Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 26 April 28 >

April 27

[edit]

Template:Datt Ganagapur

[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) 04:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Datt Ganagapur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This refers to a temple in a village in Karnataka, which has some regional significance. The contents are a single external link. Imc (talk) 17:22, 27 April 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:NHL Draft progression

[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) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHL Draft progression (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and replaced by Template:succession box. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Unused, and shouldn't be used.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:48, 2 May 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:Copyedit progress/Part1

[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) 00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyedit progress/Part1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old orphaned subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 27 April 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:Infobox Muslim Saint

[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 speedy delete. G7. Creator agreed in my talk page on the merge/deletion. Magioladitis (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Muslim Saint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan, unused and covered by {{Infobox saint}}. Magioladitis (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its creator adds it now in some articles. Still it can be covered/merged to the generic one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:39, 27 April 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.

Nearest star systems navboxes

[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 modify, keep, delete. There is some consensus to reduce the size of the navigation box by having some "cut off" for what are the nearest stars. There isn't consensus to delete everything. There is some consensus that an article is the best placement for a comprehensive list. So, as a result, I will "userfy" or "projectfy" the ones over 10 light-years. Discussion can continue elsewhere as to the most appropriate cut-off for a distance for the nearest. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nearest star systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nearest bright star systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Star systems within 0 – 5 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Star systems within 5 – 10 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Star systems within 10 – 15 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Star systems within 15 – 20 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Star systems within 20 – 25 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Star systems within 25 – 30 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bright star systems within 0 – 10 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bright star systems within 10 – 20 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bright star systems within 20 – 30 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bright star systems within 30 – 40 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bright star systems within 40 – 50 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bright star systems within 50 – 60 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bright star systems within 60 – 70 light-years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The two templates {{Nearest star systems}} and {{Nearest bright star systems}} are overly large for navigation templates. Furthermore they are full of redlinks which are inconvenient in a navigation template, and the sheer number of articles linked completely overwhelms the "What Links Here" functionality. Browsing articles which contain these templates, particularly those with two templates, with JavaScript turned off results in a huge box taking up the bottom of the article. In my opinion, this type of functionality is far better served with links to list articles (which are already present as List of nearest stars and List of nearest bright stars) than these huge and bloated navboxes. The various {{Star systems within X – Y light-years}} and {{Bright star systems within X – Y light-years}} are as best as I can tell only directly transcluded onto the two aforementioned templates, so I've added them in this nomination as well. Icalanise (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—I agree. Collectively these navboxes are much larger than many of the articles where they are posted. They add significantly to the download time and provide little value in return. I also suspect there would be little reason for a reader of a star article to want to find another star article via these boxes. In effect, they seem to be there only for the novelty. Possibly the content can be salvaged by migrating the templates onto another list article (such as List of stars in the local neighborhood).—RJH (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: if this navbox is retained, then if has a fundamental flaw that needs to be addressed. Basically it implies a much greater accuracy than it can deliver. To choose an arbitrary example, star GJ 3769 has a Hipparcos-measured parallax of 48.95 ± 1.06 mas. Within a single error bar, this puts it anywhere between 66 and 68 light years away. Yet it is listed at a distance of 66.6 light years. This error range, which only has a 67% likelihood, could move the star up eight slots or down seven. Likewise for virtually all of the other stars listed; the implied accuracy here is an illusion, as is the order. Hence, either an error range needs to be listed, the number of digits should be reduced, or an accuracy limitation applied. The first will triple the length of the navbox, so it is not desirable.—RJH (talk)
