Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 20 December 22 >

December 21

[edit]

Template:Studio Ghibli people

[edit]
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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Studio Ghibli people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Studio Ghibli Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Studio Ghibli people with Template:Studio Ghibli Films.
I found this incorrectly nominated. Makes some sense to add the people to the larger template. On the other hand, "films" is not "people", and indeed only 4 out of the 11 transclusions of this template have transclude the target as well. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 21 December 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:EA Sports 10 games

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EA Sports 10 games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful. 71.186.149.13 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It seems logical to link together all of the EA Sports games released with the '10' suffix, so how is this navbox not useful? The only thing this navbox needs is a change of title to something a little less vague. – PeeJay 00:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No rationale for deletion presented, and no mention of what to do with all the other EA Sports templates. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:56, 2 January 2014 (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.
[edit]
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) 01:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boston Legal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox, which consists mostly of links to redirects. There are only 4 articles on the TV show: Boston Legal, List of Boston Legal characters, List of Boston Legal episodes, List of awards and nominations received by Boston Legal. That fails the WP:NENAN minimum threshold of head article + 5 others. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 21 December 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:Shane Filan

[edit]
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 relisted on 2014 January 3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 3 January 2014 (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:Historic Places in Canada/en

[edit]
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) 14:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historic Places in Canada/en (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Historic Places in Canada/layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused template copied from commons. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 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:Lit criticism

[edit]
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) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lit criticism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Most probably because this kind of warnings go to article page nowadays. Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 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:Loose Women

[edit]
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 relisted on 2014 January 3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 3 January 2014 (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:Cc-by-sa (UK)

[edit]
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) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa (UK) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to better designed Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-uk. Bloonstdfan360 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 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:Stardust Promotion

