Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19

Category:New Jersey government templates

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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Subcategories of this category contain 79 templates with textual information about current government of parts of New Jersey. According to WP:TMP, “templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace” and so I think those templates should be substed and deleted. Svick (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The templates provide useful information to articles about New Jersey municipalities and are easy to change when a new politician takes office. Dough 48 72 23:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That is the entire point of templates, so we don't have duplicate effort when changes are needed. Doing things this way makes it manageable without bots when changes are needed. Updating the 590+ articles where these are used individually would be stupid. Every template used in the main namespace is "article content". --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regularly changing information that is used across multiple articles is best maintained through the use of templates. As noted above, deleting, or even substing these templates would simply result in requiring a far greater amount of work being needed to accomplish the need of maintaining information that changes regularly. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 04:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned these templates are the most effective way to keep articles up-to-date and save hours of unnecessary work (which otherwise may not be done) to do so. Their removal would have a negative impact on the reliability of entire encyclopedia. Djflem (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the template guidelines are in need of revision; this use of templates seems entirely appropriate. Editors can ensure fast-changing information gets propagated everywhere it needs to go in one shot. Atomsmith (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly what templates should be used for. Allowing updates to be made to the templates as politicians move in and out of office only allows the encyclopedia to be updated more efficiently for all articles statewide. Eschewing the use of templates used in this manner would multiply exponentially the effort to reflect political changes and would make it extremely unlikely that all necessary changes would be made in sync with each other. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When templates are used like this, it is a sign to me that too much non-specific information is being provided in too many articles. Not every municipality, etc. article needs a list of the office-holders of the different levels of governments who represent that area; this information is not specific to the subjects of those articles. Using these templates would be similar to including a boilerplate description of a marsupial on every article about one - instead of doing this, a link is provided to the marsupial article, so that readers who are interested can find out more detailed information about marsupials. My general point is that the users above, who state solely that maintenance would be a nightmare without these templates, are mistaken in their belief that this information should be included at all in every one of these articles. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2011 (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:SkyTemplate

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 -- keeping for now. Those in favor of keeping may want to implement its functionality here or it could be nominated again in the future --Selket ^Talk 17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

Template:SkyTemplate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Large template whose purpose is unclear. Currently unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used and needed and nescessary for the "Skyhack" in de:WP. Ask User:Kolossos for details. Antonsusi (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We use this on many pages in german wikipedia. It's like geohack but for the sky. It's so universial that it seem's the best solution to maintain a central english page. So I see no reason for deletion.

Ok, the layout is not fine since we have vector-skin (bug comes from missing "<! -- Content start>.....<! --- Content end>) but I hope User:Magnus could fix this. --Kolossos (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But English Wikipedia is not German Wikipedia. Why is this page needed here? — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert/rewrite into a {{find sources}}-type template for given astronomical coordinates, using common astronomical databases. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tool is usable for all projects and therefore the tool is written in english. So the template is placed here. I don't know exactly, why it isn't on the server, maybe to enable editing by all interested users. My idea is, to create specific versions for the different languages. Antonsusi (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if it might be useful, though perhaps redundant with SIMBAD and other modern Wikipedia or Internet tools and facilities that really should be preferred.

What are the costs and benefits of keeping/deleting it? If there are no serious costs, co-operation with the German Wikipedia seems like a benefit.

What can it do, and what are the available alternatives, within Wikipedia and more generally on the Internet? Is there any other facility that is completely redundant with it, or does it have a unique niche? Wikipedia cannot and should not try to do everything, and there are substantial outside resources (NASA, ESO, universities....?? In general I think we should work to suppress meaningless choices and the confusion they create; so is this a case of such useless alternatives?

Do we have a record of how much it has actually been used? If so, what are the statistics on that? Should we notify the editors who have used it?

If it has a useful role to play (not just creating useless choice confusion), does it have flaws or incompletenesses that need to be fixed to make it better?

