Template talk:Current U.S. senators/TFD Vote Archive

Archive of discussion to delete Template:Current U.S. Senators, April 2005 --DuKot 04:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hideous, gigantic, unnecessary, no need for box because it's not a series organized logically, duplicates category, Neutralitytalk 05:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It IS organized logically. It is organized by states in alphabetical order. Very useful in navigating between the pages of current U.S Senators. --DuKot 05:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Size should not be an issue. Here are some templates which are even bigger Template:US Constitution, Template:India topics --DuKot 05:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Those are much more appealling to the eye and are used on large articles or as parts of Wikiprojects. This COULD have potential, but is not a useful navigation aide right now because it is basically a large lump of text. --tomf688 (talk) 05:50, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The template could be beautified, but is a useful one. --Chakravyuh 06:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep even though it is really ugly. --Vik Reykja ♬ 07:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless
 * It is renamed with two periods in the U.S. abbreviation rather than "Current U.S Senators"
 * At least four spaces are removed in each entry and the party and state designations closed up with no additional spaces inside the parentheses symbols). It is now especially ugly in part because of the line breaks on those useless parentheses spaces which were not even made nonbreaking.
 * Links to the parties and the states are removed as they are of little utility, to provide a visual separation between the names
 * With that, the bullets might be unnecessary as well
 * It wouldn't be so bad as
 * Shelby (R-AL) • Sessions (R-AL) • Stevens (R-AK) • Murkowski (R-AK) • McCain (R-AZ) • Kyl (R-AZ) • Lincoln (D-AR) • Pryor (D-AR) •
 * Gene Nygaard 07:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. --Vik Reykja ♬ 08:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest removing all parentheses as well. Gene Nygaard 07:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to a rather different version; it's a bit bigger, but makes much more sense visually; feel free to toy with it. The colors may also stand improvement.--Pharos 08:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh my! I can even stand to look at that.  Since we updated it at almost the same time, I've put my version in over it.  Everyone, please look at the history for Pharos' version --Vik Reykja ♬ 08:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh! You have no taste!  It's a beautiful dream, just gotta work ot the kinks... (anyway, its actually good for navigation)--Pharos 08:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to change this because I'm a n00b, Vikreykja, but the postal code for Delaware is definitely DE. Might want to fix that. christopherschuller 09:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neeeeever mind; I'm an idiot. Did it myself. christopherschuller 09:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No blue checkerboard, and even with the spaces and links removed the line variation still is pretty big. How about just an unlinked boldface state two-letter abbreviation, followed by two surname links with no party designation, then one bullet to separate each state?  Categories and lists can handle anything else someone might want.  Gene Nygaard 09:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This page should be reserved for voting. I've added some comments to the template's talk page. --Vik Reykja ♬ 09:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, comments belong here too: as the tfd template tells us, "Please see its entry on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion for comments and voting." Gene Nygaard 18:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Massive ugliness (in just about all the variations) and no demonstrated necessity for a nav-template to browse by senators--a list or category is more than sufficient IMO. older ≠ wiser 14:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep simpler, smaller version (ie no gaudy boxes). Category:United States Senators is by name, and lists ALL senators--useful to have current senators by state. I like having the state and party abbrevs there, and linked. Niteowlneils 14:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet another reformat; I've attempted to match it to other templates such as Template:USpresidents and have limited it to Last names and state postal abbrevations; check it out. --tomf688 (talk) 16:49, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * tomf688's version is the least obtrusive so far. Though I'm still not convinced of the necessity for such a beast as this, I could live with this version. There's no need to include party affiliation or link the state abbreviations -- a list is a far better place to spell out such details than a navbox. older ≠ wiser 16:57, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm removing my "delete" vote because I now feel this temp has potential. I feel it will provide a good way to interlink all the senator's articles and thus open them to more scrutiny by other editors. --tomf688 (talk) 17:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Current version looks much better --Boshtang 18:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing my Delete to a weak Keep, it does look much better now, and I think it has some marginal utility in addition to categories and lists. Gene Nygaard 18:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep It is useful Rogerd 21:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gamaliel 22:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very useful template, and I'm at a loss why anyone would want to delete it. As with almost any template however, its aesthetics could be worked on. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 23:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks you to everyone who made the template look better. Zzyzx11 00:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would MUCH rather see information about the state's congressional delegation in the places this template appears than a complete listing of the other members of the Senate, i.e. I'd replace this with a template per state with the state's current congressional delegation.  