Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 17



Template:Rotterdam Metro stations

 * 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 relist to 30 April. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rotterdam Metro stations
 * Metro
 * 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:Amsterdam Metro stations

 * 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 relist at 30 April. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Amsterdam Metro stations with Template:Metro.
 * Amsterdam Metro stations
 * Metro


 * 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:Sahaba

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC) A template makes no sense for a long list. Besides, there is List of Sahabah and Category:Sahabah. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given that this template has more than a few transclusions, this needs further discussion.
 * Sahaba

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 01:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 15:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Keep  this template is transcluded on too many pages. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete, this template is transcluded on too many pages. this is why we have list articles, List of Sahabah, and categories, Category:Sahabah. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete I agree with a "delete"; as long as there are other shorter, more-inclusive, and better-categorized templates that can take its place. Grandia01 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, provides no meaningful context for the many items listed. Users would not be able to logically navigate from one to another in a way that is not already aided by the list or category. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:34, 22 April 2016 (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).

Template:YG Entertainment

 * 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 keep. Per WP:NAVBOX, the links inside a navbox needn't be strongly related between themselves; an enticing thought but one lacking consensus. As for the promotional nature of K-pop artist articles, that appears to me to be irrelevant here. The majority of participating K-pop editors appear to be rather convinced of the idiosyncratic relationship between Korean talent agencies and their contracted artists. This close also means that the artist roster should be restored. Izkala (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC) The artist roster was removed by, per Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28. The template doesn't really serve a useful purpose without the artist roster. (Note: recently created Template:YG Entertainment Artist, which is basically a duplicate, pre-artist removal.) Random86 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * YG Entertainment
 * Both this template and the YG Entertainment Artist template are under consideration for deletion, but the latter one is under consideration for speedy deletion, but I don't understand why? I think that the content of the two templates should be merged so it contains links for the artists and executives. SM and JYP have templates so I think YG should have one too. Gottagotospace (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * delete humor should not be placed on Wp:blp and if it is allowed then the humor template could substitute any place where this template would be utile. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * misplaced Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Artist rosters are not appropriate for navbox inclusion per previous consensus.  Without this navbox is useless.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The template should be kept with the artist roster, the South Korean labels are different from the international labels, I don't see the Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28 applies to South Korean labels, since the name of the label and the artist name always goes together.GD.BB (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with 's remark above, but I would like to elaborate for those unfamiliar with the way the South Korean music industry works. South Korean entertainment companies work in a different way than record labels in, for example, the United States. The South Korean entertainment companies heavily invest in their trainees, who are trained for many years before debuting. Artists' contracts are several years long. Therefore, the tie between the company and the artist is much stronger than it would be in the United States. It's not just the people who publish the music (and I don't even know if all South Korean entertainment companies have their own in-house publishing). In addition, each company does not manage hundreds of active groups/soloists. I am an American who listens to American music and I can't tell you the record label for any American artist. However, I also listen to K-pop (South Korean pop music), and I can name the entertainment companies for most artists I listen to because the ties are very strong between each company and artist. Therefore, for the reasons I listed, the justification listed in the discussion linked by does not make sense for South Korean entertainment companies (or at least the music-related ones). Gottagotospace (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * indifferent, so long as it is only used on non-article non-artist pages. otherwise, we should delete it per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , what does "only used on