The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox for a political body, on which just two members out of 29 actually have articles for the navbox to link. For added bonus, one of those two is up for deletion — this isn't a role that would even get a person a Wikipedia article under WP:NPOL if it was the crux of their notability, so the prospect of the other 27 councillors getting filled in is limited at best trending toward nonexistent. Navboxes aren't needed to link just one or two articles — if all 29 councillors had articles, then this would be fine, but if only two of them do and in seven days that might be reduced to one, then a navbox isn't appropriate and the list that already exists in Indianapolis City-County Council is all that's required. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough links to justify the existence of this navbox. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:28, 3 November 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).
Template:2009 World Series
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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unneeded. -- Whpq (talk) 01:17, 27 October 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).
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).
If kept, Rename to ((expand-inline)) or ((incomplete-inline)) ; as it is an inline version of expand, and the current name is very poor, as it could be construed to mean that it is a cleanup template for overly elaborate material -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think redirecting is a good idea, due tot he confusing nature of the name -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 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).
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).
Template with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 24 October 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).
Template:Virginia Slims of Hollywood tournaments
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).
Template consisting totally of redlinks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 24 October 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).
Template:The Simpsons episode count
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; further discussion needed on the general merits of the transclusion system in use here. (See also this thread (permalink) attempting to sort through the general issue.) Recommend a discussion among experienced TV editors and template editors on the issues here of consistency across the TV articles vs. inefficiency in transcluding large pages, and whether an alternative is worth developing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: discussion at the TV project suggests clear consensus to use the article-transclusion system, and a follow-up request was made here, so this is being re-closed as delete. It would be confusing to retain just a few of these despite consensus not to use them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely redundant template that only contains an episode count. It is no longer transcluded to any articles as there was a much better way to achieve exactly what this template did. AussieLegend (✉) 05:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions at previous discussions, the most recent of which was 2 years ago, don't seem to have considered that it is unnecessary to use a template for the purpose for which this template is being used. Your own opinion at the last discussion was per another editor's opinion, which was It does exactly what a template is supposed to do, add data to multiple pages which can be sourced and edited in one place. That's being done now without the need for the template. Ten pages are being updated simply by editing the episode count in the infobox, which is where the episode count is supposed to be. By editing the infobox, as we do for 36,155 other TV articles, instead of forcing editors to find an obscure template, we are being consistent. Above all though, there is no need to keep a template that isn't being used. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's actually being transcluded in a few articles, and it means editing one template updates them all. This is exactly what templates are meant to be used for. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Alakzi has said at this discussion, this is exactly not what templates are meant to be used for. Templates should not be used to store article content, with few exceptions, because it's a barrier to entry. The template is now being used again because it has been unnecessarily restored to articles. The template is still entirely redundant as transcluding from the main series article does exactly the same thing as the template, only in a less confusing way for editors, as they don't need to find the template. There are more than 36,000 articles that use ((Infobox television)) and this template is one of only a handful that do things in a way differently to the other 36,000+. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and use it to replace instances of of the markup ((:The Simpsons)) in these pages. Transcluding an entire article just to extract one figure is hugely inefficient. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on how much of an inefficient system it is to transclude the Article rather than the template, see Opabinia regalis' talk page. The short version is that every time ((:The Simpsons)) is called, the entire 140k is transcluded before the <onlyinclude> is stripped out. Primefac (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to point out the minnowing that occurred in a similar instance when a user unilaterally decided to remove all of the templates and then nominate it for deletion as unused. The relevant policies are on that page. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way for the episode count for The Simpsons and other shows to automatically update without the use of the The Simpsons episode count template and other templates? -- PK2 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Put each article that is about a single episode into a category that contains all the episodes, and nothing else (let's assume that it's called Category:The Simpsons episodes). Then ((PAGESINCATEGORY:The Simpsons episodes)) will give the count. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes that every episode gets an article, and no other pages get accidentally thrown into the cat.
Of course, if editing a template is the end of the world for editors, imaging editing pages in a category! </sarcasm> Primefac (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does assume that, which is why I wrote "that contains all the episodes, and nothing else". AFAIK the only case where two episodes don't get separate articles is "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" but we can easily get around that: put the category on the redirects Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part One) and Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part Two), not on the main article. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A workaround like that would be rather absurd, as it would keep the category count correct but not actually list the episode in the category of episodes. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 09:14, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KarasuGamma: Why wouldn't it be listed? Redirects are listed in cats along with regular articles, the only difference being that they're italicised; for example, Honey Lantree is a redirect, and is listed in Category:Female drummers as Honey Lantree. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Following your examples, I meant that the category wouldn't be listed on the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" article itself, even though yes, the redirects would appear in the category list. This is demonstrated with how The Honeycombs isn't in Category:Female drummers even though Lantree is. Further, the nom's comment block below makes a few very relevant points. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 21:30, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Lantree, I'm not saying whether the band should be in the category, only demonstrating how with the current setup, they aren't. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 21:33, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The band isn't in the cat because the band itself isn't a female drummer. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm aware of this. See the small comment. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 23:18, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alakzi. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 09:14, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use some common sense - Keep advocates are making some rather absurd arguments and suggestions, while ignoring more important issues and guidelines.
