Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 26

< August 25	August 27 >

August 26[edit]

Template:MLB roster footer[edit]

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) 01:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB roster footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MLB roster template footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per discussion at Template talk:MLB roster#The new below, numerous editors feel these templates are unnecessary and causes clutter. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template was created to serve the same need that the "More rosters" link serves on the template. That link navigates to a list of stacked templates, which is one of the oddest forms of wikification of content that I have seen. The creation of such a page acknowledges that there is actually a use for having direct access to other templates. In dozens of other fields, templates have below sections that link to other templates. It is common in theatre (Oscar awards), Nobel prizes, Time Man of the year and so on. Many of the most popular templates on wikipedia use systems of linking to other templates directly. Thus, this template is an improvement of a way to meet a need from the pretty malformed list of stacked templates. Other sports have found ways to get the colors right so that it complements the rest of the template. Although not perfect, it is better than what we are currently offering the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I personally speculate that a small fraction fantasy baseball owners look at WP for roster info. This is a small fraction of a very large pool that needs access to content about many different rosters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no value in being able to navigate between roster templates, especially with how "clunky" it looks. The main roster templates are transcluded on the main team page and the current season page. When viewing those pages, IMO, the reader doesn't care about the other rosters for other teams. If they do, the category for the templates is just two clicks away. The footer is especially obtuse on the roster navboxes, taking up approximately a third of the template. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur as per X96lee15 above. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a nice tool to navigate through other team rosters. It does not take up that much space but I do agree that the color scheme needs to be changed to make it easier on the eyes. Overall, it is a good idea and should stay. Carthage44 (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Wikipedia's guidance on navigation templates, good templates generally link to articles that "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent," and the subject of the template (in this case, all MLB rosters) should be mentioned in each article. Absent this, the articles may be "loosely-related," and so inappropriate for a template to link together. I do not believe there is a sufficiently high degree of coupling to warrant the disadvantage of adding additional links to "information that is only tangentially related", adding visual clutter. isaacl (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasoning as X96lee15.--Yankees10 15:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Spanneraol (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Causes too much clutter underneath the navbox.--Giants27(T|C) 17:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnecessary clutter. There is no need to navigate between templates in this fashion. The only purpose this template serves is to litter one team's article with irrelevant links to every other team's roster. Reso lute 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Vzomg 02:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it should be kept because it is quick access to other rosters. If someone is reading about a player and then wants to read about another player, knows what team the player plays for, but can't think of the exact name, they can now easily access the team's roster. Without this tool, you have to go to the team, scroll to the contents, select roster, and then read. And if you were wrong about the team and had a second team in mind, you have to do the whole process again. With this footer tool, all that is eliminated and you can quickly switch rosters at any time. I propose that the color scheme be changed for better visual appearance, and perhaps it be included in a show/hide additional tab. BeenChanged (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcluttered; it was fine the original way, as rosters could still be accessed there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All one has to do to get to the other navboxes is to click the 'v' on the template and click on the category at the bottom of the page. Yes, it's two more clicks, but the original way of doing it makes it a lot less cluttered. Tavix | Talk 13:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no need to link to other templates through a navbox. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments about the content being 'just two clicks' away are only applicable to knowledgable Wikipedians. The average visitor to the site won't release what clicking 'v' does, for example. Anything that makes Wikipedia easier to use for the majority of visitors is a good thing in my book. Chrislintott (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, the average Wikipedia reader doesn't care about navigating to other rosters. I think it's useful for people that update the rosters, but not for the average reader. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. If the average person is on the Blue Jays article and wants the Yankees' roster, they'll just go to the Yankees article. These links are for the benefit of editors only, not readers. Reso lute 15:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and utter clutter. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unconditional delete - there was never a viable editorial reason for this to begin with. — KV5 • Talk • 02:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ease of navigation for ordinary Wikipedia users. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Disagree with that statement. Ordinary Wikipedia users would have no idea what those links are. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - More over, if adding irrelevant links to articles eases navigation, why don't we put templates listing every team's article, managers, historic players, award winners, etc., right into the middle of every team article as well? Reso lute 15:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a little extra. It's being used in the NFL as well. –BuickCentury Driver 02:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - poor editorial decision. -- Y not? 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I assume we are only discussing the footer to the individual team current roster templates and not the actual rosters. It seems like we are talking about deleting the former, which I agree with, but this TFD template is also appearing on the individual team roster templates, which may be confusing people. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The template warning is in the roster template because that is where its transcluded to. It is only about the footer, not the entire roster itself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then by all means delete. Rlendog (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think consenus has been reached. Ositadinma 16:13, 8 September 2011 (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.