  • Delete brought up at WP:Astronomy and discussed for being problematic and extremely large back when they were created. Duplicates the lists for no good reason. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and shrink to contain only the really Template:Nearest star systems, such as those within 10 light years, or so. The template have been bloated, but that doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are nine star systems within ten light years. Do we need a means to navigate between them?—RJH (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify Reduce to two templates. Nearest star systems - those within 15 LY, and nearest bright star systems - within 40 LY. 146.87.0.73 (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify Nearest star systems serve as a valuable research environment to test theories. The results of these tests become the information contained in many of the astronomy articles contained in Wikipedia. Delete all red entries. How about nearest stars per constellation, if there are too many entries in some or all of these? Marshallsumter (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a rationale for having an article about the nearest star systems. Whether the usefulness of nearby stars for doing whatever science you want to do on them is a case for having a navbox is another matter. Icalanise (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom that the articles List of nearest stars and List of nearest bright stars are the appropriate places to list such content. Modifying with a limited distance also isn't appropriate because it makes quite an arbitrary distinction between close-by star systems whereas the list articles can list all systems considered close-by. Polyamorph (talk) 11:10, 14 April 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) 01:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify Like what Marshallsumter said, It's best if we know which stars are closest to us. However, Please delete "Nearest bright star systems." The only bright stars I can think of that are close to us are Sirius, Alpha centauri, Altair, Vega, ε Eridani, and ε Indi. It's just a branch off of Nearest star systems, and it's use is quite redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clammybells (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please be a bit more specific here: it is all very well to say "modify" but without saying what you think it should be modified to there's no way this is going to help the editors. For example, Rursus has suggested 10 light years as the cutoff, while 146.87.0.73 has suggested 15 light years. (And if we go to the scientific literature, the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars takes a 25 parsecs cutoff, which encompasses an enormous number of stars!) Marshallsumter is also unclear on how to prune down the list beyond getting rid of redlinks. Fundamentally these templates suffer from the problem of unclear cutoff: there's no real indication where to draw the line of "nearest" stars. And yes, it is a good idea to know which stars are closest to us but we've got the article List of nearest stars that surely adequately handles that better than a navbox could? Icalanise (talk) 12:21, 23 April 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, JPG-GR (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shrink and Keep. Navboxes of a reasonable size are not only useful, but highly encouraged. I can see the point that this navbox has become bloated beyond reason (the need for sub-templates ought to be a clue that something has gone awry), but rectifying that doesn't require deleting the template (although deleting the sub-templates seems like a good idea).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Another vote for some unspecified shrinking. Sorry but unless there's some agreement on what to shrink it to, where to draw the line of when a star should be included in this navbox and where it shouldn't, this kind of suggestion is useless. Icalanise (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes, you personally feel that "all or nothing" is the only approach here. Clearly not everyone agrees with that, and some willingness to compromise induces less stress and conflict amongst everyone. I don't understand how "Nearest stars" (with or without "systems" included) is itself problematic. Differing limitations can create different issues, but there's a happy medium someplace. 10 light years (9 stars) seems reasonable to me. There's obviously some interest in the idea behind nearest stars, and a navbox serves the purpose of giving people links to the List of article as well as a handful of specific articles, which is useful.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not feel that it should necessarily be "all or nothing" (though I am yet to be convinced that this set of articles is not better handled by a list), but I do want this issue with these overly-bloated templates to be resolved. The problem is that "nearest star systems" does not by itself imply an obvious cutoff (you now say 10 light years, but with your initial post there was no way anyone but yourself would know you meant 10 light years). If someone says "keep and modify" without specifying what they feel it should be modified to then we must go through another discussion to determine the necessary modifications. Clearly there is a consensus that something should be done, but if this closes with "keep but do something to it" it would be nice to know what the something to be done is. Icalanise (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think that xFD discussions are the best forum to discuss a page's content, so I'm trying to avoid real specifics. There are several things that could improve the situation, though. Getting rid of the mass of sub-templates would probably help, but coming to some sort of compromise about what should be in the navbox is something that we should talk about on Template talk:Nearest star systems. We could, and probably should, post a note on WikiProject Astronomy, as well as several users talk pages (those here, and those who have contributed to the templates in the past). There's obviously some interest in this, so I wouldn't worry too much about nothing happening at all here. It may take some time, but... there's no rush, and this has already take up a bunch of time.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - But with Separation/Modification. --
My points for consideration are as follows:
1. Icalanise’ proposal for the deletion of the nearest star and nearest bright star navigation bars is absolutely ridiculous. Just because the good intentions of Chermundy who originally prepared these have now become cumbersome is not justification for deletion. Deletion is the extreme approach in this case and not warranted. Modification or re-application in how it is applied may be necessary so that it becomes useful once more. I strongly disagree as to the deletion of all 15 nested navbars existing in two major groups. It is rather obvious to me that Chermundy may well have spent at least 500 to a 1,000 hours doing this altogether. The best solution I believe is made towards the end of my Point 9.
