Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

September 29[edit]

Template:People's Vote[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. AGK ■ 20:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Now that I have stripped this of supporters of this movement, which should never have been included, as the individuals are not intrinsically linked sufficiently either to the movement or to each other to warrant navbox inclusion, and placement of this navbox on their pages was causing serious WP:UNDUE issues, there is very little left to navigate. Of the remaining six links, three are redirects to other articles, leaving three actual links, only two of which mention the People's Vote. As much as I support the movement, I cannot support the navbox! ;) --woodensuperman 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose and reverse blanking.
Now that I have stripped this of supporters of this movement, is usually seen as an attempt to load the debate before it starts. I note that you're doing just the same thing elsewhere too, on Category:QI, Category:Time Team and {{Ruth Goodman}}.
Nor are you removing "supporters". You've removed the founders of the People's Vote campaign, a far stronger conenction. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
And now edit-warring over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Removing entries from a set, then deleting the set "as now it's empty" is not regarded well on WP and is seen as a clearly anti-consensus action. Debate first, then everyone gets to decide. Don't pre-load the discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be getting a lot of things confused and muddled here. Please stick to the topic at hand. This navbox has nothing to do with TV appearances and the Time Team category. This seems like WP:STALKING and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. --woodensuperman 12:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Needs to be restored to include founders. William Avery (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Can we confirm who the founders are? The article only mentions speakers. --woodensuperman 12:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Umunna, Soubry, Moran and Lucas are the MPs, with Stewart as the populist. They're the ones who shared the platform to launch it. Although Andy Parsons was also on stage at the Electric Ballroom, he was in more of a chair's role than a figurehead. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, if it can be sourced in the article that these are the founders and the navbox is restricted to just the founders and not all of the "supporters", I'd consider withdrawing this nomination. --woodensuperman 12:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
That's a straw man argument. Being a president of something is very very different to being a supporter of something. Supporters of something are not intrinsically linked with a topic the way a president or a founder is. Supporters are not suitable for navbox inclusion. --woodensuperman 13:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Straw man: giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. You said it was WP:UNDUE diff. People's Vote is a grassroots coordinating group (GCG) People's Vote#Early history, it is a number of different organisations that moved into the same office together at Millbank, London People's Vote#Organisation. As such it is a collective rather than there being "founders", however I've tweaked the template to say "people" rather than "supporters". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Also don't breach WP:CANVASSING, diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support or at least rethink. You could perhaps make a sidebar if there were a series of articles on the subject. Having this as a navbox on the Independent is ridiculous, and reeks of WP:SOAPBOX. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC).
The Independent? It's not a navbox on the Independent. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - there should be one navbox for groups/campaigns supporting and opposing British exit from the European Union. I'm not sure if something along those lines exists? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
{{Brexit}}? --woodensuperman 13:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The 'Calls for a second vote' section seems to cover a lot of the Navbox, so maybe it is redundant? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The {{Brexit}} template, 'Calls for a second vote' section does not include the people (it would be WP:CENSOR to exclude them) and is facing calls to be reduced in size Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Splitting Withdrawal Section rather than expanded. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing remotely WP:CENSORED about excluding the people. It's WP:UNDUE to include them, and plastering the navbox on all these individuals' pages is borderline WP:SOAPBOX. So yes, as Jonpatterns suggests, this navbox is redundant (and pretty poorly thought out). --woodensuperman 14:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
{{Brexit}} isn't even a navbox. Why would you compare them at all? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
A sidebar is still a navigation template. You don't need both performing the same function. --woodensuperman 14:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually we do. Regularly. We don't need any of them, as users can type in URLs directly, from memory. But we find these additional navigational gadgets to be useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The inclusion of people in the example navboxes given is problematic as inclusion can be selective and subjective and should be left for a category. How are the people at {{Feminism}} selected? But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. --woodensuperman 09:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Didn't you say - A sidebar is still a navigation template. You don't need both performing the same function. I was responding to that. If you've now decided it has nothing to do with the issue at hand then okay. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per WP:SOAPBOX. A bunch of peripherally related articles which don't need a navbox like this, when other templates already exist. --RaviC (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
People's Vote is a notable topic of its own. Which "other templates" exist that group the same articles? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep this may be stupid, but it's the type of stupid that's generally acceptable in navbox form; merging it with a wider Brexit navbox would not be an improvement. I agree that generic supporters shouldn't be listed unless they're founders or are otherwise important to the group, but that's a content dispute. I don't know whether "Support" means that they support keeping the box, or support deletion; the closer will need to ignore the bolded votes here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The concerns raised here are of a serious nature – relating to article balance and quality, rather than merely the template's usability or function. However, the response so far has been minimal (and what response there is was divided).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AGK [•] 18:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I can only see one other editor agreeing with the OP. Am I missing something? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @The Vintage Feminist: I think you are missing something. The participating editors were split almost 50/50 between keeping and deleting. AGK [•] 14:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Not to mention that of those who are in favour of keeping the navbox, the majority also favour stripping out all but the "founders". --woodensuperman 15:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are no "founders" it is a GCG (grassroots coordinating group) with 9 member organisations listed in the template, each of the member organisations has different founders or they are collectives. those who are in favour of keeping the navbox, the majority also favour stripping out all but the "founders" - how many is that? The first 2 comments oppose getting rid of the nav box & oppose the heavy-handed blanking & deleting the template from other articles with the argument being well now I've completely butchered it (pre-discussion), we may as well get rid of the rest. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, if there are no founders, then none of the people belong for the reasons stated above. This gives additional weight to my original nomination, especially as the majority of the organisations are redirects or unlinked text. --woodensuperman 07:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
????? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
If there are no founders, then it is WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX to include the navbox at the bottom of the articles for all the supporters. Look how out of place it is on Andy Parsons or Tony Robinson. Of the nine organisations listed, only four have articles, and we shouldn't have unlinked text in navboxes. --woodensuperman 12:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Eye of the beholder I guess. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
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).

Template:Women's football in Portugal[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This template doesn't add anything to Template:Football in Portugal which is also present on the same pages of this. A.Caseiro (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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).

Template:Infobox officeholder/party[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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).

Template:ZSpace[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Unused (I orphaned the only transclusion) to a rarely used website (I only found one other article linking to it by other means). If the point is to keep a large amount of links up to date it fails both tasks because there aren't many and both the domain and the wikilink are on different topics than they were in 2011. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused and generally unnecessary. --Izno (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
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).

Template:Strong oppose[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. This discussion will be closed early as there is unanimous consensus that Template:Strong oppose should be deleted. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

!vote symbols are against consensus. {{Oppose}}, {{Support}}, and {{Strong support}} have been repeatedly deleted and are indeed all salted (please see deletion logs). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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).

Template:Infobox Thai term[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this template is a proper use of the infobox format. It's a derivative of Template:Infobox Chinese, but unlike the parent template, which is used to show local variants of a shared-etymology word, this template only accepts a Thai spelling and its RTGS transcription, information which should already be presented in the first sentence of an article. As such it doesn't provide any benefit, and would potentially add to a page's infobox clutter. Paul_012 (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as it's essentially an almost parameter-less infobox. —Mythdon 09:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, as it's useless. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
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).

Australian television series by genre templates[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Similar to this previous discussion in June 2018, as networks have their own navboxes, and it's unnecessary to have genre-based navbox templates for a nationality; this is better suited to category navigation. Allied45 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. —Mythdon 09:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
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).

Kansas TV station templates[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 October 8. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

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).