Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 23



Genus navboxes

 * 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. Nomination unopposed for over a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The above list of plant genus navboxes duplicate their respective genus categories, adding no additional links or navigation benefit that the category does not already offer. This is not true of all genus navboxes, just these particular ones. Many of them are ridiculously small and too narrow, e.g. Prunus sect. Armeniaca, while others are composed of dozens of species of a large genus and are too impractical to list all the species once articles are created, e.g. Rubus. Some, such as Ranunculaceae genera have the same problems as the genus templates in that it has a large number of genera and is redundant not only to the category but also to the list at Ranunculaceae. Rkitko (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * comment: note that if any of these (or other such navboxes) are kept, then lists such as "Photinia anlungensis • Photinia beckii • Photinia berberidifolia • Photinia bodinieri" sould be rendered as "Photinia anlungensis • P. beckii • P. berberidifolia • P. bodinieri" (italicised; genus abbreviated after first instance). Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. And I'd be willing to do that if consensus is to keep. I already applied the correct formatting to the ones I didn't nominate. Rkitko (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pro-life movement

 * 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 Userfy, for now. There are valid concerns about the template begin too American-centric, and the criteria used for determining which links should be include or removed. There are are also valid arguments made that categories suffice, and that a navigation box is not needed (e.g., for people where being a member of the pro-life movement may not be a strong defining trait, but one of many traits of the individual). I suggest discussion can continue, and that this template is moved to userspace (or project space) for the time being. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Navigation template fails several tests offered at WP:CLN: There is no article on the topic of the template, the topics do not refer to each other to a reasonable extent, and the subject of the template is not mentioned in each article. This is an American point-of-view navigation template based on the pro-life article which is global in scope, not just American, and appears to be another instance of political promotion from User:Lionelt, who has another template up for discussion. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This nav box is literally the essence of small, well-defined group of articles (from CLN). Passes CLN #1, and #2. Regarding #4, in fact the article content has migrated from Pro-life per se and for all intents and purposes is now "Pro-life movement." This title anticipates that rename. As I type there's a growing sentiment to rename it to just that on the talk page. Regarding #3, this test is a little ambiguous because of the "to a reasonable extent" clause. Regarding the American point of view, obviously the nav box will expand to other nations as more editors get involved. I mean, the navbox was only created four minutes ago. Give me a break. It appears the political promotion, or suppression, may be on the part of the nominator. Lionel (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your nav template is American in focus but the article pro-life is global in focus; they are not the same thing. This is a fatal flaw in the nav template. You refer to a "growing sentiment" to rename, but I think you are unrealistically optimistic and too promotional for your position, pulling the trigger too soon. Anyway, a rename will not change the American vs. International focus problem. The Richard Land article does not currently identify him with any pro-life movement. The various organizations, people, and tactics articles do not refer to each other to a reasonable extent. This is not a cohesive collection of topics. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rows for other regions could be easily added. I don't undersyand your aversion to improving and expanding content here. Lionel (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Navigation templates are not for expanding, they are for documenting the existing layout of Wikipedia articles. There is no article called American pro-life movement which is the whole focus of this template. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you would delete the nav box below because there is no Nationalism and fascism in Sweden? (You realize there are hundreds of nav boxes w/out matching articles) Lionel (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this has the potential to be a useful navbox, but I think it should be removed from all articles pending a discussion of its contents. Right now, content is arbitrary and leaves out important elements. For example: must opposition to abortion be a group or person's primary goal and/or claim to notability? how influential and/or active must the group or person be? (would the Roman Catholic Church belong? It certainly is more influential and makes abortion more of a focus than the FRI does, and the FRI is on the navbox.) Will the creator of this template attempt to keep out mentions of anti-abortion violence, the Army of God, Eric Robert Rudolph? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's reasonable of you, Ros.Lionel (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons outlined by the nominator, particular it's US centric focus. There is scope for a template of this kind, but it needs to be rethought. Lovetinkle (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. US-centric.  Near infinite potential inclusions.  Focus is incredibly recent.  Lila Rose but not Operation Rescue?  Gamaliel (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The nav box is ripe for expansion. Lionel (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This nav box is what 10 min old. View the nav box like a stub: as people come along they'll improve and expand it. In the mean time, it aids navigation, and the topics are closely related. Lionel (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The creator's own edit summaries make it clear he considers the matter a joke, and I of course have no sense of humor. Plus per nom and all the above. PhGustaf (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with describing a nav box as "incredible"? Especially when it's as useful as this one. You know, your response here cracked me up. That was a good one. I wonder though if this is a lightning strike. Lionel (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Beats me. I have no sense of humor. PhGustaf (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes CLN as far as I can tell. It would be very useful to connect all the various pro-life articles. I'll add more to it when I can. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it pass CLN when the contained articles do not refer to each other to any reasonable degree? How can it pass CLN when the topic is about the American pro-life movement but there is no such article? Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you fixated on one of four guidelines? (namely #3) Which is ambiguous at best. You mean to tell me of the thousands of nav boxes, every article refers to each other? Your bar is high: have you TfDed any non-conservatism-related nav boxes?Lionel (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Because it is a guideline. 2) I have not checked the thousands. 3) Yes. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no Nationalism and fascism in Sweden, and the articles in Neoliberalism don't refer to each other. The guidelines in WP:CLN should not be used to arbitrarily delete nav boxes. Lionel (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasonable start at a topic-specific navbox. Objections seem to be primarily WP:IDONTLIKEIT, focusing on narrow interpretations of guidelines that don't actually reflect consensus on how such navboxes are actually used. If the focus is too U.S.-centric, then a better way to deal with this would be to rename it, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Jclemens-may be very useful, rename or edit if needed.Lyricmac (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete if this template were not US-centric it would be the size of an entire article, as it is US specific, it's POV. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can the United States of America be POV?????? Lionel (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it not be? Are you saying that the USA == entire world? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not appropriate in its current state. It is US-centric and the included organizations seem pretty arbitrary. It smacks of recentism to include Lila Rose and not Norma McCorvey, for instance.  Norma McCorvey is a far more important topic when discussing the pro-life movement than Lila Rose is.  And Pat Robertson?  Sure, he's pro-life, but it's not something he focuses on any more than any other Christian issue.  However, these are solvable problems.  I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with a nav template - the selection of articles on it just needs a little help. --B (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when do we delete nav boxes because they are "US-centric"? Would you care to hazard a guess as to how many US-centric nav boxes we have? Lionel (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Too early and overly promotional. I might have been more convinced of the template's usefulness above&beyond promotion of conservative causes if the creator had also submitted a similar template for Pro-choice movement. Especially agree with nominator's point about "documenting the existing layout" which this template does not accomplish. - PrBeacon (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you disaprove of editors promoting wikiprojects? Or only those with which you are ideologically opposed?Lionel (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am opposed to is POV pushing and especially any methods which editors use to pursue that push. So entrenched you are in ideological warfare, you think that anyone who disagrees with you is either (1) merely making a personal attack or (2) ideologically 'against' you and thus automatically from your opposition. - PrBeacon (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? We have the article pro-life, the cat category:Pro-life movement. How is creating a pro-life movement nav box POV pushing? In actuality it is the natural progression. There are certainly enough articles to suggest that a nav box would be beneficial. Is the creator of the cat and those who populate it also POV pushing? Lionel (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, 65.93.12.101. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - existing categories handle this sufficiently, and are much less selective about what they list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep looks to be a genuinely useful set of links about the topic that one might be interested in. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be fairly useful. - Haymaker (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Track listing/testcases3

