Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24

Template:Infobox Jews

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

there are currently over 4000 articles using template:infobox ethnic group, but this one is the only one that has not been merged with the article. I see no reason why it needs to be kept separate from the article. we can preserve the edit history by moving it to a subpage of the article, and redirecting it to the article. we can preserve the talk page history by archiving it with the rest of the talk archives. Frietjes (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge per nom. — Lfdder (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is A merge has been reverted once recently, and the discussion on the talkpage has two people who disagree with the nominator on this subject. The reasons against a merge are mentioned there, and I feel the nominator should be trouted for forum shopping. The main point in the discussion against a merge is that there are very frequent and animated discussions and disagreements (including edits) regarding this template, and therefore it makes sense to treat the template and the article separately. Just have a look at the edit history and the talkpage of this template, and it becomes obvious that if all those edits and discussions were to be part of the article and its talkpage, they would be overloaded with edits and discussions, and the distinction between the template and the article proper would make the mixture of edits to both and discussion about both too confusing. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The content of the infobox should reflect the content of the article, rather than existing as a separate entity, so discussing them in the same talk pages is appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what you say is correct. Infobox discussions have nothing (or little) to do with discussions about the article content. Arguments about the infobox are usually who will be in the collage, what to write under "religions", what is the correct number of Jews in different countries, who are the "related groups" to Jews. Those are separate discussions to the discussions about the article, especially in the case of Jews, and they don't cross the discussions on the Jews talk page. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Debresser rightly said, and because the claim that this template is the "only one of its kind" (hasn't been merged) is clearly not sufficient enough to delete it, maybe it stayed that long for a reason: every article/template is different and has its own circumstances. - Yambaram (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so what are the unique circumstances when compared to the over 4000 other infoboxes, dozens of which have been merged with the articles after discussion here at TfD? Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again: saying "other stuff exists" is simply not a valid argument, just like I wouldn't propose the deletion of a stub claiming "99% of stubs this short have been deleted and so this one should be too" - as long as that stub article is notable enough and has reliable sources to support it. To answer your question, please look at what the other two users who said "keep" wrote. There also hasn't been any opposition to this template before and its existence does no harm. - Yambaram (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Big keep for few reasons: 1. The Jews and Template:Jews pages have a lot of discussions and arguments, so that helps not to load to many discussions on one page (which would make it harder to follow). 2. People who come to vandalize the Jews article usually keep the template untouched because they don't know how to get to it. 3. People who want to edit the template without discussion first usually have to go through the process of asking on the Jews talk page "why can't I edit the template?", where they are being told "you need to discuss it first", so it prevents pointless reverts and edit wars. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your second and third reasons, template:infobox ethnic group would also work. If not, a module or wrapper could be used, instead, which would also give another talk page for your first reason -PC-XT+ 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

right, we need to make WP harder to edit using security through obscurity. we use page-protection to reduce vandalism, not obfuscation. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to wrapper or module then possibly merge per nom-PC-XT+ 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- it already is a wrapper for {{infobox ethnic group}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right. Thanks. I struck my mistaken !vote -PC-XT+ 09:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete and merge per nom --Երևանցի ^talk 18:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded track listing

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) 01:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant in place of {{Nicki Minaj songs}} and inline with previous TFDs album tracklisting templates all of which have been deleted. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as redundant navigation, both redundant to the navbox, and the chronology links in the infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2013 (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:Ringo Starr filmography

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) 00:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ringo Starr filmography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia:ACTOR#Filmography navbox templates and precedent. There may be some articles that could be merged into {{Ringo Starr}}.Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per precedent. much of this also overlaps the Beatles filmography. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent....William 17:31, 28 September 2013 (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.