I would hold off on deletion (absent pressing need) until we have some information about these points. Wwheaton (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skyhack is on the toolserver. It is a separate web service, and I really don't understand why it relies on this template. The tool is rather broken anyway, and needs to be overhauled. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The layout problem is fixed now, thanks to Magnus Manske.

I can't see a benefit for deletion this template. The costs of it are very low.

The advantage of having this page here is that everybody can maintain it and can add new services to the tool. It's the same like Template:GeoTemplate for Geohack-tool.

It's seems not redundant to SIMBAD, yes it links to SIMBAD but it also links to other services.

I have no statistics about the usage but I give you above a long list of articles in german wikipedia where the tool is linked on prominent place. Perhaps the tool still active in other language versions. I don't know.

If we support more languages it would be more difficult to maintain the page and add new services. We have experience over many years and it's really a problem there. So English support seems for me the best way.

Last point: I take a look to article Orion_Nebula and there is in the upper right corner a Coordinate Link to Wikisky. From my experience with geohack it would be better for wikipedia to have a neutral link to all astro-services. Also if it is one click more for the user it is better to have the choice. So perhaps somebody can edit Template:Sky.

--Kolossos (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template Sky is weird. It uses Jupiter to signify sky coordiates, except that the Jupiter article, or any Solar System article, can never use this template (what changing coordinates all that time and such). 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this definitely needs to be restricted to non-article/non-portal/non-template spaces. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2011 (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:Section edit request

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 Redirect to {{Copy edit-section}} →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section edit request (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old (2005), unused ambox template. Arguably not much use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Template:Copy edit-section . 65.95.14.96 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support above redirect proposal --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2011 (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:Sections of the Directorate of Military Intelligence

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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sections of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{UK Intelligence Agencies}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2011 (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:West Virginia highways

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) 18:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Virginia highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsoleted by the |links= function of {{infobox state highway system}}. Admr Boltz 02:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 22:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be a T3, but no use in waiting 7 more days. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:41, 25 February 2011 (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:Db-catfd-notice

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) 18:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-catfd-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The C3 criterion was incorporated into G8. I don't really think this kind speedy deletion requires a user talk notification anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2011 (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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in West Virginia

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) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern Rock Radio Stations in West Virginia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one station listed here, in three forms. Not necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a complete set of navigational templates for formats both in West Virginia and across the United States. Permits navigation not just to the one current station but also to each of the other major radio formats broadcast in that state. - Dravecky (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2011 (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) 00:18, 19 February 2011 (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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Wyoming

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) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Wyoming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Only one station listed here, in three categorisations. Unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a complete set of navigational templates for formats both in Wyoming and across the United States. Permits navigation not just to the one current station but also to each of the other major radio formats broadcast in that state. - Dravecky (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2011 (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) 00:17, 19 February 2011 (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:Death Row Records

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, better served by a category and/or the link to the record label within the {{infobox musical artist}} box at the top of the page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Death Row Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate navbox. Precedent is that we don't do artists by record label navboxen. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What are you talking about, there are tons of these record label templates. There is no rule for including artists in navboxes. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Record companies should not have navboxes containing a list of signed artists, etc, like this one does. If there are indeed "tons" of templates like this, they should be deleted too - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for deletion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they should, it's called a NavBox. It's like that so it's easy to navigate, there is no rule. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per precedent. Boxes like these are excessive. Garion96 (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-If this is deleted, the 28 others found in Category:Record label template would have to be deleted too. Passionless -Talk 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily since Cash Money's and Def Jam's templates would have been put for deletion by now. WayneSlam 23:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are too many excessive boxes. Not every record label has a template. WayneSlam 23:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a consensus is reached on the matter off ALL record label navboxes. These should be discussed together (or sorted out on a talk page). This is not the best solution to delete what had been created by a Wikiproject who put so much effort in it. List here the other record label templates that were nominated or start a batch-nomination. Furthermore it wasn't a wise idea to delete Category:Record label template, because now we can't track down the events. It is really a shame that this is handled this way. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 11:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That category still exists, at Category:Record label templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom. And boxes like that are not only confusing, but also unnecessary for the articles' navigation. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:52, 17 February 2011 (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.