WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 20#Template:Line 1 (Budapest Metro)

: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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Salvador Metro Map}}

Single use wrapper. Clearly not complicated enough to warrant a template even if you're persuaded by "too complicated for the mainspace" arguments. ~ Rob^Talk 22:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Oppose – a second line is supposed to open in the next year or two. It's on my 'To do' list to add the second line to the template, but I'll need to do some research first – I was thinking of getting to that in the next couple of months. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. See discussions below. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per IJBall. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Userfy or keep for now to allow for expansion, as more of a placeholder, with the option to renominate in a few months if kept and the issues are still present —PC-XT+ 06:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. See discussions below. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Withdrawn by nominator. Not interested in being involved in such an oddly contentious area. ~ Rob^Talk 15:46, 21 March 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).

: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 userfy. Izkala (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|NorthstarHiawathaCentral}}

Single-use wrapper, only used on a user page. ~ Rob^Talk 22:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Userfy. It seems to be intended for a future article. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Move to user space. As noted by Useddenim, the main article is a red link which would suggest that this was made for a future article. Since the article doesn't exist, there's no reason for this to be in mainspace. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Userfy as not yet ready for template space without article in mainspace (could perhaps be merged with draft, at least temporarily) —PC-XT+ 06:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep See discussions below. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as per existing comments r.e. separate of code from main article. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Note that this is a comment posted in more than one discussion, and there is no main article for this template. ~ Rob^Talk 16:02, 23 March 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).

: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 (non-admin closure). — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Line 1 (Budapest Metro)}}
• {{Tfd links|Line 2 (Budapest Metro)}}
• {{Tfd links|Line 3 (Budapest Metro)}}
• {{Tfd links|Line 4 (Budapest Metro)}}
• {{Tfd links|Line 5 (Budapest Metro)}}

Single transclusion wrappers. ~ Rob^Talk 20:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Discussions like this and this are why route diagrams are kept on a separate page! Useddenim (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• {{re|Useddenim}} Both of those discussions boil down to the fact that you appear to be trying to make this content more difficult for new editors to access due to the fear that they'll break something. That's a view that fundamentally contradicts Wikipedia's basic "Everyone can edit" philosophy. How are new editors to learn if we intentionally hide away bits of content? ~ Rob^Talk 22:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Well, yes. A single mis-typed character can easily break a template. WP:Sandboxes are for learning. There's no way I (or any other editor) can watch every single Route Diagram, and a broken diagram is not only useless, but if not transcluded can also affect content on the parent page. So unless you intend to patrol every single page that contains an RDT, I suggest you abandon this crusade against “Single use wrapper”s. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

