian criminals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a navbox with only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one entry. (Slightly creepy and [possibly potential BLP vio at that], unless there are similar templates for other countries that have passed approval.) Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even its history shows it was only a slight variation on the subcategories of the existing Category. If it had been included on many more articles I might have suggested more options. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, clutter and duplicates Template:Crime in Australia, which is also being applied to way too many articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unused navigation box with an unclear scope. Dimadick (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was under the impression that most of the original white settlers of Australia were convicts. This could be a pretty big navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 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.

Various Hemingway navboxes

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. While there is apparently some feeling that The Hemingway template is unwieldy as it stands, only one editor is speaking up for keeping the individual templates, which have all been merged to the main one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Old Man and the Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:A Farewell to Arms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Killers (short story) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Sun Also Rises (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:To Have and Have Not (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:For Whom the Bell Tolls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Ernest Hemingway}} as all links are included there. See WP:CSD#T3. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Seems we already had consensus for this a year ago. See Talk:The Sun Also Rises#Proposal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Placing the entire {{Ernest Hemingway}} on Hemingway's works is appropriate. However, placing it on adaptations of his works such as movie or ballet adaptations of his works is inappropriate use of the template. For an adaptation of his work, the only other links on the template that are relavant are the source work and other adaptations of that work. Thus, the need for the smaller works templates at discussion here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how navboxes work. If that is the case, then the adaptations should be removed from the main Hemingway template, but per the previous discussion, that was decided against. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates work that way at almost every author. Look at the adaptations of the works of the most important authors like Shakespeare and Dickens. The adaptions of their works have templates dedicated only to adaptations of those works. Hemingway is the only author that I have seen where his adaptations could have individual works, but those works have been merged back to the main author template. You are setting a dangerous precedent trying to use a one size fits all template for adaptations of works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that "one size fits all". You have two options here - merge to one template and delete all the little templates as redundant (which they are), or remove the adaptations from the big template, and just have the smaller templates on the adaptations, and not the main template. Either is fine with me, but there is no point in having the little templates if all the links are on the main template, as the navigation is already covered. The first course of action was already agreed upon, yet the little templates remain. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and incidentally, most of the adaptations currently have both navboxes on (which is of course correct per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there was some agreement to remove these, nom should continue and the talk page should be notified? Hajme 09:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The main editor of Sun Also Rises, Victoriaearle, was averse to having {{The Sun Also Rises}} on that page and thus removed the template from the page. Then, Robsinden merged the content of the individual works templates onto the main Hemingway template, {{Ernest Hemingway}}. This is contrary to almost all other works templates that I have created at User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates Created almost none of which have been merged into author templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there you go. {{The Sun Also Rises}} is redundant, and should rightly be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, although I would love to see the adaptations in {{Ernest Hemingway}} split into a second template. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I realize the data has been merged into the now extremely large {{Ernest Hemingway}} template. I also see a point in having (only) the smaller templates on the articles on adaptations of his works (as opposed to on the original works themselves). The adaptations are small, often tiny articles. Cf. this one: The Sun Also Rises (opera). The comprehensive {{Ernest Hemingway}} is really quite a massive, and one might even say possibly overwhelming, template to have on such an article as a solo template (even in its collapsed state), which is why it may be preferable to have the source-work template instead, or at least as the top template. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- indeed, which is why I suggested a second 'adaptations' navbox. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant micro-templates that are already covered by a more inclusive one. That template can go to all related articles. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As redundant. I agree that {{Ernest Hemingway}} is very large, but the solution would never be to split it into such small categories as these. Mamyles (talk) 21:15, 15 May 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.