Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 28



Template:Bernard Tomic navbox

 * 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) 22:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bernard Tomic navbox

Completely unnecessary. The only bluelinks are redirects to the main article. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * delete. Not enough links for a viable navbox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * delete per above extra 999  ( talk ) 06:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; very few blue links - WP:NENAN.  Gongshow  Talk 00:27, 2 May 2012 (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.

National Parks of ...

 * 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. Speedy delete the first, keep the others due to withdrawal. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * National Parks of Swaziland
 * National Parks of Somalia
 * National Parks of Togo
 * National Parks of Tunisia

Only navigation is to National Park -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Tunisia, since I've now added the links, delete the rest.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait Why delete the rest when I've also added the links?? Swaziliand only has one national park, the rest reserves and already has a template. Keep all except Swaziland.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, nominations for the others now withdrawn. Just Swaziland left. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (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:Footer Movies Dhanush

 * 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) 22:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Footer Movies Dhanush

Per previous consensus that actors should not have navigation templates for every film they've been in.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * delete, we have navboxes for directors, not actors. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2012 (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:Welcomeg

 * 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 it, but suggest simplifying it. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcomeg

This is perhaps an unusually controversial TFD nomination for me, but here goes. We have a newbie saying that this welcome template is way too overwhelming for them. I'm sure he is not the only one; I bet that many newbies who received this welcome template felt intimidated and overwhelmed upon seeing it.

The template does indeed present a comprehensive list of potentially useful links; however, it goes into far more detail than a new user is likely to want or need. While policies such as the image use policy and information pages like Categorization are undeniably useful, they are not something that any old newbie needs to be presented with on their talk page after their first few edits. It is better to separately post such links to newbies when it is observed that (for some reason) they require more information relating to these specific areas.

I note that this template has been popular among some Wikipedians for many years, apparently because of its colorful appearance and comprehensiveness. It may indeed be colorful, but its sheer size and complexity counters its aesthetic benefit and limits its potential to really make the user feel welcome.

I propose that this template be deleted (or at least redirected), and that other welcome templates be used in its place. Basic welcome templates like welcome prioritise a smaller selection of high-priority links, from which many other policies and useful pages can be accessed. Those editors who prefer using a "prettier" template could use a template like W-graphical or W-screen - they cut down on the link overkill while still looking appealing thanks to their colorful format.

Hopefully, thinking about our welcome templates (like this one) from a newbie's perspective will help us to retain more editors from many different demographic groups. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep. I wish this had been around when I first became an editor. If it is really overwhelming, the change it: start with the short overview and include this as a collapsed section. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Collapsibility has been debated in the past. I can see the attraction of that, but I feel it just adds to the confusing nature of the template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It provides useful information in a way a new user can reference, not just a little bit of information as welcome does, so the user can keep looking at it even when they are no longer that new. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But is that what a welcome template is for? Surely the intention is to make a new user feel welcome here at Wikipedia, and give them a few tips to get going. Once a user is "not that new", they will begin to come across our policy pages and other internal process pages (admittedly, there is no good index-style page from which to access policies) and will most likely have forgotten about their "welcome".
 * That's if this welcome template doesn't turn them off editing in the first place. As I said, a lot of our newer editors are less tech-savvy, and seem to fear the complex detail of templates like this one. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The green box at the top of the template has the simple message. The rest of the box has more useful information. I don't think non-new occassional editors would necessarily know the places to go for help, so the welcome box serves that purpose, without needing them to go hunting for things, and still being useful for more than just the newest people. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the template is kept, then please simplify it! I blame its complexity for screwing up posts by third parties on someone’s talk page (Template talk:welcomeg). If you want to welcome somebody, how about just writing “Welcome; if you want to see a wickedly-formatted list of links, look at the Template:welcomeg page”? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 09:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep - I don't think this is such a bad template that it should be deleted, and some users use it as a handy list of links, so it's worth keeping for that reason. But I agree that it's too complex to be the first thing a newbie to Wikipedia sees, and its use as a welcome template should be discouraged. It should either be made simpler, or renamed to Index of useful links or something like that to better reflect its actual purpose. Robofish (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These impenetrable wads of boilerplate are and always have been useless (if not outright counterproductive), but TfD isn't going to fix that. The nominated template isn't egregiously worse than the norm (if only because they're mostly just as bad as this one). What's really needed is an RfC on the whole welcoming thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - and if possible improve. Wholly support Chris on the RFC required. Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 1 May 2012 (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:State secretariats and legislative assembly buildings in Malaysian states

 * 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) 22:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * State secretariats and legislative assembly buildings in Malaysian states