"We've had this discussion before, twice" - Irrelevant, consensus can change, which is why we sometimes renominate templates.
"it's actually being transcluded in a few articles, and it means editing one template updates them all" - It's not being transcluded because there is an easier way of doing what the template does.
"Transcluding an entire article just to extract one figure is hugely inefficient" - WP:PERFORMANCE says, You, as a user, should not worry about site performance. In most cases, there is little you can do to appreciably speed up or slow down the site's servers. The software is, on the whole, designed to prohibit users' actions from slowing it down much. The "in a nutshell" comments also says Server performance is very important, but it's taken care of by the sysadmins, who know what they're doing. Try not to make policy decisions based on your understanding of performance issues. In other words, the efficiency is not something we need concern ourselves with.
"Put each article that is about a single episode into a category that contains all the episodes" - There are so many things wrong with this. Category:The Simpsons episodes already exists. It contains 3 articles, the subject template and 29 subcats, 27 of those being for the episodes in each season. The proposal seems to suggest moving articles currently in the cat somewhere else and either moving all of the episode articles out of the existing, functional category tree into a single cat, which is not an efficient method of categorisation, and creating redirects for articles that don't have episodes, all just so a cat can be used to count the number of episodes. Alternatively, the proposal may be suggesting that instead of moving the articles, we include them in the subcats as well as the parent category, which is certainly not recommended at WP:SUBCAT. And why would we be making this huge effort? To avoid transcluding from the infobox, which is where the total number of episodes is located in over 36,000 articles. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
This template was not transcluded to many articles, 10 in total, and some of the uses were problematic. At Fox cartoons on 24 October 2015 the text originally said As of 2014 a total of 578 episodes of The Simpsons have aired, the series is currently airing its twenty sixth season. However, as of the end of 2014 only 561 episodes had aired and, as of 24 October 2015, the series was currently airing its 27th season. This is really an article that should be manually updated to ensure currency. At Wikipedia:Fancruft#Popularity the templaate was used simply to keep the number updated in a sentence that reads Debates often arise between contributors who point out that the topic on which they are writing is popular (and thus important) and those who believe that, regardless of a fictional universe's popularity, having 578 articles devoted to specific episodes of an American animated television series and a single article on Paradise Lost makes Wikipedia appear biased towards pop culture and against "serious" subjects such as the Western canon. There is absolutely no reason why the template should be used here. A phrase such as "over 500", or "nearly 600" could easily substitute for the template, it's not a figure that needs to be precise when it's being compared to a single article. Other articles using the template really need to be reviewed for the necessity to actually transclude the episode count at all.
The edits that I made clearly demonstrated that this template is redundant, it's not transcluded anywhere and shouldn't be, and its existence is contrary to WP:TG, so there is no reason based on policy or guidelines to keep it, while we do have guidelines that say it shouldn't exist. We certainly don't need to go to the effort of recategorisng nearly 600 articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks aside... you've now made this argument four(?) times in various places. I think unless someone new has an opinion, or an admin decides to close, you should probably chill for a while (I plan on doing so). Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true (or convincing). Primefac (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:NPA. This is the discussion for the template, so it is essential to make any arguments here. Arguments made elsewhere cannot be considered to be part of this discussion. The vast majority of my latest post addresses issues that I have so far not commented upon here, or at 3 other supposed places. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 4 November 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).
Template:South Park episode count
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, see above here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: discussion at the TV project suggests clear consensus to use the article-transclusion system, and a follow-up request was made here, so this is being re-closed as delete. It would be confusing to retain just a few of these despite consensus not to use them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely redundant template that only contains an episode count. It is no longer transcluded to any articles as there was a much better way to achieve exactly what this template did. AussieLegend (✉) 04:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's actually being transcluded in a few articles, and it means editing one template updates them all. This is exactly what templates are meant to be used for. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Alakzi has said at this discussion, this is exactly not what templates are meant to be used for. Templates should not be used to store article content, with few exceptions, because it's a barrier to entry. The template is now being used again because it has been unnecessarily restored to articles. The template is still entirely redundant as transcluding from the main series article does exactly the same thing as the template, only in a less confusing way for editors, as they don't need to find the template. There are more than 36,000 articles that use ((Infobox television)) and this template is one of only a handful that do things in a way differently to the other 36,000+. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alakzi. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 09:15, 03 November 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).