< December 16 December 18 >

December 17

Template:Streets of Buenos Aires, Argentina

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) 13:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on this nomination. The template was tagged for T3 ("substantial duplications of another template") in relation to ((Buenos Aires City landmarks)), but it's definitely not: this template only has the streets, which are one of eight sections of the other, and the criterion is for when one template is a duplication of another template, not when one duplicates a section of another. This template is tiny compared to the other, linking only streets, while the other links pages as disparate as statues, the downtown, the zoo, football stadiums, an airport, and nightclubs. On one hand, it might help to have just one template, but on the other hand, someone might want a tiny template that only links the streets instead of linking all the other kinds of entities. I'd like to see consensus either in favor of deleting this one as an unneeded duplicate or in favor of retaining this because it's useful because of its smaller size. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • My point for opposing speedy deletion is that only actual duplications (not just duplications of purpose, as here) qualify for speedy deletion under this criterion. Of course it's appropriate to delete a duplication-of-purpose template here, as you suggest. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any clue what the criterion says? Duplication, not duplication of functions. If this gets speedy deleted under such a criterion, it will be restored. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days." And as far as substantial duplication goes, every single link in this template is included at ((Buenos Aires City landmarks)), so there is absolutely no point to this one. --woodensuperman 15:46, 19 December 2018 (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).

Template:Simcoe County Roads

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 December 25. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:45, 25 December 2018 (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).

Template:Australasia montane grasslands and shrublands

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) 09:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 transclusion, doesn't seem to provide much. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:48, 17 December 2018 (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).

Template:Did you know nominations/Myrtle Brooke

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; deleted as G6 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a. the editor will be working on this and b. there's enough sourcing to bring this up to DYK regulations. It wasn't ever listed on the nominations page, by the way. Dr Aaij (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2018 (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).

Template:AFC level3 leagues

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; possibly a fork of Template:AFC third leagues Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2018 (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).

Template:Medal "For Courage"

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 December 25. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:06, 25 December 2018 (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).

Template:Skinny Lister

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing to navigate! --woodensuperman 15:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So write something. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Are you actually being serious??? Wow!!! This is a complete misunderstanding of the entire purpose of a navbox. --woodensuperman 15:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be completely misunderstanding the purpose of a wiki. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has a link now to one of their albums.Londonclanger (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sufficient to provide useful navigation, as articles are already linked. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 16:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Has no links" Really? No. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2018 (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).

Template:Snooker Top 16 2011/12

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) 13:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Along with - Category:Snooker rankings navigational boxes has

All for old revisions of the top 16 ranked players in Snooker. A conversation at the WikiProject suggested these were not needed. We have articles for old revisions of rankings, but the categories don't have much use.

They do exist on pages, however, these are mostly irrelevent, and add nothing to the pages they are on. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 December 2018 (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).

Template:Infobox television

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 Do not merge. Early close because there is mainly WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox television season; and Template:Infobox television episode; into Template:Infobox television. Largely overlapping templates (see table in collapsed section, below); it would be beneficial if many of the parameters that are not currently shared were to be. Merging the templates has all of the advantages listed at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation; especially reducing the maintenance overhead, and the cognitive burden on editors.

Comparison of parameters
Parameter Infobox television Infobox television season Infobox television episode
airdate No No Yes
alt Yes Yes Yes
audio_format Yes No No
awards No No Yes
based_on Yes No Yes
bgcolor No Yes No
bgcolour No Yes No
budget Yes No No
camera Yes No No
caption Yes Yes Yes
celebrity_winner No Yes No
channel Yes No No
cinematography Yes No No
company Yes No No
composer Yes No No
country Yes Yes No
creative_director Yes No No
creator Yes No No
cust_data_1 No Yes No
cust_label_1 No Yes No
developer Yes No No
director Yes No Yes
distributor Yes No No
editor Yes No Yes
endtheme Yes No No
episode No No Yes
episode_list No Yes Yes
executive_producer Yes No No
film_end No Yes No
film_start No Yes No
first_aired Yes Yes No
first_run Yes No No
followed_by Yes No No
genre Yes No No
guests No No Yes
guests_title No No Yes
headercolor No Yes No
headercolour No Yes No
host Yes No No
image Yes Yes Yes
image_alt Yes Yes No
image_size

imagesize

Yes Yes Yes
image_upright Yes Yes No
italic_title Yes Yes No
judges Yes No No
language Yes No No
last_aired Yes Yes No
length No No Yes
list_episodes Yes No No
location Yes No No
module No Yes Yes
module1 No Yes No
multi_episodes No No Yes
music Yes No Yes
name Yes No No
narrated Yes No No
narrator No No Yes
native_name Yes No No
network Yes Yes No
news_editor Yes No No
next No No Yes
next_name No Yes No
next_season No Yes No
next_series No Yes No
not_dab No No Yes
num_episodes Yes Yes No
num_seasons Yes No No
num_series Yes No No
num_stories No Yes No
opentheme Yes No No
photographer No No Yes
picture_format Yes No No
pre_season_qualifier No Yes No
preceded_by Yes No No
presenter Yes No Yes
prev No No Yes
prev_name No Yes No
prev_season No Yes No
prev_series No Yes No
producer Yes No Yes
production No No Yes
production_website Yes No No
production_website_title Yes No No
professional_winner No Yes No
related Yes No No
release_date No No Yes
released Yes Yes No
RNext No No Yes
RPrev No No Yes
RTitle No No Yes
runtime Yes No Yes
screenplay Yes No No
season No No Yes
season_article No No Yes
season_name No Yes No
season_number No Yes No
season_qualifier No Yes No
season_type No Yes No
series No No Yes
series_no No No Yes
show_name Yes Yes No
show_name_2 Yes No No
starring Yes Yes No
story Yes No Yes
studio Yes No No
teleplay No No Yes
theme_music_composer Yes No No
title No No Yes
voices Yes No No
website Yes Yes No
website_title Yes No No
writer Yes No Yes

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]
  • The problem a lot of people use seasons and episode infoboxes for obvious reasons and there's a lot pages that has those templates. It is beneficial that we keep season and episode infoboxes separate from infobox television. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is certainly true. We don't want every field to be available in all 60,000 articles that use these infoboxes. What we would end up seeing is a duplication of infoboxes across all articles relevant to a particular series. TV programs are not like most other topics. They can have many hundreds of episode and season articles and using the same infobox for each one would be playing with fire. The Simpsons, for example, has about 650 episode and season articles. You'd end up with most of these including information that just serves to unnecessarily bloat the infobox. We see this already, mainly with Asian TV programs, where somebody has mistakenly used infobox television in a season article. It's an insane idea to use the one infobox for all. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:43, 20 December 2018 (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).
More