The amount of hours Chermundy may or may not have spent making these is totally irrelevant to whether these templates should be deleted or not. If you disagree, please show me the policy where the amount of effort a user spends should be a consideration in the deletion. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is relevant. You have knowledgeable people who contribute great quantities of time and then just give up when all that effort is just hacked and slashed so quickly. Wikipedia has lost many excellent editors that way. Most of this did not need to happen if issues like this were taken to the item discussion pages and worked on over time. You chose the extreme approach as the solution. The creative process is very time consuming; critics on the other hand can burn something in a few minutes. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Truly, my heart bleeds. Show me the policy. Icalanise (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about showing me the policy that navbars should be deleted. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if Wikipedia had a policy that an editor would have to make 100 articles or major contributions to articles per 1 deletion proposal. If 2 deletions were proposed then the person would have to have done 200 major contributions. If one wants to delete 1 template then the nominator would have to have added 100 helpful templates. This would change the whole scenario and cause people to really contribute and/or edit positively. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't. Therefore your warm fuzzy bleeding-heart inclusionist feelings are irrelevant. Icalanise (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. It should be pointed out that Chermundy’s sub-navbox entries were never formally entered as a template into the general Wikipedia; they are nested into two primary templates. One will note that the “v” and “d” both appear red in the sub-navboxes. If the navboxes are kept, which I support, the subnavboxes should be separated and entered into the general Wikipedia as noted in my Points 6/9 below.
I nominated the navboxes as well for exactly this reason: that they are only included in the two main templates. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nested navboxes were an excellent idea at the time they were created. At this time they have become cumbersome as a collective whole only. They can still be separated, kept, and applied where relevant. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Icalanise’ argument as to “What Links Here” is overwhelming is totally irrelevant. There is no restriction as to the number of pages that link to a template. I would not recommend that as a way of searching for an article.
Really makes article maintenance quite difficult though, especially when dealing with redirects and article moves. Icalanise (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the navbars are separated the burden will be reduced. But this only concerns editors. General article reading users are not concerned with this. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Icalanise does not have to use navboxes if he does not want to. These particular navboxes are already hidden - - one must directly click on them to use them.
I specifically mentioned browsing with JavaScript disabled. There is also the question of the amount of download by users of mobile phone platforms (increasingly common on today's internet) where strict download limits are the norm. Have you tried browsing these articles in a mobile browser without JavaScript? I have. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, now we are getting at the real truth here! You are using a cell phone. Cell phones are small and limited by their nature. Save your real searching when you have access to a regular computer. You will have to be patient if you are desperate for that desired piece of knowledge when using your cell phone. I would like to say the mobile systems are better but they are just not there yet. Perhaps Finland or South Korea could give us a few hints. I think the best solution would be to get a small netbook computer in your case. It would cost 1/3 that of a laptop, or less than a desk computer. Hook that up for mobile usage. Then you could have everything. I am sorry about the download limits. Unfortunately, information access costs for airtime. The various companies are enjoying the profits on overly priced access. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG. I am not primarily using a cell-phone, don't jump to assumptions. Actually these navboxes first came to my attention when running in my default configuration on a desktop browser with JavaScript disabled. I then switched to a mobile browser to see what the effect was there and was unpleasantly surprised. But your argument seems to be that we should screw all the users who are using anything other than a traditional desktop browser with JavaScript turned on, in deference to Chermundy's efforts in creating these bloated monstrosities of navboxes. Out of interest, have you investigated how this navbox works in a screen-reader? Would you tell a blind or partially-sighted user to save their real searching for when they can see? Icalanise (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Save yourself the agony, turn your JavaScript on. Or get a separate computer setup for your Wikipedia only use. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So blind and partially-sighted users should save themselves the agony and get themselves some proper eyesight? You do realise that there are laws against discrimination against the disabled in many countries in the developed world? Icalanise (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I disagree with RJH’s view. Searching procedure is determined by the user. One can search an article specifically, by wikilinking from an article, by category, by a list, by a navbox, or by a sidebar. I have used all forms personally in various article searches, including these actual navbars from time to time. If the navbars are dropped it would be equivalent to dropping search methods in a library catalog, that is, deleting search requests by author, subject, etc. and only leaving a title search. In all, it would definitely render searching rather difficult or useless.
