Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 27



Template:Agua Prieta TV

 * 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Three transclusions and links to just one non-redirect. Unless Agua Prieta gets a bunch of its own local TV stations, this one is not useful. (It's also more Nogales than Agua Prieta when the two cities are far enough apart to have separate TV transmitters.) Raymie (t • c) 19:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agua Prieta TV
 * Delete. Television market templates are useful and warranted for markets with numerous stations to link; they are not necessary when only one station has a standalone article, and all of the others exist solely as redirects to the network they happen to be affiliated with. A navbox doesn't aid navigation if there's only one topic to navigate from it. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 28 December 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:Scratch Perverts

 * 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 2017 January 4 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Scratch Perverts
 * 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 US Field Artillery

 * 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 Infobox US Field Artillery after replacing with Infobox military unit. There is debate about adding the previous/next code into latter template, but no consensus has been reached. I suggest continuing that discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox US Field Artillery with Template:Infobox military unit.
 * Infobox US Field Artillery
 * Infobox military unit

I see no reason that this shouldn't just be folded into Template:Infobox military unit. All that this template contains is a previous/next link. Even that I don't think is really needed... If you are on the 7th Field Artillery Regiment page, it is pretty simple to know that the "next" regiment is that 8th Field Artillery Regiment. I support either deleting OR merging. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave as is. These are two entirely different entities. Why do you guys want to fix things that are not broke?Fury 1991 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Infobox US Field Artillery and replace it.  per suggestions below. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom., we have a similar functionality in Infobox spaceflight to navigate between missions within the same spaceflight project, and in my opinion it adds value to the overall scheme. If merged, may I suggest using code from Infobox spaceflight for a more minimized appearance, since the artillery template is somewhat overly bold in its display? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  22:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge While the "next" unit isn't always the very next numerically, I don't see this as a vital feature, so I think its fine. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Infobox US Field Artillery Until a later post and action taken on Template:Infobox military unit without consensus, I certainly did not understand that the "merge" suggestion was really a roundabout way of suggesting that the previous/next parameter be introduced into the military unit infobox, which does not appear to be what the nom intended, but is what he did.  I would go further and suggest that if the consensus is not to delete the separate infobox for US Field Artillery, the parameter be removed from that infobox. There have been long periods in which the  US Army has had only one Artillery branch, and it is entirely possible that the "next" artillery unit is a Coast or AAA Artillery unit. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Infobox US Field Artillery I'm a bit confused about the discussion of "merging" these two infoboxes given that Infobox military unit doesn't support previous and next unit listings. Moreover, there's no good reason for it to do so - as noted above by several editors, this isn't a particularly useful feature for the infobox to include, not least as it reflects a simplistic understanding of military unit lineages and order of precedence which would swiftly render such a function confusing at best and likely totally useless (for instance, how would the huge number of units which have changed unit types and designations during their history be treated?). As such, if Infobox US Field Artillery isn't considered useful, it should simply be deleted. I note that the articles on the artillery regiments already use Infobox military unit, and Infobox US Field Artillery doesn't duplicate it. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * when you merge two templates you merge the functionality. So the previous and next parameters would be added to Infobox military unit. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I think that would be a bad idea as this is not a useful function for the infobox to include. Moreover, the process here is a bit wacky: Template:Infobox military unit is a long-standing and very widely used template, and extra functions shouldn't be added to it via TfD discussions, and especially ones concerning a little-used and highly specialised navigation box. Changes to it should be proposed via Template talk:Infobox military unit or WT:MILHIST so that they attract wide input from the editors who use this infobox. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note due to a serious error in judgement on my part (I blame jetlag) I will be abstaining from any further process on this discussion. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted Zackmann08 closing this discussion a moment ago as "merge", and making this merge. No damage done. Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * delete Infobox US Field Artillery - leave military unit infobox alone. Nothing worth merging. next/previous functionality of limited use in the Infobox military unit template. And could be implemented in any article without recourse to altering the infobox. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know I said I would abstain, and I still plan to have limited actions on this, but I do want to voice my opinion now that I've slept... I'm curious to hear more about your objections here. I thought had a great note about how the concept of previous/next is used in Infobox spaceflight. I'm curious as to why you have such a strong objection to adding this functionality to Infobox military unit. I guess I don't see what harm there is in having it? It is setup in the sandbox at the moment: Template:Infobox military unit/sandbox. Would love to hear more about your objections. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * i'll see if I can elaborate. the functionality is extraneous to the infobox. For the majority of instances of units the next/previous is a simple numeric association of being the next one on a list and that is the sum total of the association. Unlike the example of spaceflight missions which are linked sequentially and chronologically within the programmes. The 309th bombardment squadron imitated after the 308th transport squadron, the 54th East Anglian division after the 53rd Welsh division. While it might have application for regiments, in the British regimental system 'precedence' is a more complex situation and the sequence order for older regiments may be dependent on the year if regiments merged. It would be more effective to find a means to append a separate next/previous construct in the same way that campaign box can be inserted into a template:infobox military conflict. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. There's also the issue of units which change name and designation, or are combined, which is very common. For instance, some German infantry divisions of World War II were converted to armoured divisions with different numbers - how could they be treated? Some units also have confusing or misleading designations: the US Army currently has a 1st Armored Division (United States), 1st Cavalry Division (United States), 1st Infantry Division (United States) which, despite their names, have roughly the same combined arms organisation - should these be listed in accordance with their historic roles, the little-known lineage rankings set up by the US Army's Center for Military History or what they actually do now? In addition, military units often aren't raised in the sequence their numerical designation suggests - for instance, the Royal Australian Air Force has a logical-looking system for numbering its flying squadrons, but this frequently doesn't correspond to when the units were actually first raised as the numbers were reserved for later use (as but one example, the highest-numbered squadron, No. 467 Squadron was formed in 1942, while No. 93 Squadron was formed in 1945, No. 107 Squadron in 1943 and No. 292 Squadron in 1977). And there's also the wacky elements to consider, such as No. 450 Squadron RAAF being originally raised as an Australian unit, but effectively becoming the Canadian 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron in 1968 under the shared Commonwealth unit naming conventions due to an administrative error! Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Infobox US Field Artillery - A merge would add an unnecessary feature to the Military Unit infobox. To elaborate (even though I don't need to) the previous/next feature is next to useless when you consider the fact that many, if not most, military units are not organised in this arbitrary numerical sense. Even those that have consecutive numbers are not necessarily "next" in the order of precedence. The British Army is a perfect example - the units that do have numbers (a lot don't) aren't necessarily ones that come before or after those with different numbers. This is an unnecessary complication for an already complex infobox. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Infobox US Field Artillery a merge wouldn't be appropriate, as the "functionality" isn't needed and would create more problems than it was intended to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Infobox US Field Artillery. Creuzbourg (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Infobox US Field Artillery and replace it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2017 (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:CHUM Chart