This template has not been used anywhere else and it is a duplicate of Template:Malaysian state secretariat buildings Cerevisae (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * delete. Unused and redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:09, 29 April 2012 (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:Dewan Undangan Negeri

 * 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 <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dewan Undangan Negeri

This template has not been used anywhere else and it is a duplicate of Template:Malaysian state secretariat buildings.Cerevisae (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * delete. Unused and redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:10, 29 April 2012 (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:KWVR Infobox
<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 Merge and Delete. Standard practice, supported by consensus here. Anomie⚔ 15:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KWVR Infobox

No need for this to be a template. It's only used once and is too inflexible to be used anywhere else. Just subst: it back and get rid of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although this infobox is only used in one place, I did this so that the infobox code wasn't visible on the first page. This is suggested on the page Template:Heritage_Railway and a precedent was set with the Talyllyn Railway with an infobox on its own page Template:Talyllyn_Railway_infobox. Furthermore, the map has its own template (Template:Keighley_and_Worth_Valley_Railway), so I don't see why using a separate page to make the article easier to edit for less experienced editors is a problem? Also, stops people from accidentally cocking up the infobox. MR7526 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see some potential value to an Infobox KWVR that could be used across multiple KWVR articles. This might boilerplate in railway details and page furniture, whilst allowing it to be re-used for different stations or locos from the stocklist.
 * This template though is rigid. Its rigid detail makes it too specific to be used anywhere except the lead article. It exists solely to "stop editors cocking up the infobox" (by editing the page). However I don't see that as being much of a problem, and certainly less than the awkwardness of having to edit an article by working across two pages.
 * Route templates are different. There's less need to edit them (they don't have simple parameters that any non-expert editor can change). There's a much greater need of avoiding them being cocked up. Mostly though, they're re-usable across many articles without needing per-page changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We've a general consensus that infoboxes belong directly on their articles unless they are obscenely complicated and high-profile (such as the chemical element boxes). That's not the case here. Furthermore, the "precedent" for putting infobox heritage railway on its own page is pretty plainly contradicted by its transclusion list: the vast majority (all but two) of the transclusions are direct. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's let this one run, then if it closes as delete I'll tag Talyllyn Railway infobox too. We need the content of these, but we don't need them hidden away in separate templates. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the background to this sort of template can be found at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 83. Basically, there was a concern that there was too much "technical" stuff at the beginnning of the page, before the actual article started, which would be confusing to newbies. I proposed that the infobox would be transcluded from a seprate custom template, and created Talyllyn Railway infobox as an example. Yes, this is designed to be a single use template, but that doesn't detract from the value of it. <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"> An  optimist on the  run!  11:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm, that's a failed proposal. Not everything that gets put out at the Village Pump needs to be immediately implemented. The vast, vast majority of infoboxes (including transclusions of the box upon which this template is based) are still direct and that isn't going to change in the near future, nor without significant discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with article, then delete. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you supply some reasoning for your argument? This is not a vote. <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"> An  optimist on the  run!  18:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no compelling reason why this cannot be simply substituted into the article. There are hundreds of thousands of articles which simply include the infobox in the article, and I see no reason why we can't do that here as well.  From a design point-of-view, if you really wanted to keep the infobox separate, then you would create a subpage of the article, but we don't do that here.  A template is for a repeated pattern, not for splitting content from the article. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still against that as basically unnecessary, but if we have to start separating infoboxes out of articles, they would be far better as subpages consistently named as  pagename /Infobox  than as randomly named templates in a different namespace. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this would fall into the disallowed uses of WP:Subpages. Incidentally Andy, if this deletion goes ahead, don't bother to tag Talyllyn Railway infobox; I'll go with the consensus and speedy it as G7. <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"> An  optimist on the  run!  11:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Subpages can be changed - the idea of "Infobox templates must be templated" is a far bigger change that that.  However I think that WP doesn't allow transclusion from mainspace anyway, and that would kill the idea stone dead. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No-one's suggesting that separating infoboxes from articles should be compulsory. I've put the idea forward as a suggestion, and so far only the KWVR article (AFAIK) is the only article other than the Talyllyn that's done this. <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"> An  optimist on the  run!  12:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete. I agree with the IP and Chris on this one.  The navbox isn't overly complicated, and I see no strong reason for splitting it from the article.  I have always liked the idea that the edit link for the article would allow you to edit all the information in the article.  We should try to separate styling from the information/content, but keep the information all together, unless there is a strong reason not to do so.  If there is some change in the policies here at WP, and we start making the infoboxes subpages, then we can obviously revisit the issue, but this really isn't the place to debate such a far reaching change in policy.  Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  22:37, 6 May 2012 (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.