::::Please assume good faith. I'm on no such crusade. I nominated some of the tiny templates that clearly do not overwhelm source page content. The dangers of someone breaking a route diagram are no larger than the dangers of someone breaking an infobox assuming editors use common sense and don't mess with the syntax they don't know anything about. Any sensible editor wouldn't mess with the codes themselves, but they absolutely should be able to edit the text (station names, etc) just like any other article content without an extra barrier. See WP:Protection policy for an actual policy that details how infrequently we should implement such barriers to editing. ~ Rob^Talk 01:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Using these as templates instead of keeping them on the main page helps keep the page uncluttered with BSicon syntax that most don't understand. It just makes the page so much easier to edit this way. I have made three templates today in use on Wilson station (CTA) for that very reason instead of dumping all of that code onto the page. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep – as per the arguments above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep – as per the arguments above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per above. oknazevad (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I can see both sides. While there is a strong precedent against most single-use templates, there are also exceptions. The line is rather gray, but if they are in use for a reason, we tend to apply WP:IAR. Eventually, the line often becomes more clear. Some templates naturally merge into the article. Others become clearly separate, as merge problems become more apparent. Due to the keeps here, I would probably say keep for now, and renominate later if there are still issues —PC-XT+ 02:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• {{re|PC-XT}} You may be interested to know the keeps came about largely after a canvassing message was placed on a few talk pages claiming that I was conducting a "crusade" against all single-use route maps. Actual volume of votes here will be unfortunately misleading due to the fairly blatant campaigning. I've since attempted to assure some people that I'm only nominating a few of the smaller and less obnoxious ones that I've come across, and not the monstrosities that clearly would overwhelm the source code if merged into the article, but I didn't get to do that prior to a bunch of pile-on keeps as a result of the campaigning. ~ Rob^Talk 02:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Not in my case – I followed your Talk page notice back here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, I didn't mean to lump you in there. You and Useddenim received notices as the creators for the two nominations. The rest I assume came via the canvassing. ~ Rob^Talk 02:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I agree that posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains is necessarily "canvasing" (though the notice there certainly could have been more neutrally worded) – but WikiProject Trains would naturally be interested in these kinds of discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• {{re|IJBall}} The post to Trains isn't the issue. Characterizing me as a crusading deletionist is. As is the post he made at User talk:Lost on Belmont, which is undoubtably canvassing, not to mention blatantly uncivil. ~ Rob^Talk 02:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• I can't speak for Useddenim or his motivations, however I don't see that notifying a few other editors in wikiproject BSicon is exactly canvassing, although I do see why it would certainly raise eyebrows on your part. The templates you've nominated bear certain similarities to a number of unused templates I've made for the Chicago "L" system. I will admit that it is entirely possible that he "raised the alarm" to help get votes to protect "his" stuff, but at the same time it could be that he is notifying users in case of a slippery slope situation and to be aware of the general situation with BSicons. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Not only because the used code is easy to break and hard to fix or edit, but also because separate templates allow the RTD to be used in multiple articles. (Rob, if you care for Wikipedia’s basic "Everyone can edit" philosophy, for which I do, too, then better retarget your attcks on VisualEditor: That is digging a deep trench between a caste of editors who can use wiki codes and those who cannot, instead of elevating all.) Tuvalkin (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• {{re|Tuvalkin}} The undo button makes a mistake remarkably easy to fix. These are nominated specifically because they are not used in multiple articles, and I would have no issue with them if they were. And trust me, I'm no fan of VisualEditor. ~ Rob^Talk 02:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was a bit strong in characterizing the nominations as “a crusade” (but {{tl|Salvador Metro Map}} and {{tl|NorthstarHiawathaCentral}} did show up within a few minutes of each other, and I thought it was the beginning of a wave, based on the previous nomination). However, I still feel strongly that RDTs should be kept separate for two main reasons:

1. It’s (unfortunately) remarkable the number of editors who do not use the {{keypress|Preview}} button and then won’t undo their mistakes. And (IMHO) many of the small hard-coded diagrams seem to be on infrequently-viewed pages, making the likelihood of a more-experienced editor stumbling across them to fix the error much lower.
2. Consistency. Need I say more?

Useddenim (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:Here are my thoughts on those points:

:#Editors not checking their edits is a problem. I'm not sure this is the best solution, but I'm willing to consider it, at least for certain cases.

:#I am generally a fan of consistency, but it could be argued both ways, here: Consistency among single-use templates on the wiki in general is part of the reason for nomination. Consistency among this kind of project template is certainly desirable. I would like to avoid pitting global and local consensus against each other, if possible, meaning I would rather not consider consistency any further in this discussion.

:—PC-XT+ 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• When I was fairly new to deletion discussions, I tried to follow the guidelines, but still left some otherwise appropriate notices with WP:CANVASS#Campaigning wording. Luckily, they didn't seem to influence the discussion, and nobody complained, but I was still rather embarrassed when I realized it, later. A fairly large number of templates I created/used had been nominated at once, which tends to make such slips more likely. As a nominator, I have learned that notifying project talk pages myself helps to reduce sore feelings that may be present, and a welcoming notice makes it a little easier for others to assume good faith, (though it can still take a lot of patience from everyone.) Discussion of these templates as single-use may be a sore spot for this project, but it looks like we are coming to a more cooperative stance, here, which is a good sign. Hopefully, we'll all have a productive conversation, and come away with a good feeling and better understanding. Cheers! —PC-XT+ 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 06:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. These maps are not issued from a random generator. There were people who wrote these maps. Part of them using {{tl|BS-map}}. Part of them using {{tl|routemap}}. Once written, these maps have to be maintained. And keeping them as separate entities facilitates the maintenance. This is a key property since, in the long term, these maps have to be maintained in sync with the reality. Pldx1 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Withdrawn by nominator. Not interested in being involved in such an oddly contentious area. ~ Rob^Talk 15:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as per existing comments r.e. separate of code from main article. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:04, 23 March 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).