 * 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) Primefac (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Navbox that unnecessarily duplicates CanadaNumber1s. While the CHUM Chart had special status prior to 1964 as Canada's de facto national pop chart due to the lack of an official national pop chart, the launch of RPM in 1964 took away that status -- with the result that per Wikipedia's rules about maintaining national record charts and not single-station local ones, CHUM Chart lists are only permitted up to 1964 and not for any year after that. But the first row in CanadaNumber1s serves to link the exact same set of articles anyway, so this isn't needed as a separate navbox. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CHUM Chart
 * delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2017 (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:Afd4

 * 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) Primefac (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC) A self-designed Afd template, by a new editor who's apparently been here one month, which doesn't work properly. Doesn't allow for deletion sorting categories to be properly added. And when added to the delsort pages, it doesn't display properly, either. Clicking on "edit source" takes one into the code of the template rather than the AFD discussion. The creator doesn't give the impression on his user talk page that he is going to stop using it voluntarily. Why on earth do we need this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Afd4
 * I have removed this template from all AfD pages that were using it and won't use it again. KAP03 (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that Articles for deletion/List of countries by motor vehicle production in the 2000s is still uncategorizable, but for a different reason. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: we have a range of good deletion templates already, and any additional ones should only be created if there's a broad agreement to do so. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no reason why this would be needed, because even if it did work properly I see no evidence that it does anything different from the standard AFD templates that already exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2017 (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).