Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 13

< July 12	July 14 >

July 13[edit]

Template:GTA Mass Transit[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, due to the significant duplication. Feel free to continue the discussion (concerning alternatives to resolve the duplication) elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GTA Mass Transit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subjective groups of disparate items which are adequately covered by Templates like {{Navbox GO Transit}}, {{Toronto passenger railways}} and {{Public transit systems in Canada}}. Also see Wikipedia:Template creep. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicates much of those others templates and some do not relate. Exception could be 'Accessible transit' need a template. Martin Morin (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Seems to be template overkill. Lastcent (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The GTA is not "disparate" and its transit networks do belong together as one comprehensive whole, for navigational purposes by ordinary readers; if anything the separate templates should be merged to this one. If "template overkill" is an issue, why not address genuinely bloated and inaccurate and completely disparate templates like {{Names for subdivisions of countries}} (or whatever it's called; its very name is overkill) and others like it, which are genuine overkill and also highly inaccurately linked?Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at those other templates? What you say makes no sense because they cover more than the GTA and should not be merged. They include everything here but give better coverage for the stuff in the groups. What has "subdivisions of countries" got to do with the GTA?

I'm a Torontonian and think this is overkill. The links here include every local public transit system in the region, whether they have any interoperational links with each other or not; national (or even international) links like Via Rail and Amtrak; car sharing services (one of which is a uniquely Toronto-based operation and the other an international company which merely has a branch in the city — and neither of which has any relevant relationship to any of the public transit systems), and even intercity coach terminals (which have no relevant relationship to local public transit). Thus, it's a poorly-defined topic which links a lot of diverse topics with wildly varying levels of relevance to each other. Delete. A template for transportation in Toronto itself, possibly inclusive of public transit systems which have direct fare interoperability with the TTC itself, might be warranted — but this is far too wide a net to be useful. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a GTA resident and this template appears useful to me. The other templates listed above do not give public transportation users a complete picture of the available options for getting from place to place. Transit riders (particularly those who don't live right in the city) frequently have to use more than one type of agency and transportation type to get where they are going, combining small local systems at each end of a trip with sections of larger networks in between. This navbox allows transit riders to directly navigate between pages about systems of which they may not have been aware and make informed transit choices. It could also be of use to anyone doing research and/or writing about transportation topics and wanting to quickly move between pages to compare the systems. IMO any one of the pages listed in this navbox would be more valuable with it than without it. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2014 (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) 23:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this template unifies and organizes major transportation in a highly populated area. ///EuroCarGT 21:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I look again and it is still not with purpose. Those are a mix up of things that have no relation that is done better by those other ones. Martin Morin (talk) 01:57, 23 July 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:Percentile[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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and ~~apparently broken (I made several tests and seems not to work correctly)~~ template created by a basically retired editor. We already have several progress templates which work properly and serve the same function. Cavarrone 17:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the basic functionality seems to work fine

{{percentile|50}}

{{percentile|75}}

{{percentile|10}}

-- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is supposed to be more customizable than any of the other bars. I would say that {{percentage bar}} is a less-versatile version of this bar. Even the customization works

{{percentile|33|width=500|height=20|text-size=10|progress-done-colour=steelblue|progress-tbd-colour=indianred}}

33%

-- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you, I was obviously wrong when I've tested it. I could withdraw the discussion, I will keep it open for a while to hear a few more opinions about the need to have this additional bar. Cavarrone 07:33, 14 July 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:VisualArgument[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) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template created by a basically retired editor, frankly I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Cavarrone 17:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and unclear purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 15 July 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:YouTubeSubject/doc[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; deleted as G6 by Bearian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YouTubeSubject/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