Where did we suggest dropping all navbars? This is a discussion about these specific navbars. Each of these methods of navigation have their own strengths and weaknesses: I would argue that for the subset of articles that these templates link, navbars are not the most appropriate navigation method. There's no requirement to provide all forms of navigation. Icalanise (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are only talking on the germaine navbars to this subject. But now that we know you are having problems with a cell phone it brings the issue of all navbars into question. I believe that navbars are very important. Perhaps there exists an application that strips navbars, pictures, or anything that would eat up data download capacity. If not, then Administration in Wikipedia should consider an alternate access method for cell phones or e-book readers that addresses this, creating MobiWikipedia or something like that which would strip the data down to text only. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually most navboxes are great. Navboxes work best when there is a natural grouping of a small-to-moderate number of articles. This is not the case here: there is always going to be an arbitrary cutoff involved, and the number of articles here (at least with the present state of affairs) is huge. Icalanise (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Denested navbars will help. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No my preference has nothing to do with a desire to restrict user search. It has to do with the lack of general utility of these sprawling boxes and with the violation of WP:NAVBOX. In particular: "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space", "They should be kept small in size...", and "Red links should be avoided...". Yes they are split into several templates, but clearly the intent is to include all templates up to the given distance.—RJH (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I disagree with 65.93.12.101's view. The purpose of the navbar is different than lists. Lists can be far more comprehensive. The purpose of the navbar is to get you to a specific article in less time or in a summarized format. I agree that they may have become too cumbersome. A solution to this would be to eliminate the nested navbar situation as it has now become burdensome. Each navbar could link to the other ones. Each navbar can be utilized directly to those star systems within in.
7. I am in agreement with Rursus in that it should be kept. Rursus thinks consolidation would help. I think the solution would be that as listed towards the end of Points 6 & 9.
8. I disagree with RJH’s point under Rursus’ entry. Yes, we should be able to navigate amongst star systems within ten light years using a navbar.
But why should we not also be able to navigate among systems within 10,000 light years using a navbar? Where do we draw the line? Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might be interested in that, but I do not see this having been done in this case. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But presumably if someone went to all the effort to make the huge navbox that would contain all such stars, the effort involved in its creation means it should be preserved at all costs, despite being incredibly cumbersome and so large that it would overwhelm even an article of featured-article size? Icalanise (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I agree with 146.87.0.73 in that modification is necessary, but not necessarily in two templates. Two groups are dealt with - - bright nearest stars, and nearest stars (which include faint brown dwarf systems discovered in recent decades). I think separation of the navbars as noted in Point 6 would take care of the problem. One could then have systems progressing from the Earth in 10 light years or so spherical shells. That would be helpful to those stellar astronomers and searchers in the field.
10. Icanalise wants to know why 15 and 40 light years. From the person who made them this really is from some catalogs that were used by him. This is not necessarily defined officially in astronomy. Most catalogs are not like that. Ultimately, all articles in Wikipedia when properly done should also have appropriate navbar(s) for quick navigation. An excellent example would be the navbar used in the Warriors (novel series) sets of articles [recommended reading for those who like animal adventure stories (cats in this case). The stories interweave in a mystical way the Milky Way which is referred to as Silverpelt in the series’]. Bright stars are different than near stars as noted in Point 9 above. As to parsecs, this is not used by most in astronomy - - light years is the general term used.
Actually parsecs are the more common unit in the scientific literature. But this is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. Nevertheless "nearest star systems" or "nearest bright star systems" are not synonyms for "stars within 15 light years" or "bright stars within 40 light years", I want to have some idea why we should choose a particular arbitrary cutoff. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both the terms light years and parsecs are used in the literature. Parsecs especially for extragalactic astronomy. But we are dealing here with nearby stars to Earth/Sol. I am comfortable with both forms. One can just divide by 3 in your head. We could always put parsecs in parentheses. These articles are also for the general reading user who has to be able to relate to the subject. I think the general public would be more comfortable with light years than parsecs, but we digress on a whole separate issue. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. I agree with Marshallsumter as to modify. I disagree as to removing the red link entries. Categories should not have red linked articles. This situation is not the same for navbars. The navbars should contain a complete list. If the red links get overwhelming until articles are generated then one can delink them and leave them as black entries for the time being. Since progress is being made progressively over time on article creation I do not think this really is a critical thing that needs to be done. The red links can still be maintained for the interim. I disagree with Icalanise’ subpoint thereunder.