Template:Sandboxd[edit]

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 Speedy delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Test page. Suggest userfying. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2011 (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.

Template:Infobox whisky distillery[edit]

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox whisky distillery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Scottish distillery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox whisky distillery with Template:Infobox Scottish distillery.
all transclusions of "whisky distillery" are Scottish, but the more generic name template is rarely used. Suggest converting those over to the Scottish box, then renaming the Scottish box to say "infobox distillery" or "infobox whisky distillery" or ?. Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at {{Infobox whisky distillery}}, using {{Infobox}} and dropping |Reviews=, and redirect {{Infobox Scottish distillery}} there. Ping me if help with the emitted microformat is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 26 August 2011 (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.

Template:Infobox Scottish Distillery 2[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 13:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Scottish Distillery 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used by Template:Infobox Scottish distillery. Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2011 (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.

Template:Infobox language2[edit]

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 Deleted per WP:G2. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox language2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Test page. Suggest userfying. Frietjes (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'll just delete it. — kwami (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2011 (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.

Template:Infobox language test[edit]

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 Deleted per WP:G2. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox language test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Test page. Suggest userfying. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (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.

Template:DATECOMP[edit]

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 Deleted in the forked discussion, referenced below. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and replaced by other templates like {{age in days}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 22#Datecomp templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2011 (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.

Template:Before[edit]

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) 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused, and easy to confuse the syntax (e.g., dm or md). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was created in 2006 and has been neglected for five years. If it were useful, you'd expect it to be in use by now. JIMp_talk·cont 23:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Jimp. Unused templates need a good case. Lightmouse (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2011 (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.

Template:RPOTD cityofwestminster[edit]

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) 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RPOTD cityofwestminster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and broken. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. Lightmouse (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2011 (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.

