Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 26: Difference between revisions

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 relisted on 2015 July 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 19:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eicosanoidergics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Monoaminergics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Catecholaminergics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Corticosteroidics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Steroidergics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sex steroidergics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too large. Joining existing navboxes together like this is a really bad idea, particularly when said navboxes are themselves quite large. Note that the size of the underlying link structure increases as O(n^2) with the number of entries, if they are to satisfy WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Absolutely no need for this template, when the sub-templates are quite sufficient on their own. NSH002 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note added 5 more templates, for the same reasons. NSH002 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – in addition to the reasons stated by the nom, the title of this navbox Eicosanoidergic is completely unknown in the scientific literature therefore amounts to original research. The creator of these navboxes has been previously cautioned about creating similar navboxes here. Boghog (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Split / delete. I agree wholeheartedly with NSH002 - these templates are huge and provide no navigational benefit by being grouped. They should be deleted and replaced with a single relevant template on each page. In addition, the subtemplates should be renamed so that their titles are more understandable to a lay reader, as Boghog states above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe an expert should comment here first before anything happens to the template. In question to User:Boghog, are you saying the name is a spelling mistake or just a made-up classification? If scientists use the name then that seems like justification. Anyhow the nominator was only suggesting 6 simple splits. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 18:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahiyan8: Scientists do not use these names. It is clear, based on lack of hits in Google web/book/scholar and PubMed searches, that {{eicosanoidergics}} as well as the sub templates {{leukotrienergics}} and {{cannabinoidergics}} are completely made-up classifications that are not used in the scientific literature. Hence I am proposing that {{eicosanoidergics}} be deleted and the subtemplates be split up. Boghog (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: This discussion might be duplicating the one you linked. I feel very uneasy when a debate gets conducted by non-experts in matters such as this, if you understand my concern. Also, if this matters, eicosanoid, leukotriene and cannabinoid classifications seemingly exist except without the "-ergic" part... I have nothing further to add as I am myself a non-expert. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the eicosanoid, leukotriene and cannabinoid classifications are widely used and therefore are appropriate subjects for Wikipedia. "Eicosanoid" was extended to "eicosanoidergic" based on analogy to certain CNS drugs like the dopaminergics. The term "dopaminergic" is well supported in the literature whereas "eicosanoidergic" is not. The later term is completely made up and therefore amounts to original research. Boghog (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too big, and I doubt anyone use them.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – "...lack of hits in Google web/book/scholar and PubMed searches..." Interestingly the opposite is true. "Too large, too big". No! The templates are wisely structured and well arranged. I can't see any convincing arguments for deletion and regard the nomination as an act of destructive behavior by a non-expert who refused to reveal his/her complaints in prior discussion at appropriate places like WikiProject Pharmacology. This is bad style. See also his/her last edit in monoaminergic that is completely senseless and destructive! --82.149.161.98 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 20:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox World Championships in Athletics Sweden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox country at games}}. Alakzi (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after replacing all instances with Template:Infobox country at games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 relisted on 2015 July 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a coherent or suitable topic for a navbox. Better as a category or a list. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The template seems fine, fun, (in)formative, and is another way to address the topic. Coherent or suitable? Entirely subjective, as I and the creator of the template do, by definition, find it coherent and suitable. Some people look at lists, some at categories, and others at templates, all three serve the purpose of informative direction (A personal example: I seldom look at categories, so would miss everything if categories were all we had) The creator of the template also had a picture on it, which Robsinden removed, so some of the original template is missing. I was also a main contributor to the template, in fact just a few hours before this deletion nom, and was not notified of this deletion attempt, so Robsinden please alert main contributors as well when you go for the delete, per suggestion of the instructions for page deletions. Randy Kryn 10:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While it is claimed that it is not coherent or suitable, no reason or argument is given. Hyacinth (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm gonna go with delete on this one. While the topic is actually a coherent topic for a navbox, it is far too big. There are upwards of 80 different party games mentioned in party game, and so many more listed in Category:Party games. Wikipedia:Navigation templates suggests that navboxes "be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value", and I definitelt think that comes into play here. This navbox will either be fairly comprehensive, and thus a sea of links with limited navigation value compared to a category, or it will be manageably sized, but represent only a fraction of its scope. This particular topic is really best suited for a category. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  'Wikipedia:Navigation templates', the page that you quoted, is not a policy or even a guideline. It's an essay. Templates can be just as large as they need to be to fully map a subject. I don't think 80 party games will be listed on the template if a full template is made from all the articles you found, but if you wish to put every page onto the template the key is to put them into sections, sections which appropriately label the subject of the type of party games in that section. Eighty pages is not only a manageable number for a template, but the eighty can be sectioned to allow easy identification. I'm not going to add all eighty, if you do it I'll take a look and tweak and polish the listings and section heads a bit, but eighty links is certainly not too large a number of pages for this or for most topics. Randy Kryn 1:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete redundant to the article party games; template adds nothing the article doesn't already address.96.52.0.249 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That can be said for any template, or at least most of them. The template summarizes, presents Wikipedians contributions to the subject in an easy-to-find way, and places these easy-to-find links at the bottom of every relevant article. That's what templates do, they summarize, coherently map out a subject, and share. So your comment, which to a layman (i.e. non-wikipedian, a WP:Wikimuggle) may sound accurate, doesn't take the benefits of a template as a companion piece of the parent article into consideration. I'm kind of itching to try my hand at putting all 80 pages that someone found into this Party games template, unless someone beats me to it. Randy Kryn 3:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The definition of "party game" is essentially any game that can be played at a party. Seriously, all card games should be included in this template as well, not only those at party game. Arguments to keep are unconvincing; the reasoning proposed would logically lead to listing every single possible game, ad infinitum.96.52.0.249 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. But card games aren't usually played at parties. That brings us into the definition of the word 'Party' (is a poker game considered a party?). "Party games" seems to be defined as games that can be played by a large group of people in a festive or semi-festive atmosphere. Looking at the games included in the article and elsewhere shows that many of the games are actually products, another area that people would disagree on regarding inclusion both in the article and on the template. Randy Kryn 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have gotten it all wrong. A game is not a party either! "But card games aren't usually played at parties.": blatantly wrong: They are played at parties.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - altrough this may fit better for a category, a navbox is also helpful. --TL22 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a category.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a classic "grab bag" - and we know that articles in a template "should refer to each other to a reasonable extent." This is not the case here. In addition, we have a category already. Neutrality^talk 22:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Card games could be included in this template, if it where not for Template:Card games.