[edit]
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) 13:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stardust Promotion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is overly expansive, containing supposedly every person associated with the production company, many without their own articles. It's practically a list unto itself. No prejudice against some kind of repurposing but I don't see how this could be helfpul to anyone. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stardust Promotion is more than a simple booking company. The company does not only act like a booking agent, it also creates artists, finding them when they are very young and who stay signed to the company though their entire career.
  1. Their artists are divided into sections that are trained together, perform together, booked together as a group. Therefore, the template helps to navigate between similar artists that are closely connected to each other.
  2. Stardust Promotion also creates musical groups that perform together, are produced by the same people, have a definite style. Therefore, the template is similar to templates like Template:Hello! Project, Template:AKB48.
    (I was actually going to create several more articles about musical groups created by the company. Momoiro Clover Z, Shiritsu Ebisu Chugaku, Team Syachihoko, and many more should be connected to each other through the template cause they are basically the same thing.)
So what if the template is huge. If someone wants to "repurpose" it (for example, to list only the artists with articles on Wikipedia or only the artists presently signed to the company), I'm okay with it. It is possible to divide the template into several templates (like, musical artists), but the problem is that the artists are idols or tarento, they do everything, they sing and dance and act in movies and model, so that would only create repetition. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Let's remove the artists that are no longer with the company. And it is possible to remove most artists that don't have articles on Wikipedia without damaging the integrity of the template. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see a need to interconnect Mihimaru GT and Takayuki Yamada because they share the same booking agent. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 10:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether there is a connection between Mihimaru GT and Takayuki Yamada, but there is a very strong connection between all members of the junior sections. Also, you asked about my criteria for inclusion. The criteria were that articles about these people existed on some wiki other than the Japanese (also, there wre few that existed on some other English-language sites) and therefore were very likely to be created. The template now is vey easy to update cause it corresponds to the Japanese one (which is much cared for and promptly updated). --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, Stardust Promotion and Category:Stardust Promotion artists are the places to go to find all the artists. navigational boxes are for navigation between existing articles. this is simply redundant. Frietjes (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't vote if you don't know about Japanese talent agencies that manufacture idols. As I said, the agency is not just a booking agency, it creates artists and musical groups. The template is similar to Template:Hello! Project. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Hello Project template is pretty bad too considering it just contains info that's already found in the various group templates. Per WP:NAVBOX, articles within a navbox should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent, and one would list the articles of the navbox in a "See also" section of the other articles; otherwise, the articles are only loosely related, which you admit that's true for Mihimaru GT and Takayuki Yamada. Smaller individual templates and categories seem to be a better choice, which already exist for some. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Hello! Project template is necessary cause they are all connected to each other. They are one project, a project created by Tsunku, who writes songs for all of them. There are separate templates for Morning Musume and Berryz Kobo and Cute (Japanese band) and S/mileage already, but all these groups and Juice=Juice and trainee members need to be connected through a navigation template too. The trainee members are basically candidates for all these groups.
          I will soon propose a compromise for Stardust Promotion below, please look at it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm also mostly ignorant about Hello! Project, but simply regarding the template structure, there is some redundancy. I would probably only have one current acts section, without listing the individuals in those acts. Kenshūsei would be included, without a list under it. Only blue links should be in the template, excepting section headings. The alternative would be to merge them all into one template, which would be too large even though it loses information, IMO. This doesn't necessarily apply to Stardust Promotion, since there is only one template. -PC-XT+ 03:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't admit anything. I just don't know. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know much about these idols, but from a technical perspective, if this is a navbox, it should be pruned to closely interconnecting articles. If this is meant to show organization, it could be used in the main article, but not necessarily on each of the other pages like a navbox, so it should be merged or deleted. Navboxes should be streamlined for improving navigation that happens already. -PC-XT+ 00:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Could we find some sort of compromise here?
    The whole Section 3, especially 3B Junior and Momoiro Clover Z and Shiritsu Ebisu Chugaku and Team Syachihoko and Takoyaki Rainbow(ja) and Minitia Bears(ja) and Kenichi Maeyamada (who has worked with them) would have to be interconnected anyway.
    There is also a boy project called EBiDAN with boy bands (DISH//, Bullet Train, PrizmaX), two of which I was going to create pages for. They are connected to the girl groups cause they have a similar style (all Stardust Promotion groups have similar styles) and Kenichi Maeyamada has written for them too. The boys are in the agency sections starting with "Shinjin" (there are two sections in the template for them), but they don't have articles, so the sections aren't needed...
    Oh no, it's too complicated. I will have to think. But I want the existing articles in Section 3 connected and add the boy bands to some small template section too.
    In short, let's cut the template to Section 3 (only existing articles, no black links) + their music labels Stardust Records and Sanbu Music + Maeyamada. And also link the boys somehow. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too expansive in scope, and filled with non-navigable unlinked entries, making a mockery of the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX. --DAJF (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get it. Are Wikipedia deletion requests intended as some sort of punishment for users? I thought I have been explaining that there will be a template for this. I will create a small template for Section 3 or Section 3B Junior immediately after this one gets deleted. It is necessary, it will adhere to the NAVBOX or whatever guideline. I have proposed to repurpose this one. So why everyone continues to vote "delete"? Why can't just you let me change it and merge everything that is cut off into the article about Stardust Promotion? It really, really looks like these votes are saying "We don't know much or anything about Stardust Promotion or any Japanese artists, but we don't like the look of this template and therefore you will be punished for what you did by seeing all your work destroyed, and after this template is deleted you won't be able to recreate it again. This doesn't sound like a discussion about how to build a better encyclopedia together, but rather some sort of a "I know the rules better than you, your work is so terrible it must be erased immediately, go away" message.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may think about supporting a Section 3 navbox, but it may be difficult. It would need to follow the guidelines, and be practical, mostly duplicating links already found on each page in which it is transcluded. Considering I'm an outsider to the subject, thinking only of template structure, I expect something like this:
Stardust Promotion Section 3
Artists*Blue linked artists go here*
GroupsMomoiro Clover Z (Reni Takagi · Kanako Momota · Momoka Ariyasu · Shiori Tamai · Ayaka Sasaki) · Shiritsu Ebisu Chugaku
Junior (3B) artistsAnri Okamoto · Akari Hayami
Junior (3B) groupsTeam Syachihoko
  • (Feel free to edit that table.) Of course, lists will expand as articles are created, and there should be an article telling what Section 3 has in common. Notice I only expanded a group when all artists had blue links. I am undecided about supporting this because I haven't yet looked through all of these articles, and I see neither an article, nor a section in the Stardust Promotion article on this Section 3, only a mention. If it becomes technically supportable, I will support it on condition that we delete the main template we are discussing, merge it to the article, or at least move it to userspace. We don't need two templates at this time, but it does summarize the section organization. Those reading the article see little mention of sections at this time, and so may not know their significance. If consensus that Sections are important can be reached in the article, you will likely find more support for a navbox by Section. For instance, compare, contrast, and show what is unique and interesting about particular sections, supporting it with reliable sources as much as possible. If it stays in the article, and related articles pick up the theme, a navbox may become natural. That's a lot of ifs, and it may not happen, but it could be possible. -PC-XT+ 03:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help! Yes, I think it would be reasonable to have a stand-alone article for Section 3 or Section 3B Junior before creating a template for either of them. I'm not sure I can easily write a decent article about it, though... I will think about it.
    Since it looks like the Stardust Promotion template is going to be deleted anyway, I don't think it's a good idea for me to discuss a possible new template. It could only result in someone saying "No, nothing like this can exist in Wikipedia ever! I've read the discussion and I came to the conclusion that I must immediately propose to delete all similar templates!" :) (It will look somewhat like you suggested, but I'm going to create more articles to link from it first.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Listed for over two weeks without consensus nor disposition
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: Could I suggest that you leave it to admins to relist in non-obvious cases such as this one? I would think it likely that this would have been closed had it been left alone. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:06, 28 December 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:Miss May I

[edit]
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) 13:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miss May I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN, due to linking to less than five articles outside of the subject. STATic message me! 23:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Only one participant after two weeks
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 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:Thelemapeerreview

[edit]
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) 13:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single transclusion. It can be replaced by {{old peer review}}. Magioladitis (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_21&oldid=1136430309"