Per WP:NAV, red links should generally be avoided in navboxes. Icalanise (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A minor matter. We just get rid of the red and leave it black. But this is insufficient to propose deletion of the navboxes. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. I disagree with Polyamorph’s sustaining of the article deletion nominator. Lists will handle all the detailed information. Navigation is still necessary with navbars, but limited as noted in my Point 9.
There's no compelling argument that navbars are required for navigation. We also have in-article links, list articles and categories that all can do navigation. There's no requirement that every form of navigation should be employed for every set of articles. Icalanise (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have found navbars to be the most useful of all searching methods, particularly from an editing point of view. I think they help and improve articles immensely. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. I agree with Clammybells’ modify proposal. I disagree with his belief that the bright stars are redundant. Icalanise seems confused thereunder by various responders. Ultimately Icalanise chose to propose deletion rather than do the work. Icalanise should be building up the encyclopedia not wrecking it or making it less useful. In this case it would be a lot of work. It is best that it be left as is and worked on as the time permits.
I would kindly ask you not to tell me what I should or should not be doing on the Wikipedia, there's no need to be condescending. I know some people get all religious about this kind of thing, but deletion of a navigation template is not wrecking the encyclopaedia: as has already been pointed out other forms of navigation which are perhaps better suited to this set of articles already exist. If deletion were actually about wrecking the encyclopaedia, we wouldn't have a deletion process. I don't get how you interpret me to be "confused" - I am merely trying to find out how people want the templates to be modified - this is NOT obvious from the template names/purpose. Is "nearest stars" a synonym for "stars within 10 light years" or "stars within 15 light years" or "stars within 40 light years" - last I checked this is not the case. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the navbars are separated and modified it will become more defined. As to condescending, yippee! I finally made it to a new adjective! I will just have to celebrate with a party. Yours truly, your Overlord (Childhood's End - Arthur C. Clarke), Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All joking aside, the bottom line is you do not care for navigation bars because you access Wikipedia from a cell phone. Well how about the mega millions of others who use regular computers? You do realize that all of this will take time. Wikipedia entries and modifications are done by people on a volunteer basis without pay. I would like to say that this could be instantly fixed in a day but even I know this may take a few hundred hours. You could send a check along for US$15,000 and I could hire a few of the long-term unemployed JPL/Cal-Tech (CIT)/STSCi people on a short term basis. Believe me some of them are getting desperate. It might get done faster. I am willing to do this project, but I was also working on other astronomical related Wikipedia matters that I am committed to. I will have to delay that in order to speed this project along. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, just because I mentioned cell phones does not mean my objection stems from me primarily using a cell phone. In fact this is not the case, I usually use what you term a "regular computer" and had noticed the problems with these templates well before I began investigating how they would interact with non-traditional setups. I do happen to like to try other setups though so we can be sure that Wikipedia, which is one of the web's primary resources is accessible to all users, even those who are not blessed with a complete lack of visual impairments and those who happen to be using non-traditional ways of accessing the internet (ways which I should inform you are becoming more and more common). You seem to have convinced yourself I do not like navbars as a general rule: this is not the case, I like them when they are used appropriately. A navbar is not a universal tool: it has its strengths and weaknesses and sometimes they are not appropriate, especially when they grow overly large. And it also seems you only recognise creation of new content as having value to the encyclopaedia, while disregarding those who undertake smaller-scale maintenance work that is less flashy but helps maintain quality in the encyclopaedia. I'm willing to do this maintenance work despite the fact it is often disregarded by those who make sweeping statements about the evils of deletion and how these maintenance processes distract them from their lofty goals of content addition. You are saying my aims are unrealistic but you are the one who seems to want to change Wikipedia's entire model to one where contributors are paid for what they do, a far more radical change to the Wikipedia philosophy than anything I am proposing. Icalanise (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. I agree with -V=IR to keep. Rectifying does not necessitate deletion. Points 6/9 in my opinion are the best solution. For the time being it should be kept but people need to work on separating the navbars and appending appropriately to the various articles.
I am willing to do my part. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • Admin - Not responding to bleeding heart/blindness/inclusionist puffery. At least we both like blind people and both are conservative encyclopedists. Awaiting decision so can begin denesting/modification processes. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it would seem that the inclusionist can't handle the possibility that what they want to preserve might be detrimental for users who aren't using their own configuration of web browser and luck of the genetic draw in terms of visual acuity, and hence resorts to stating to the admin that they won't respond. Nuff said really. Icalanise (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referring specifically to Template:Nearest star systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), there are relatively few stars in these subtemplates. I like Template:Nearest star systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), I use it, I include it. I vote for its removal from this deletion discussion. Let's keep it! Marshallsumter (talk) 03:38, 7 May 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:American Social Conservatism