Template:Divbox[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seemingly a parallel development to the {{mbox}} / {{navbox}} series, this is less full-featured and inconsistent. All of its transclusions could (or have been, as I just did with {{Rock Band DLC Nav}}) be converted to use the general systems, or simply substituted in the case where people are just using it to get a div with background colour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a good alternative, there is no blanket consensus to merge templates in a borg-like policy of "one mega template must trump all other variations". This template has a useful variety of styles and is neither used in the same way as mbox or navbox and provides for complex styles intended, as stated on the template documentation, for "user pages, essays and project pages" rather than the many other places that the more neutral and conservative mbox is designed for. Fæ (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is certainly consensus that arbitrary deviation from community norms is a bad idea, and this template has been misused in the past (such as for navboxes). The code itself is simple enough that users aren't really saving themselves any effort learning to use it rather than just using HTML for things like this. At the very least it needs namespace detection to get it out of articlespace: I'd personally like it excised from those few projectspace pages which use it as well, which means that it will just be yet another pointless userspace bauble. That's fine by me if it's renamed accordingly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your example of misuse seems odd, this would be counter to the notes on usage given in the template documentation. It appears that your concern would be addressed if the current advised limitations on use were made bold or added as a notice at the top of the template. Being a "pointless userspace bauble" does not appear a statement supported by the facts, though I would be interested in seeing some examples of misuse if you would care to dig out the diffs. I'm assuming that before raising this discussion notice, you took into account the existing lengthy template discussion page threads on a similar point some years ago? Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If by "lengthy discussions" you're talking about what's on template talk:divbox, I did indeed see them but they date back to 2005: that's well before the drive to uniformity which gave use {{navbox}} / {{mbox}} / {{infobox}}, and those templates proliferated while {{divbox}} didn't. The notes on the template documentation don't mention appropriate uses except to point at the mbox templates at the end and to state that "complex styles should only be used on user pages, essays and project pages" (I'd be keen to know why you picked those specific suggested uses, incidentally). Anyway, let's have a look at the uses in templatespace. Here are a few which certainly aren't right:
      1. Template:Rock Band DLC Nav (a navbox)
      2. {{CFB Team Depth Chart}} (used only for a "debug mode" which seems to be a poor man's DOM inspector)
      3. {{Never-Activated}} (a pseudo-retirement template for bots)
    - And here are a few which don't obviously illustrate the need for a competing template format:
      1. {{user renaming}} (definitely should be an mbox, for consistency)
      2. {{CCIsubst}} (should be an mbox)
      3. {{blocked subject}} (a block template)
    - All other uses in templatespace appear to be in documentation, for nonstandard formatting of usage / output data.
    - I'm not sure what you mean by "pointless userspace bauble" not being "a statement supported by the facts": by definition, pretty much semantically empty template in userspace is a bauble. I realise there's no consensus to change that, and I'm fine with this template being used over on userspace if people really want to, but there's no obvious reason to use it on other namespaces.
    - Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sounds like there is not too much disagreement, you think this is a bauble but have no objection to it existing if its usage is correct. I agree that in the examples you have given of misuse these should be fixed in line with the guidance for use already on the template. A simple tweak to ensure that usage in articles results in a warning is easy enough and this is a matter for improvement discussion rather than deletion. As for baubles, by your definition, you might describe initiatives such the recent WikiLove templates or GLAM barnstars in this way, personally I would avoid dismissing the good work of other contributors so crudely, but that's just me do my best to comply with WP:5P#4. Fæ (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds fine to me. I'll add either a cleanup cat or a warning for non-userspace tranclusions once this closes. As for collegiality, I'd rather people were candid without being nasty than hostile behind a veil of civility. But that's just me I suppose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry to see that an administrator as experienced as yourself is in the practice of assuming bad faith. As for your plan to limit this template to userspaces only, this is different to how the template currently recommends usage or is used and such a change in purpose would require discussion and a consensus. Considering how your judgement does not appear to represent the consensus in the current discussion, you may want to reconsider taking actions that would break this template to prove a point. Here's a smiley, presumably you'll feel it is some sort of ironic personal insult but that's okay, it makes me feel better to see it anyway. Fæ (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no obvious consensus for anything other than userspace (other than MRG's, addressed separately below) based on the other responses: you added the projectspace suggestions to the documentation yourself and when I asked you about it above you responded as usual with passive-aggressive aspersions on my character. The next time you feel the urge to disingenuously chide me feel free to locate your Delete key prior to submitting it. I think we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parallel development perhaps, but not redundant. It's not really broken, why fix it? --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 17:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ain't broke, etc. However, I'd be happy to suggest in its docs that it not be used directly in the mainspace. At the moment, the mainspace uses account for about one in 200 transclusions (13 out of 2,482). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm among the people who use this template in userspace. It's a nice, simple way for me to be able to keep a colored box with a few useful text items at the top of my user page. It would be a shame and inconvenient to lose such a template. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I should like to point out that I created this template before other systems rose to prominence. {{divbox}} is the oldest general tool.

I have come to believe that this, the most popular tool I've created, is also the worst. It has been used to poor purpose. Suggest it be deleted, thus throwing its thousands of users into chaos. While we're at it, we should delete all the other pointlessly clever tag-and-show colored boxes that elevate style over substance. — Xiong 熊 talk * 09:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!: Useful, and used well most of the time. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 15:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fæ and per Ebe123. This template is very common and very useful because it's so simple. It's great for decorating userpages as well. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I use this regularly (hence its usage at WP:CCI). It is much simpler to use than {{mbox}}. I rely on it so much, in fact, that I noticed it was up for deletion when I came over to import it for use on the internal Wikimedia Foundation workspace wiki. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't a specific template be better for that purpose? It'd be trivial to drum one up specifically for CCI that wouldn't require all of the customisation that {{divbox}} drags in (specifically a whole tree of sub-templates just to do styling). I'd be happy to work on that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a reason why we need a new template to do what this one does already? This template is used by WikiProjects ([1], I'm probably responsible for a few of those myself], but not all. I've never edited Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Cheeses task force, for instance :)) and in WikiProject talk space ([2]). It's used in File space ([3]), in template space, in category space and even (once) in portal space. I can understand discouraging its use in articles, but it seems to be in use in article talk without any issues. Why should we limit access to what is evidently a much-used template? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should not be using templates for mere embellishment outside of userspace. Where we put coloured boxes around things elsewhere on the encyclopedia it imparts some semantic value on them: they are notices, or archived sections, or file licenses. Using more specific templates helps to separate content and presentation, which has always been something we've been better than average at on Wikipedia and something we should always strive to improve (not least because it significantly helps with displaying content on less capable devices than desktop Web browsers). Almost all of {{divbox}}'s ~2500 total transclusions (which is really remarkably little considering how long it's been around) are in userspace: the remainder can be hand-checked, and I'm happy to do that (I'd have to be, as I'm the only one I see volunteering). The vast majority of them are straightforward fixes: for instance, most of the uses on category pages are pointless embellishment of the category criteria, while most of the templatespace uses are in documentation pages as a very idiosyncratic way of marking up examples, and the ones on filespace are all boilerplate FURs from user:Mijotoba for UN photographs. These can trivially be stripped to plain text without losing a shred of information while making those pages more consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - ... Having taken another look at the use on Wikipedia's Cheese Task Force WikiProject page, I suppose that there are parts of projectspace where "pointless embellishment" is the order of the day as well, but ideally if the template is currently being used for some consistent purpose there (rather than to knock up individual banners) a more specialised template should be used which helps separate content and presentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You say, "We should not be using templates for mere embellishment outside of userspace". Why not? Why should WikiProjects, for instance, not be permitted to embellish that space, or, alternatively, why are templates an inappropriate means of doing so? You mention in the open that {{mbox}} can do the same functions (although as I said above I find it more difficult to use) or that this template can be substituted to retain the colors. Can you explain why doing these functions through {{mbox}} or substituting it would be better in terms of say, displaying content on less capable devices than desktop Web browsers or separating content and presentation? I am by far not the most technologically inclined Wikipedia, which may be why I really can't quite grasp your issue with this template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 4 September 2011 (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.