non-article pages" mean? The template should only be used on articles that are linked in the template? Random86 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * typo corrected. Frietjes (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per and, Korean record labels are more likely to recruit, build, and foster their groups from the inside. One group will often be advertised as the "next" boy/girl group from the company, cross-promotion between groups is common in concerts and featured artists. They are both used as advertisement and draw fans from one group to another. There is more useful for navigation, as otherwise people will (right or wrong) add every company's group as "associated acts" to all the other companies groups. Plus company artists are usually promoted together as a act, SMTown artists, JYP family, etc. What applies to American record labels may not apply globally to all record labels. Evaders99 (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, along with the artist roster. The most prominent thing of K-pop culture is the bond of artists and their companies. Almost every Korean record labels are also talent agencies. Even the managers and talent agents of the artists are provided by the companies. This bond stands out so much; for example, you can find things like SM stan, JYP stan, YG stan, or FNC stan in K-pop. In contrast,—maybe it's just me though—I never hear things like Atlantic stan, Warner stan, or Universal stan. Another example of how crucial the relationship of label and their artists in K-pop culture is that you can find that artists who left before their contracts end or switch their label almost always make headlines (in a bad way: traitor, ungrateful, you name it). So considering the culture, personally I don't think the consensus is suitable for Korean label templates. Instead, I think it's very good (and apt) to have artists rosters in those templates, since after having finished reading an artist article people can easily go to another artist in the same label using navigation box without having to go back to the label article or to label artist list or to category page which is almost never clicked by non-Wikipedian .  KIDE 777  ✉  20:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I already commented and explained my reasoning before, but I forgot to actually put in a "keep" vote. Oops! Gottagotospace (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm looking over the older discussion, the 2012 one that decided on deletion. said, "Navboxes serve to navigate between articles that are strongly related. A list of albums and releases aren't strongly related to each other and just serve to clutter up the the articles", and that seems to have been one of the deciding rationales. If Korean agencies invest so heavily in their artists, you have made an argument that it's important that the agency be linked in the artist article (and it typically is a dozen times already)--you have not made an argument that the artists should be linked to each other by way of a template. If there is cross-promotion or something like that, I assume that--if it's notable at all and verified by more than allkpop or mwave--the cross-promoting pair will be discussed and linked in the text; why would you want to scroll down to the navigational template to see the band linked which was already mentioned in the text as part of a cross-promotional effort? Let's face it, we all know what those articles look like: every factoid and marketing effort is included and every possible thing linked. So yeah, delete. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - The logic of your argument is very sound, so good job on that! However, although your argument makes sense logically, in practice, it does not really work. If articles must be "strongly related" to each other in order to appear in the same navbox, and artists at Korean entertainment companies are not "strongly related" to each other, then like 50% of all the navboxes on Wikipedia need to be deleted. As an example, I will use the navboxes on the page for Titanic (1997 film). The first navbox is pretty ridiculous since it is way too big and many of the articles have an extremely weak relation, so I will ignore it since it is not a good representative of a typical navbox. The navboxes for the awards are very common. Literally the only thing linking each article in the box is that they all won the same award at some point in time, even if it was more than 50 years apart. The navbox for James Cameron lists the movies/productions he has been involved with and some random stuff like a species of frog that is named after him. Similarly, a navbox for a Korean entertainment company would list what they have "worked on": the formation and promotion of their soloists and groups. (However, it wouldn't list every album or single by their artists, just like James Cameron's box doesn't list every single episode of Dark Angel, because it would get way too crowded.) This is just one example. There are many more navboxes that are similar.In addition, in 's comment, they state "Plus company artists are usually promoted together as a act, SMTown artists, JYP family, etc." This is true (at least for YG, SM, JYP, and I think Cube). There are concerts where some or all of the artists from a company will perform. Artists also often tag along and perform on their label-mates' tours too. Hence your cross-promotion comment doesn't apply. Gottagotospace (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2016 (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).