[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) 17:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Social Conservatism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template fails several tests: There is no article on the topic of the template, the topics do not refer to each other to a reasonable extent, the subject of the template is not mentioned in each article. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an excellent recommendation. I agree those names are more representative.Lionel (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would be a fine idea is ruined by requirement found at WP:CLN that articles in a nav template "refer to each other to a reasonable extent". This is not found to be satisfied in the majority of articles in the template. Taking the first one, a pipe link from Judeo-Christian values to Judeo-Christian (already a red flag here), we see that the Judeo-Christian article does not say one thing about pro-life, the nuclear family, family values, the prohibition of drugs, the anti-pornography movement or school prayer. It also says not one thing about Mike Huckabee, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, William Bennett, William F. Buckley, Jr. or Robert P. George. See how we are trending? This kind of problem goes on and on throughout the members of the nav template, where most members do not discuss most of the other members "to a reasonable extent". This is not a cohesive grouping. I say delete the nav template and go with categorization. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a requirement. It is a guideline per WP:CLN. And anyway it's rendered toothless by "to a reasonable extent." And the nav box passes guideline #1, many articles demonstrate #2, and in reference to #4, two articles discuss the topic at length. If these guidelines were strictly applied to all navboxes 50% of them would be at TfD. Lionel (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you start ignoring Wikipedia behavioral guidelines you will be ignoring WP:COI, WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, WP:Etiquette, WP:Gaming the system, WP:POINT, and WP:Disruptive editing. Guidelines are not lifted without extraordinarily good reason. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about behavior: we're talking about content. It's completely different. See WP:NOTLAW. But more importantly, I wasn't saying "refer to each other" is an official WP:GUIDELINE, but that it's a guideline. The actual text explains it best: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines..." Lionel (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone of POV pushing and also of showing a disregard for improving the encyclopedia are very serious charges. Are ad hominem attacks all you got PrBeacon? Lionel (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
disregard for improving the encyclopedia are your words, not mine. I don't pretend to know you well enough to discern whether you realize the imbalanced POV pushing, and discussion of such bias is not ad hominem as it is relevant to the topic. I also agree with the nominator for other reasons given. And while you're certainly allowed to respond to criticism, I think you've crossed the line into badgering everyone who Opposes (here and at the other TfD. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a category. I think you're looking for CfD. I guess this kinda bolsters Jclemens' point, eh PrBeacon? Lionel (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin A few irregularities have emerged from this discussion:
  1. The nominator views the CLN guidelines as "requirements"
  2. An editor cast his vote based on "over-categorization"
I think this underscores a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of nav boxes by some of the participants here. Their value is not gauged by "requirements", but by guidelines, and nav boxes are not for categorization, they are for navigation. And we cannot overlook the fact that this discussion has begun to devolve along political lines, objectivity has been thrown to the wind to further ideology.Lionel (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nav templates are for navigating existing WP articles, but there is no article written for American Social Conservatism. There is an article Conservatism in the United States and also one for Social conservatism, but neither of these present a cohesive understanding of the topic which this template is supposed to map out. I continue to see that deletion is the answer, that is, until someone writes a coherent article on American Social Conservatism and works the topic tastefully into all the representative articles.
I would like to point out that, though the template author complains of arguments falling along political lines, he has not submitted any templates relating to American liberalism, populism or centrism, only American conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support nav boxes for all ideologies. Nax boxes can be expanded, they can be improved. In fact, I would vote "Keep" for this nav box:
How many articles in the above box refer to one another? None. Hmmm... What about a template without a matching article. Let's see what the fascists are up to... This should work:
The communists have one too {{History of Communist Nations}}; it's a side bar!!! Based on your interpretation of what should be kept these boxes would be deleted. There are hundreds if not thousands more nav boxes constructed in this fashion. Your nomination here sets a chilling precedent for mass deletion of nav boxes. Starting with these 3. I say "keep, keep, keep!" Lionel (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two of your three example templates are not used in a single article. Only the Swedish nationalism one is in use. I think a Tfd regarding the other two is perfectly appropriate. However, we are here discussing the one you authored, not these other three. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 28 March 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) 00:51, 30 March 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, JPG-GR (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Right on point despite diverse subject matter as this political group actually has these views. More importantly, the template originates from a user page which means that it can be kept in the end by that user. A user is welcome to create something for themselves. If the decision is to delete then only the links to the non-userpage articles should be deleted. The title of the template could be changed to "Conservatism in the United States" which is an article that exists. User Lionelt's page has the navbox title pipe-linked to this, but it is not transcluding properly on the article pages. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:27, 5 May 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:User WP Cheers

[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) 04:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WP Cheers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The WikiProject Associated with this template was deleted so there is no need for the template at this point. Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 27 April 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:Captain

[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) 01:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consensus at WP:Footy is to have plain text linking to Captain (association football) instead of an icon. Digirami (talk) 02:21, 27 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_27&oldid=1138694744"