 * 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) 13:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This sandbox is unused since June 2010, because there is already another one at Template:Track listing/sandbox mabdul 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, in fact speedy as duplication. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: declined by Lifebaka. mabdul 14:35, 25 March 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Las Vegas cast

 * 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest deleting this template as unnecessary. It exactly duplicates the cast list in the lead article Las Vegas (TV series) and all of the articles linked by the template are extensively interlinked. Many actors star in multiple TV series and having cast templates for all of them would lead to cluttering articles with stacked up redundancies. Brig Anderson (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NENAN. Reh  man  11:46, 31 March 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hider

 * 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) 03:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this template is reduntant as there are better templates that can provide its functionality - navbox and hidden. DixonD (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Should I update all "links here" pages? --ilgiz (talk)
 * Delete per MOS:COLLAPSE. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Hider is a duplication of more than one of the existing collapse templates and Oq fails WP:COLLAPSE. For the author, I suggest using for the same functionality without hiding content. — Bility (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Novus
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense infobox template intended for something made up in school one day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense infobox template intended for something made up in school one day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:47, 24 March 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Willow Smith
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this navbox was created in good faith and with good intentions, but I do not believe it is necessary. Currently, of this template's 10 transclusions, four are to articles about films in which she has acted or provided a voice, which, in my view, adds the perception that she has had a greater or more important role in such productions than the other actors and actresses who have had considerably larger roles than her. Will Smith's navbox isn't even used on the articles of movies he has starred in, nor are his individual film roles even listed in it. Three more transclusions are to relatives' articles: Father Will Smith, mother Jada Pinkett Smith, and brother Jaden Smith. Lots of celebrities have children, but is putting the child's navbox on parents' articles really necessary? With information already accessible on Willow Smith's own article, a navbox bearing her name is not particularly useful for this young singer/actress at this time. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. When Elizabeth Taylor gets a navbox, we can revisit the possibility of Willow Smith getting one. Gamaliel (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the articles being too loosely related. — Bility (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be combined with a template for Jaden Smith, as a 'Will Smith's children' template? Or combined with the Will Smith navbox?--Technobliterator (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.