Template:Taylor Alison Swift

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Serves same purpose as Humor, but involves a living person. I think humor on Wikipedia involving living people should be avoided when possible, after that recent Signpost fiasco. SST flyer 11:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Taylor Alison Swift
 * delete humor should not be placed on Wp:blp and if it is allowed then the humor template could substitute any place where this template would be utile. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete as it is useless and apparently unused. I declined a speedy delete for "policy violation" though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; it sets a bad precedent and will inevitably legitimize stuff like the aforementioned Signpost incident if kept around. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2016 (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).

Template:Permanent block

 * 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 speedy delete as a test page. There's no point waiting the seven days. Izkala (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC) This is apparently a partial translation of a block template from eswiki and redundant to existing block templates, such as Uw-blockindef. clpo13(talk) 05:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Permanent block
 * Delete per nom, particularly since it's now a target for a vandal. Meters (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2016 (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).

Template:Main religious figures and founders

 * 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). ~ RobTalk 16:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC) The criteria for inclusion as a "main religion" seem incredibly vague and bound to cause controversy, as founders of small NRMs and figures popularly associated with very large traditional folk religions are listed along with the founders of major world traditions like Christianity and Islam. Some of the figures listed in the template (and some, like Moses, who are not listed in the template but whose articles were somewhat haphazardly inscribed with it by its creator) are of dubious historicity, and the religions they "founded" are arguably folk traditions that are (only sometimes) dubiously attributed to a historical figure. Calling "Lao-tzu" the "founder" of "Taoism", for instance, is extremely problematic. The use of the word "figures" in the title is curious, as it is clearly limited to figures that a Wikipedian believes are the "founders" of the traditions listed, and this is confirmed by the article linked in the title.
 * Main religious figures and founders

And worst of all, including a set of links to supposed founders of a large number of unrelated religious traditions at the ends of our articles on all of them is not going to assist our readers in any way that Category:Founders of religions does not already.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete, better to just use the category and/or list article to avoid WP:OR. Frietjes (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Week Keep - founding a major World Religion is defiantly notable so I think the template could be useful. However I agree that it might be subject to too much needless controversy and debate. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete; while the information in the template does seem like it'd be useful, I think the issues the OP raised mean that on the balance of things this template's more trouble than it's worth. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hijiri 88 & Gimubrc; creating a criteria for who is a founder or figure within unrelated religions is not only difficult but borderline discriminatory. Who is to say what figure is more important than another in polytheistic religions? The can of worms opened is much too great. CawheeTalk 01:04, 26 April 2016 (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).

Template:Journal Communications

 * 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. Izkala (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Company related to (Journal Media Group) merged with Gannett Company on April 9th; all owned papers have now been updated with the Gannett template, leaving this an orphaned template with no future use. Also delete related rd Template:Journal Media Group with this nom if possible.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Journal Communications
 * Delete per nom. Csworldwide1 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2016 (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).

Insect 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).

The result of the discussion was delete all. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Abispa
 * Acetropis
 * Adelphocoris
 * Amphigerontia
 * Apolygus
 * Apolygus
 * Asterocampa
 * Cerobasis
 * Ceromya
 * Chrysops
 * Cyllecoris
 * Elasmostethus
 * Elipsocus
 * Gymnosoma
 * Lachesilla
 * Lygocoris
 * Navbox Apolygus
 * Navbox Bombus
 * Navbox Chalepoxenus
 * Navbox Conops
 * Navbox Elipsocus
 * Navbox Myrmica
 * Navbox Orthotylus
 * Navbox Stenodema
 * Navbox Strongylognathus
 * Orthetrum
 * Orthops
 * Orthotylus
 * Phoenicocoris
 * Recilia
 * Stenodema
 * Stenopsocus
 * Tachina

See previous Tfd discussion (first round, second round), and initial discussion over at WikiProject insects. These genus-level navboxes are of questionable value, at best doing little more than species taxoboxes are presently doing, and at worst misleading readers as they often contain far fewer species than the genus contains, giving a false impression of the genus size. These boxes cannot be (and have not been) maintained for all insect taxa, and will never be complete, and even if they were, large genera would have so many links as to be difficult to navigate (a better task for a separate list page). M. A. Broussard (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * All right, let's do this. I think we need more topic-specific templates, such as for pollinators, biological control parasitoids, and so forth, which will give navigable access to species and higher taxa of interest, but just duplicating the category system does seem a waste of time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete These are incomplete lists of species in the relevant genera and thus misleading. If they were complete, most would be a sea of red-links. These templates are redundant to categories (and clicking the genus in a species taxbox) in their navigational function, and the navboxes are so rarely deployed in insects articles (as compared to categories) for readers to regularly expect them as a navigation option. These templates require ongoing maintenance which hasn't been happening and many are out of date in various ways. Plantdrew (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom and Plantdrew. My only concern is that many of the main articles are redlinks (Acetropis, Amphigerontia, Apolygus, Apolygus, Cerobasis, Cyllecoris, Elasmostethus, Elipsocus, Elipsocus, Lygocoris, Phoenicocoris, Stenopsocus). But delete anyways, because they are misleading and impossible to maintain. jonkerz ♠talk 13:29, 21 April 2016 (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).