Template:Albanian Watchlist[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albanian Watchlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, even by its author, and not of obviously wider utility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lightmouse (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2011 (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.

Template:Jarndyce and Jarndyce[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jarndyce and Jarndyce (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An ambox with apparently humorous intent. But it's not very funny, and there is nowhere for it to be put. Unused; unneeded. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know it is there- I can think of multiple uses. Please leave it so I can play. No, it is very funny in MPOV. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is redundant to {{round in circles}} in the best case (where it is pointing out that discussions may have taken place before) and needlessly antagonistic in the worst (essentially complaining about people having the temerity not to agree with one another). Deploying it in place of that template would be unproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bit of silliness that isn't being used. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 17:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- As oeiginator, agree delete. Had a purpose for demonstrating How Not To Do It, but time to go now. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2011 (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.

Template:CNX companies[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CNX companies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An out-of-date list of companies in the CNX, or China Traded Index, which is (unless I'm missing something, which is possible) a non-notable index fund by Wiener Borse AG. JaGa^talk 07:34, 26 August 2011 (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.

Template:Infobox Imagefestival[edit]

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) 03:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Imagefestival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fork of template:infobox festival. 76.113.124.50 (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T3: hardcoded instance of {{infobox festival}}, which is now used in its place on International Image Festival. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hard coded instance of {{infobox}}, not {{infobox festival}}. Ruslik_Zero 14:36, 4 September 2011 (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.

Template:2006-07Gatorbasketballschedule[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2006-07Gatorbasketballschedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. All content exists at 2006–07 Florida Gators men's basketball team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unused = unnecessary. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and serves no purpose. Lightmouse (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2011 (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.

Southland Conference navboxes[edit]

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 both. Ruslik_Zero 14:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southland Conference East (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SLC West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These two templates were used to constitute sections of Template:Southland Conference. There is no reason why that navbox needs to broken down into multiple component templates. I have edited Template:Southland Conference so that is is no longer dependent on the two nominated templates and is in line with formatting standards for this sort of college sports navbox . Thus, the two nominated templates are no longer needed and should be deleeted. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion about how the surviving template should look

I made the nav boxes look like other nav boxes I had seen (Namely the ivy league nav box) There is nothing wrong with the way it was layed out, in fact it looked quite nice. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the template I'm talking about:

If they're allowed to have a nice nav box so are we. I'll revert the edits once the deletion has been shot down. Because there is no reason to delete these templates. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Ivy League navbox needs to be fixed and brought into line with standards. Take a look at the Big Ten Conference navboxes or the ones for other major conferences. That's the way these should look. Example:

Jweiss11 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Why do they have to look that way? Just because it's the way the Big 10 did it? No, the way I had the nav boxes laid out was informative because it allowed you a link to each school, their athletic page and their colors. There is no reason to change it, especially when it looks like other conference nav boxes. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let me ask, Which way looks better and is more informative to you? Because the way the way I had it laid out is much nicer and more informative from my point of view, isn't that the goal here? To be as informative as possible? The other conferences are welcome to change their nav boxes if they wish. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No links were lost. After my edits, Template:Southland Conference navbox still links to every school and athletic team in the conference. True, we no long have every school's colors represented here, but that's not the purpose of a navbox, and all those colors did not make for easy navigation. There is nothing "Big Ten-ish" about the format of the Big Ten template. James Delany did not issue a decree on the format of that navbox. I could have picked the SEC or ACC as an example. They all follow the same formatting, which is a product of collaboration and consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did the "colors not make for easy navigation?" What was wrong with it? I'm curious because you seem to be one of those people that enjoy jacking with nav boxes for the hell of it. If it isn't broke don't fix it. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't jack with navboxes for the hell of it. I'm standardizing them so that there's consistent form and navigation across college sports on Wikipedia. This template(s) was indeed broke. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How was it broke? The colors don't make navigation harder. It was intuitive and nice, so where was the dysfunction? ThomasHorn7 (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, the navbox was an amalgamation of three separate templates. Now it is one template. That's much more efficient. Some of the colors schemes like the one for Nicholls State or Texas A&M CC are tough to read because of minimal color contrast. But those are beside the general point of my changes and this nomination. Navboxes of a certain class should all look alike. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was combination of two navboxes into one navbox, it was just as easy to place on any article as the navbox you created. all you had to do was type the name "Southland Conference." So it was hardly an amalgamation. There was enough color contrast for me to read it but if you would like we can change the text to black for those that are hard to read. Show me where on wikipedia it says that this navbox has to look the way you configured it. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the above discussion is entirely beside the point here, so I've collapsed it to allow this discussion to get on track. The issue at hand right here is not how Template:Southland Conference navbox should look, but whether two sub-templates, Template:SLC West and Template:Southland Conference East, are needed. Clearly they are not; even if the previous navbox format (the one supported by ThomasHorn7) is to be restored, it can be done through a single template. So, the two templates under discussion here can be deleted. cmadler (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
actually it has to be done with two templates, I would love to see you replicate my work using one template. If you can kudos to you. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You don't need either of the divisional templates. It should all be in one, which can be done by utilizing a navbox with collapsible groups, which I don't think should be done. As for the look of the navbox, I'll comment on that navbox's discussion page. City boy77 (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can now keep the same format using cityboys suggestion. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the fall of 2010, I changed Template:Horizon League to use the groups function, although last night I brought the navbox in line with the vast majority of other athletic conference navboxes, which I believe is important for continuity's sake. You can view the older version here. City boy77 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For your convenience, I have created a version of the navbox that utilizes the groups, negating the need for these two navboxes. It can be viewed in my userspace, here. City boy77 (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, there are a lot of issues at play here. I was trying to explain to ThomasHorn7 the big picture here. If anyone wants to comment on the look of the navbox, here's the place: Template talk:Southland Conference navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looked fine, no one was complaining about it. Did some one file a complaint? If it was serving its purpose why does it have to change? I need more explanation other than the "this is how it was done for other conferences." That explanation is perfunctory and doesn't get at the heart of the issues. Why does it need to be changed?

ThomasHorn7, it needs to conform with a standardization that is a necessary attribute of a high-quality encyclopedia. I think the heart of the issue here is that you are rather attached to the navbox in the form to which you brought it. You are flying it on your user page and you are apparently a fan of one of the Southland teams. The language you use above like "they're" and "we" with respect to the Southland Conference is rather telling. You see the "Ivy" form as a deluxe rendering of the navbox, a special decoration that the Southland Conference deserves and which you have delivered. This combined with a lack of appreciation for parallelism and standardization on Wikipedia has manifested itself here as an identity politics campaign that has wasted and bodes to waste more time and effort on behalf of many parties. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See I find this highly insulting, it's not about the luxury. It's more about the arbitrary change of the style, it was never even discussed on the user page. I have already offered to change all of the Conference user boxes to the SLC format, so it's not identity politics at play. I think that suggestion is insulting to me and it would be nice if you would stop. Look back through our discussion I used "they're" and "we" in the form you mention once, only once.

Isn't once enough? What user page and user boxes are you talking about?

Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant discussion pages, not user pages.

Delete - breaking a navbox into two separate navboxes when Jweiss11 has already combined the two is superfluous. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please show me how to keep the same format with one navbox. Please. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keeping the same format would not be a good idea. The old format is, to put it mildly, more of a distraction than a navigational aid. A simple bulleted list is more then sufficient here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:11, 26 August 2011 (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.