Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 27

December 27

Template:Flag-article

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) sst✈ 11:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Flag-article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a completely useless way of doing things. It doesn't explain what the problem is with the article, and simply pings the creator to say "I'll help" - if you use it properly. Instead we've now got a category full of "flagged" articles (which I'm working through), but doesn't say how they're flagged. Best get rid of the template all together. Worm^TT(talk) 19:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. First of all, it's redundant to other alert templates that indicate the article may not pass muster here on Wikipedia. Second, talk is cheap - tagging is one thing, saying you'll help is another. Why not WP:JUSTDOIT? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 20:18, 27 December 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).

Template:Notable logicians

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) sst✈ 11:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Notable logicians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A little while ago, I started this discussion to determine whether a navbox like this were appropriate or should be left to a list and/or category. Consensus determined that the navbox was not appropriate since it had no definite start or end; this is not a finite topic for the purposes of Wikipedia (Lord only knows how many worthy candidates are not included here, and it's not really something that would necessarily help users find their way around the topic area as it doesn't - and can't - do anything to help the user understand anything unique about the topic prior to clicking on it). Using this navbox is tantamount to transcluding the entire contents of a list and/or category on every page that includes it, which is not a good use of Wikipedia's resources. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete unless some way can be found to restrict it from growing and hence duplicating the list and Category:Logicians (which currently contains over 500 articles). DexDor ^(talk) 06:52, 28 December 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).

Template:Rajkumar

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) sst✈ 11:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Rajkumar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Long-standing consensus that actors should not have navigation boxes for their filmographies. Couple of previous TFDs are here and here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per previous TFDs....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent and WP:NAVBOX because an actor template "can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related", considering that an actor's role in a film can range from starring to cameo. In contrast, director templates are acceptable because directors are frequently the "lead" crew member. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The project needs to look at what is best for our readers... deleting main navboxes and leaving 30 awards templates on these pages does not help our readers. Project need sit down and fix the spam of templates without going out of there way to imped real navigation. -- Moxy (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Moxy, I agree that awards templates are a problem too. The issue is that templates aren't usually on editors' watchlists, so it is easy for them to proliferate. I would definitely support less awards templates as being too tangentially related. More appropriate to just link to the awards page that lists all the films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for two reasons: First, notable actors have articles to which their films' articles link, allowing any curious reader the ability to step through at will, and second, this is a HUGE navbox (one of the largest I've ever seen). Especially since this man was from India, this navbox is especially unhelpful to readers of the English-language Wikipedia. There really is no way to clean this up to present an obvious road map for interested readers. It's one big résumé that few to no readers would be willing to actually sift through, which means it's probably unused anyway, making its presence pointless. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent and common sense. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:21, 29 December 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).