Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6
September 8 >

September 7

[edit]

Template:Terry Blade

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox template only has three articles (the musician, an album, and one song) with all other links redirecting via piped links to one of those three, so aid to navigation isn't particularly helpful as is. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thought navbox would be helpful as I read Wikipedia:EXISTING to permit redirects when they "represent a distinct sub-topic of an article rather than simply being an alternative name." Since the song redirects are to distinct subsections of an article covering the corresponding song, would ask to keep, but will go with the consensus on this and do better in the future. Roberteditor (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
navbox updated to now link to four articles instead of three Music-cadence (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it is a long-running standard to have most links to be articles, not subsections of articles. The links in the related section have no direct relation to the subject. The template still meets the merits of deletion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects have been removed. Music-cadence (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the redirects have been removed in an effort to compromise, I don't think they needed to be removed based on Wikipedia:EXISTING, WP:NAVNORREDIRECT, or WP:SELFRED. Also, I'm not sure that simply using the term "long-running standard" (without more) is enough to satisfy the merits of deletion. Per Wikipedia:Deletion review, "Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines...Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome."
So far, I haven't seen any specific policies or guidelines referenced that either dispute or refute Wikipedia:EXISTING, or the guidelines of WP:NAVNORREDIRECT and WP:SELFRED. Nor have I seen "a local consensus" develop to suspend the referenced guidelines in this particular case as permitted by Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Behavior, "[p]olicies and guidelines reflect widespread community consensus." Since the current guidelines permit redirects to subsections of articles, and since "guidelines reflect widespread community consensus," the template should not have been nominated for deletion, and at least some of the previous redirects should be restored.
Even with the subsection redirects gone, the navbox links to four articles, which should make it more useful as User:Hurricanehink noted directly below in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Template:Hurricane Isaac (2012) series, when the user wrote "[t]he template previously linked four articles, making it more useful..." Music-cadence (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't count the article title of the navbox. It's more about the links body of the template that matters. So far there are only three and not enough for navigation. WP:NENAN is an essay and has been used as a long-running standard and basis for deletion of navboxes with a small number of links. This isn't going to change. And frankly, there should be enough articles before creating a navbox. There aren't enough at this time for having this navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then this can be closed as delete due to creator's violation of editing and user policy. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Image template notice1

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 merge to Template:File template notice. Izno (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Image template notice1 with Template:File template notice.
Both of these templates do the same thing, except that {{Image template notice1}} requires a second unnamed parameter but {{File template notice}} has no such parameter. We can make use of {{#if}} to combine the two templates. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Same purpose, the only difference is whether to show {{example template}} or {{example template|with a parameter}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will also note that {{Media template notice}} simply calls {{Image template notice1}} and serves the same purpose, just that it is used for files with {{Media}}. I think that should be merged with these two, as well, to make it seamless. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. 🔹Blue (talk/contribs) 02:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Family Radio

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming number of links are merely redirects to the network's article, making the navbox violate WP:EXISTING, and making it hinder rather than help a reader's attempts at navigating Wikipedia. There is already a category for Family Radio stations, that provides easier navigation, as the redirects are italicized. The radio stations whose call signs redirect to the network's article are not independently notable and should not become articles. Tdl1060 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there sufficient numbers of links for a navbox?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Santeros de Aguada current roster

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically empty, unused, and out of date team roster navbox. The current roster is maintained at Santeros de Aguada. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just import the roster from the article page into this and link on players articles. There is enough and the roster on the article is up to date as of August 2024. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete as non-maintained, out-out-date template. It isn't the nom's job to "fix" unused, barely used or could-be-used templates. If an editor wishes to do so, they could. Ideally, it should be the actual creator of the template. If no one cares to update it in the 7 days this TfD ran, why would we believe anyone would update this on a regular bases? That's part of a problem with "current" templates. Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fbu2

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates that duplicate Template:Fbu/Template:Fbwu. The only difference is the age parameter is switched to the second unnamed parameter. For consistency we should only be using one consistent parameter formatting for these templates. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fbf

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a duplicate of Template:Fba. Note that the parameter |short=y on {{fbf}} is equivalent to |name=code on {{fba}}. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are displaying a three-letter code next to the flag, wouldn't it be preferable to not have it wrap in tables? Such a column would be very narrow already, it would seem awkward to have it wrapped. The nowrap tag can be removed from the template, but I'll note it's modeled off the output of {{fb}}. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_7&oldid=1246991852"