: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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 29. ~ Rob^Talk 19:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Current events/revisedlayout}}

Like Portal:Current events/Calendar box (which is currently at MfD), this template is also unused. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment it looks like a skeleton? (ie. substed template) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 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).

: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 no consensus. The original rationale for deletion no longer applies, as articles have been created for several other coaches. I see no reason to relist this. ~ Rob^Talk 18:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Lamar Lady Cardinals basketball coach navbox}}
• Also propose deleting
• {{Tfd links|Lamar Lady Cardinals basketball coach navbox}}

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the reason for deletion. What makes this navbox different from numerous others associated with women's college basketball that are not. Articles exist for two of the coaches. That's one more article than several others that I looked at. I would think that if this navbox is flagged for deletion, the others should be also. Here's a quick list of others meeeting the same criteria of "just two pages".

Boston College Eagles - two; Connecticut Huskies - one; Duke Blue Devils - one; Georgia Lady Bulldogs - two; Hofstra Pride - two; Iowa Hawkeyes - two; Iowas State Cyclones - one; Liberty Lady Flames - one; Michigan State Spartans - two; Mississippi State Lady Bulldogs - two; Nebraska Cornhuskers - one; North Dakota State Bisons - one; Notre Dame Fighting Irish - one; Ohio Bobcats - two; Oregon State Beavers - two; Sam Houston State Bearkats - two; San Diego State Aztecs - two; San Diego Toreros - one; St. Francis Brooklyn Terriers - one; Syracuse Orange - two

LUSportsFan (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

::WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument against deletion. The purpose of a Navbox is to navigate between multiple articles on a related topic. The conensus of multiple TFDs is that two links isn't enough and that templates shouldn't be created till the articles are created. Since you brought the other templates to my attention, I will go through them and see any should also be nominated. Right this minute, I don't have the time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

:::If that's the case and consensus, I have no problems with deleting the navbox for now as long as the WP:TOOSOON criteria is applied equitably. As a guideline, what would be considered enough articles to warrant creating a navbox? There are at least two other coaches for this particular navbox who I think would qualify for an article or at least an article with several coaches listed. One of those coaches (Al Barbre) took the team to the 1991 NCAA Division I Tournament Elite Eight. The team was pretty much a "Cinderella" team in that tournament with wins over the Texas, LSU, and Arkansas teams. Another coach on the list, Pat Park, was a very successful head coach for several women's sports in the early days of women's college sports. She's a member of the National Collegiate Golf Coaches Association Hall of Fame and received several other honors over her coaching career. Here's a link to a recent article about Coach Park.{{cite web|title=Former LU coach Pat Park to be honored|url=http://www.lamarcardinals.com/news/2016/1/29/WBB_0129164628.aspx|publisher=Lamar University Athletics|accessdate=March 12, 2016}}

::: I don't know whether or not the remaining coaches would warrant a standalone article. They would probably warrant being included in an article covering several coaches. I held off creating the two articles I thought met a materiality test (Park and Barbre) because sufficient citations aren't available over the internet. Those two coaches along with several others were before the internet. I will need to go to printed media or microfiches of that media from back in the day to provide supporting sources. I think lack of easily accessible electronic sources is most likely the challenge for a lot, if not all, of the coaches in the other navboxes listed above.

:::Thanks for your help.LUSportsFan (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

::::Just an update: Eight articles are currently linked to the navbox following recent creation of articles for Leonard Davis, Liz Galloway McQuitter, David McKey, Al Barbre, Charlotte (Chickie) Mason, and Cindy Russo.

• {{re|WilliamJE}} Has your opinion on this changed at all now that there are more articles in the navbox? ~ Rob^Talk 14:04, 27 March 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).