documentation subpage for a non-existing template created by a basically retired editor, lacks sense. Cavarrone 17:11, 13 July 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:R to related topic[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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R to related topic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redirects, by definition, point to articles of a "similar topic or related term", so the main problem with this template is that it's obvious and self-evident, and doesn't add any new information to the process of categorizing redirects. We also already have {{R from related word}} and other more specific sorting templates, which makes the nominated template largely redundant as well. Netoholic @ 04:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Totally wrong reasons because many redirects point to the same article by alternate punctuation, using the same words, rather than to a "related topic" (named with other, not-the-same words). Meanwhile, {{R from related word}} refers to a single "word" not a multi-word topic. Keep template, as documented and used in over 4,500 pages for years, to avoid wp:Disruption of editing. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- {{R from related word}} specifically says in the text "word (or phrase)". --Netoholic @ 08:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{R from related word}} specifically says that it is for term definitions. It is not applicable to, eg. iphone linux or NotAllMen. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The word "definition" does not appear at all on {{R from related word}}, so your point is incorrect. It suggests that a wikitionary link may sometimes be better than a redirect, but that is all. --Netoholic @ 19:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bad wording, but the idea is clear: {{R from related word}} is for redirects from term to its definition. It is much more narrow then {{R from related topic}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: these redirects are only a variety of redirects as whole. Counter-examples:
- Tor Browser Bundle → Tor (anonymity network) (subtopic)
- Россия → Russia (from native language)
- uTorrent → μTorrent (from ASCII)
- Antony van Leeuwenhook → Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (typographical error)
- WP:TFD → Wikipedia:Templates for discussion (shortcut)
- etc.
All of these don't qualify for {{R to related topic}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - I don't think you're understanding the nomination. All of the examples you give use different redirect templates, not the nominated one, and you're saying they don't qualify for {{R to related topic}}, which is exactly what I am saying - {{R to related topic}} has no specific purpose and its use can be taken over by better templates (like the ones you mention). --Netoholic @ 08:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your deletion rationale was based on the assumption that this Rcat is applicable to every redirect, and thus does not aid in cateforization. My examples show that it is not applicable. As applicable redirects are indeed only a veriety of redirects as whole, it is a valid Rcat template. Provided that redirection from topic to related topic is one of the most obvious use caes for redirects, ability to track this usage of redirects is useful. The availability of more specific Rcats does not make this one redundant. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unless you can find a use for {{R to related topic}} that isn't better-covered by a more specific RCAT template, you're proving my point about the need to delete {{R to related topic}}. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Example? Well, nothing sucks like a vax. It is a redirect to related topic, but not subtopic, and not applicable for {{R from related word}} because it is not a plausible dictionary entry. Now your turn: valid deletion rationale, please? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That would use {{R from phrase}} (or maybe {{R from slogan}}), not {{R to related topic}}. Any others? --Netoholic @ 00:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        These two are not more specific: they describe name of redirect, not its connection to the target. (FWIW {{R from slogan}} is definitely not the case here – it is a slogan for completely different product.) This particular redirect should be tagged with both {{R from phrase}} and {{R to related topic}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:58, 17 July 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.

Non-major Grammy Awards[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) 03:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammy Award for Best Pop Solo Performance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media 1980s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media 1990s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media 2000s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media 2010s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Dance/Electronica Album (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Music Video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes#Grammy Award templates there seems to be agreement that no templates should exist other than the four major awards. The rest of the awards are basically subcategories of the main four. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose as templates organize navigation quite differently than categories and in a more reader-friendly manner. The "agreement" is the nominator's own proposal and a couple of one-line nods of assent followed by the nominator's entreaty for those same commenters to come here. That's neither a broad consensus nor a significant "agreement" beyond the three editors involved. (And one of those seems to have a fundamental misreading of WP:COATRACK so that agreement is of no substantive value.) What purpose is served by making navigation between, for example, the Best Polka Album winners, more difficult? How is the reader helped by removing chronological and performer data, forcing them to use more clicks, then presenting them only with the alphabetized list in the category listing? The only rationale seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a false patina of broad consensus where none exists. - Dravecky (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dravecky: It can clearly be seen that the earlier discussion on the WikiProject talk page was a gauge to see if further action should be taken. There were enough contributors that shared Tony's concerns to warrant further discussion, so he brought it up for formal discussion here. I don't see what's wrong with that at all. WikiRedactor (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The relationships between these award winners is tenuous at best, as there is nothing that connects them other than the award itself and vaguely their genre. I would imagine that so few readers would use these, that the space they take on the page isn't worth it, which kind of eliminates the of a navbox. If people really want to see winners of these narrow categories from other years, list pages and/or categories do just fine. --Netoholic @ 05:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, the four main navboxes are the most important for navigational purposes. WikiRedactor (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unnecessary, as above. Neutrality^talk 07:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, minor categories. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 14 July 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.