Complete list of US Senators is easily available elsewhere (List of United States Senators);  there should be a link to this page from the article about each senator (perhaps in the "delegation by state" template I'm proposing). -- Rick Block 00:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Rick: Are you referring to something like what I did in this template for Maryland a while ago? -- tomf688 (talk) 01:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, although my preference would be a little more compact (perhaps User:Rick_Block/sandbox). -- Rick Block 02:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems imbalanced IMO. -- tomf688 (talk) 03:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've created a version for Colorado, see Template:CO-FedRep. These could be built from a meta-template, but I guess we shouldn't go there.  -- Rick Block 04:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not have both this template and the one you're describing? Both would be very useful navigation tools. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 15:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're asking why NOT have both, my reasoning is that including both (presumably at the bottom) on every page for a current U.S. Senator exceeds my tolerance for visual clutter. I hesitate to mention it lest someone actually do it, but we could have a template with all 435 members of the U.S. House.  I hope this would exceed everyone's tolerance for visual clutter.  I've updated the CO-FedRep template to include an explicit link to the lists of all senators and all representatives.  Does this version address the senator to senator navigational need?  Compare, for example, Wayne Allard and Mark Udall. -- Rick Block 18:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is one of those rare cases where I say that the "visual clutter" is ok, as the information conveyed is more valuable than the eyesore it creates. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 10:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful (so long as it's up-to-date)--Comrade Nick @ )---^--  09:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Sina 11:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a very useful template. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  21:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I was about to change my vote to keep, but someone added absolutely hideous colors to the template. If this template is simply going to end up looking like some warped psychedelic eyesore it should be deleted post-haste. older ≠ wiser 00:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already voted, but I have a question for all you keepers: if the presumed use of this template is to allow traversal from one senator to another, how is a link on each senator's page to list of United States Senators not sufficient? Yes, it's two clicks rather than one, but isn't the inclusion of much more information content (party, when elected, seat expiration, yada yada yada) worth the extra click?  My point is, IMO, there isn't a reasonable way to make this template do everything everyone wants; hence, we should delete it. -- Rick Block 00:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit up in the air; I think the template has potential, but perhaps a template similiar to Template:MD-FedRep on each page might be better afterall (although for larger states, might have to do something else for representatives). -- tomf688 (talk) 01:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Using the Colorado specific template, navigating from Wayne Allard to the other Colorado Senator or to any other member of Colorado's U.S. House delegation is one click. Navigating to any other Senator or any other U.S. Representative is two clicks.  I honor and respect whoever originally came up with the senator template, but it is the nature of wikipedia to improve on others ideas.  Is this not an improvement?  -- Rick Block 04:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep Very useful in navigating between the pages of current senators. We have to make sure that the template is updated whenever an existing senator leaves office and a new senator is appointed or elected. Some kind of color scheme would be better than putting a D and R next the name of each senator. --SpitFlame 08:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Repeats info already on List of United States Senators but presents it better. The template's presentation would be well placed at the front of the List of US Senators article.  The state specific template is far better and possibly more useful in that these critters are most responsive to their own constituents. Flawiki 16:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I saw this template in use today for the first time, and I thought it was a great navigational aid. Sjakkalle 09:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete it in it's current version (see below) -- User:Docu
 * I just realized that it looks better in the usual template, than in Cologne Blue (the font-size doesn't work there). A condensed version might be fine, but in it's present form it's too large. On the other hand, there is already a sequence footer for every current senator. -- User:Docu
 * Abstain. It's still quite large for a footer template, but now that the text size has been fixed, it's more reasonable (I removed it to show those who don't use the standard skin the result). It's still close if not beyond the limit. -- User:Docu


 * Keep But I dont see any reason why there should be both color coding and party names in brackets. --WikiRocks 03:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails second and third criteria at Categories%2C_lists%2C_and_series_boxes. --Jiang 10:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Very useful. The category is not enough. You will have to use the back button or use two clicks to navigate through various senator pages. Extremely useful navigatonal aid. --Leslie123 18:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep of course. --DuluthRocker 07:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Aris Katsaris 16:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see no reason to remove this. The template is not that big. -- Will
 * Keep, i have no problem with this template. Rhobite 04:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I love it. -- Seth Ilys 13:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)