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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template is redundant because the Pan American Games template lists the same information. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, navbox creep. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main purpose of a navbox is not to give information but to give navigation. ((Pan American Games host cities)) links between the host cities and is only used on those (although it also links the year to the Games edition). ((Pan American Games)) links between various articles about the Games and is only used on those articles. It happens to also mention the host city in the link to that edition of the Games, but the city isn't linked and could be omitted, for example if the navbox grows like ((Olympic Games)) versus ((Olympic Summer Games Host Cities)). No article transcludes both templates so there is no redundancy in the articles. If we should change something then it is to merge the two templates but I think the city articles are better served by a navbox which explains its presence by saying "host cities" in the heading, and doesn't have additional links to Games articles like sports and medal tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Prime Hunter and I don't see a problem with Navigation Box Creep. I'm also concerned that when the navigation box gets deleted that it won't be replaced with the other box that is retained and therefore it will be more difficult to navigate between pages. A similar issue happened with the Category:LGBT Olympians which was deleted, but not every LGBT Olympian has been added to the List that was created.--MorrisIV (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with @PrimeHunter: and @MorrisIV: and I don't see a problem with Navigation Box Creep that. @Sportsfan 1234: I'm also say you won't delete this template. Thanks! Boyconga278 (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Navbox creep. Per Prime Hunter's comment above, yes, I probably would vote to delete most of the other listed navboxes for games hosts (specifically excluding those for the Olympics), because I do not believe that having hosted the All-Africa Games, European Games, Paralympic Games, Youth Olympic Games, and World Games is a defining characteristic of those cities. Readers are highly unlikely to be jumping from host city to host city via these navboxes, and may already easily navigate among host cities via lists and the Pan American Games articles themselves. Ironically, this Pan Am Games hosts navbox is one of the closer calls, IMO. A navbox for the host cities of the World Games? Epic fail. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2015 (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:Bugoy Drilon
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.
delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2015 (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.
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. This is already on a non-standard timetable, so let's just put this to bed. There is consensus to keep this template and very little likelihood of evolution into a delete consensus within the next few days. Further discussion about its style, or about developing alternatives to enclose the more common sister links templates, can happen elsewhere. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A mere 1,477 transclusions in 4.8 million articles, in over four years, show that this template has failed to gain traction with the community; and that its presentation is thus non-standard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how the 1.5K articles where this is used are harmed by this template, or how a significant portion of the other 4.8 millions would not be improved by it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vast majority of Wikipedia's articles are also Stub and Start class, meaning most articles aren't going to be developed enough to use it. Pretty much all of the FAs I've written use it, meaning it has survived FAC on numerous occasions without any problems. It doesn't violate any policies, so why bother deleting it? Anyway, the template was based on a similar design from frWiki, so it's not completely non-standard. And speaking of non-standard, all the other templates for mentioning Wikiprojects, Portals, etc. typically get placed all over articles in non-standard ways. Some projects put them in infoboxes, while other editors put them in External links or See also or even in the References. In fact, I created this template so that people could standardize. Favoring another style of presentation isn't a reason to delete a template you don't like. – Maky« talk » 16:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may have created this template so that people could standardise - and thank you for your contribution - but that effort has clearly failed. FA has no mandate to decide on such matters, and no interest in doing so (besides, most FACs do not use this template). Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making a point that most FACs don't use this template is also a strawman. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an "unofficial guidance essay", not a policy or even a guideline. Furthermore, it clearly states that it was written to help resolve notability issues for articles, not templates. As for this template's "failure", that is entirely your opinion. I agree with the anonymous IP editor that 1000 transclusions is significant, especially since I've only used it on mostly my best developed articles and haven't gone around adding to articles to help popularize it. I think it's use is spreading quite well, and will probably continue to do so with time. Rather than trying to stop its spread by deleting it, could you try using it and help standardize how projects, books, and portals are presented on Wikipedia. If standardization is truly your goal, that would make more sense. – Maky« talk » 19:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense to do so if this template were the best, most standard and community-adopted way to do so. It is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep over 1000 transclusions, clearly this has favor with editors. If every article had to have every template then all templates would need to be deleted for not being used by atleast 1 million articles -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, that's hardly a strawman argument. You're trying to argue that this template hasn't reached some magical threshold for widespread use. Is there a policy or guideline that defines how widely used a template must be after a certain period of time in order to be kept? And as for those ~1500 transclusions, have you looked at the list? These aren't trivial articles. Just skimming over the list, there are very important articles about well-known elements, geographic locations, important political figures, and other notable figures. – Maky« talk » 19:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed significant articles. All the more reason to remove this non-standard, ill-conceived template from them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the argument used for deletion, so it is a strawman, it is the nominator's (your) strawman, not mine. If you call your own deletion argument a strawman, you should withdraw your own deletion nomination. Your argument is that there are millions of articles and this doesn't appear on millions of articles. That means all templates should be deleted, because they don't appear on millions of articles. You made no reasoning as to why this particular template should appear on millions of articles, since templates should not appear on all articles, anything that needed to do that should be built into Wikimedia itself. Templates should only be used discriminately, anything that apples to every page should be part of the software. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be under the delusion that I have claimed that "every article has to have every template". You are mistaken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument for deletion only works in the case of having every template appear on every article, otherwise there is no rationale left to your deletion nomination. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning in the deletion rationale has no bearing since it is irrelevant how many articles exist on Wikipedia, so the only way that statistic matters is if all templates are used on every article, otherwise, you have no deletion rationale, since no template is expected on every article. Indeed if any template were to appear on every article it would mean that MediaWiki is deficient, and that WikiMedia to install additoinal extensions. So, your deletion rationale is missing. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it adds value and use it frequently MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - enormous and horribly crafted. If there are issues with our interwiki templates, do attempt to address them through collegial collaboration; do not simply fork existing templates to alter their style. Alakzi (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neat and combines the functions of several different templates, e.g. ((Portal))/((Portal bar)), ((Commons)), ((Wikiquote)), ((Wikisource)), etc., etc. These other templates are boxes of varying sizes; including several of them in an External links or See also section adds to the visual clutter in articles and, if the boxes are aligned to the right, often creates white space (as at A Midsummer Night's Dream#External links). I can't comment on the code but visually ((Subject bar)) is the most elegant solution to including Books, Portals, other Wikimedia projects, etc., in one place. Ham II (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping to make my point. ((Portal)) has 5,789,637 transclusions. ((Portal bar)) = 17,492. ((Commons)) = 623,126. ((Wikiquote)) = 22,094. ((Wikisource)) = 11,404. It's clear to the proverbial blind man on a galloping horse which templates the community prefers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that it's underused compared to those other templates, but wouldn't one template with all those functions really be a better standard than multiple boxes? It often looks messy when there are several of them to a page. Not intending any ill will, Ham II (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the rationale of User:Ham II. A functional template that provides opportunities to neatly combine various links. Its deletion won't improve the encyclopedia, and would simply limit options. North America1000 06:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 12:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per North America 1000's rationale above. I'm not in love with the design of this template, but it apparently serves a purpose on pages that have multiple wikibook, portal, Commons, and other Wikimedia links. A stronger rationale for deletion is required. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this relisted on 1 July? Alakzi (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
guessing because that was the last day with unclosed discussions? Frietjes (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, horrible design. we shouldn't keep a poorly designed template when there are better alternatives. for example, create a wrapper like ((multiple issues)) which can be used to wrap ((portal bar)), ((commons)), ((wikiquote)), ... to combine them into one box. this is not the solution. Frietjes (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: As I noted above, I am not in love with the design of this template, but I don't believe that is a sound "delete" rationale here. I think the remedy you seek may be a template talk page discussion to improve its design. A quick review of the articles where it is presently being used (e.g., Argon) show that is has useful organizational purposes for end-of-article links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the subject bar in that article dwarfs the surrounding content. it would look better if we replaced the portal bar with the standard ((portal)), ((wikibooks)), ((sister project links)), ... Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Why has this been relisted after closure? There was a very clear consensus to keep. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must be confusing consensus with the will of the many. Alakzi (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the closing/relisting administrator's edit summary: "Relisted per request over email": [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply wanting to delete something because it rivals a template you prefer is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia evolves by being bold and trying new things. As a regular contributor at FAC, I've both watched and participated in the changing of standards that has resulted in significantly improved featured articles. The norm was to do things one way, a minority would stand up and challenge the norm, and eventually practices changed. The handling of portals, projects, books, etc. with the old system is a mess and horribly unprofessional. Multiple floating boxes disrupt the flow of text, while bars (like the nav templates) help organize relevant links in a consistent, non-disruptive fashion. Maybe this template is badly designed... I don't see it, and if so, I would love to see someone design an alternative. Either way, the plethora of floating boxes are the templates that need to go. This constant fight to delete this template needs to end. This attempt to force this deletion through email and the non-disclosure of what was said calls into question the character of those involved. (Btw, why is an admin who's marked as retired re-opening this closed discussion? See his talk page.) – Maky« talk » 16:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not aware of any policy stating that 1400 transclusions is not enough. In my opinion, being used 1000 times indicates that this template is used more than enough to warrant keeping. WP:ANDYDOESN'TLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The template is presently transcluded on 2,202 pages (see Template transclusion count), which I find to be significant, particularly because Template:Subject bar requires more work to publish than a simple copying and pasting of its contents. North America1000 19:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see any compelling policy-based reason being presented to delete this template. Lankiveil(speak to me) 12:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I assume that I don't need to explain that we don't need a policy-based reason to delete a template to an admin. Alakzi (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest we use as a basis for making decisions then? The template doesn't fall afoul of anything listed at WP:TFD#REASONS, and neither is there a compelling enough reason to invoke "ignore all rules" and delete it anyway. Lankiveil(speak to me) 13:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The deletion rationale stands on its own merits; we do not need to invoke WP:IAR to delete a template for any non-policy-based reason. Per WP:TFD#REASONS, "templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here". You'll often see navboxes deleted for having too few links, for instance. If there is no consensus to delete a template, then there is simply no consensus. Alakzi (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those WP:TFD#REASONS apply to this template. The deletion rationale may sand on its own merits in attempting to get a consensus despite not falling afoul any of the listed reasons, but Lankiveil is entitled to contribute the discussion to establish such consensus. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When have I ever said otherwise? I was just pointing out that a "the template does not violate any policies" !vote isn't really saying much. Alakzi (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we're to assume that Andy was not incredibly wrong when he nominated and there really were "only" 1,477 transclusions 21 days ago, this means that it has been added to an average of 34 articles a day since then, so the claim that "this template has failed to gain traction with the community" seems wrong. I wasn't aware that this template existed, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. If there are layout issues they can be fixed, so that's not a reason to delete. Nor, as others have stated, is there any policy based reason to delete. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:43, 18 July 2015 (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.