Card games are related by the fact that they are games played with cards. Party games have no definitive criterion which defines a game as a "party game".96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Has anyone in this discussion quoted or referred to a policy? Is there a policy to refer to? Hyacinth (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find WP:NAVBOX useful.96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the article "Party game" useful. Hyacinth (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the article all you want but it won't affect the purpose of templates. The template lists "might" list a person's subjective list of "party games", but it would be unwieldly large and, more importantly, redundant to categories. And it is pointless and completely useless to have a WP:NAVBOX when your aim it so list the +100 party games into subsections of the template.96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, too widely targeted, better to just use the category, or create sub-navboxes like "drinking games", "card games", ... Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what will eventually happen. This template was created from {{Children's games}}. {{Card games}} is proposed for deletion. Hyacinth (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you created {{Children's games}} and have !voted to keep {{board games}} and {{card games}}. It seems as if this is an attempt to frustrate the WP:TFD process; I note that if {{board games}} and {{card games}} are kept, they could be fait accompli argued for this template to be kept too.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

who are you talking to? I created no such templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:Hyacinth is the creator of this template.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please point me to the policy saying a user may only participate in one discussion. Should we delete this template because I created it? See: WP:Other. Hyacinth (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pointing out ownership behavior and a conflict of interest. All 3 templates were created by you and you continue to argue to keep them when your arguments look as though as if you are grasping at straws.96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see nothing wrong in Hyacinth's comments; no ownership and no CoI. You, however, are failing the requirement to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as stated below this may be incomplete but I don't see why the topic shouldn't get a navbox. The fact something else exists does not mean this should be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 relisted on 2015 July 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 00:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tampa Bay Freeways and Tollways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Houston freeways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LA Freeways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Metro Charlotte expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Milwaukee freeways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NJ Expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Expressways in Greater Orlando (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Phoenix-area freeways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates should be deleted because they are not necessary in articles—Categories are sufficient for organizing these links—and because they cause problems with tracking what pages link where. Many of these types of templates have been deleted recently, starting with the Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, here, here, and here.  VC  01:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per past precedent. Dough4872 01:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the past precedents. Also, with a lot of these "larger" metro areas, their definition is quite arbitrary (what is considered a "freeway"? an "expressway"? What is part of the Los Angeles area, and what is not? etc.) --Rschen7754 01:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per past discussions. SounderBruce 02:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all—per the past precedents and comments above. Imzadi 1979 → 04:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- First of all, you should ensure that a category actually does exist. Second, the function of such templates cannot necessarily be duplicated by a category. In particular, I don't believe the utility of Template:Tampa Bay Freeways and Tollways can easily be replicated with a bunch of categories. The template aids navigation between several articles that would be buried in several different subfolders of Category:Transportation in the Tampa Bay Area. The template allows users to easily navigate between untolled, tolled, planned, under construction, and former proposed expressways as well as bridges across Tampa Bay. Furthermore, unlike categories, the template displays both the name of the article (usually the route number) and the name of the highway, eg. someone browsing categories would only see Florida State Road 589 despite the fact that the southern portion of the highway through urban parts of western Tampa is commonly known as the "Veterans Expressway" while the remainder is known as the "Suncoast Parkway" through suburban & rural regions to the north. I believe that the Tampa Bay template meets all of the advantages mentioned at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Advantages, except #4 (which isn't relevant). AHeneen (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can always create a category for freeways in a specific metro area to replace the functionality of the template. But the issue, as Rschen mentioned, is where do we draw the line between a freeway and expressway and what is the definition of the "metro area"? Therefore, I feel the category may not be useful, unlike a "Transportation in X County" category which has structured boundaries. Dough4872 14:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per past precedent. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per all my past votes. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.