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 page.
A navbox that includes very tenuously linked articles. These games share very little in common with each other save that they use the same stock game engine; otherwise, they were released years apart by different developers and many share little in common regarding gameplay. -
A Man In Bl♟ck (
conspire |
past ops)
14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
change to cat I can see the usefulness of wanting to see how different games have been created using the same engine. This would be fine as a cat, provided there are enough articles written (more than 3 or 4). -
Zappernapper20:29, 31 October 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
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 page.
3di-series templates with two links
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 page.
These templates exist to provide links between main routes of the
Interstate Highway system with their spur routes. Some of these templates link to several routes, e.g. {{3di 5}} or {{3di 80}}. These above contain only one link, along with one in their title. Navboxes containing only two links are a Bad Thing™. It is specifically these and only these that are for consideration here, not the entire set of templates.81.104.170.16700:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not have to blindly follow WikiProject guidelines if the result is something ridiculous like a template for a single link. Go ahead and subst but the templates themselves are unnecessary. --
Polaron |
Talk02:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Not if they consist of only one item. Again, what is wrong with replacing those cases where there is only one spur with a pair of reciprocal links? You can always recreate the template when they're actually needed (i.e. when another spur appears at a later date).
81.104.170.16707:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
You are looking at one-line entries in navboxes. As an example, see
Interstate 184 to see what the actual box looks like (it involves use of meta-templates). You should find yourself looking at a navbox with one and only one entry in it. It is only the templates behind the navboxes, and only those with only one entry. Each is used in only two places. This is clearly not what the
Template namespace is for, and in those cases of only one entry, it is counter-intuitive on the articles on the spurs (where you are presented with a link to the page you are on, rather than a link to the related route, which is hidden in the title). Articles for Interstates not having spurs manage just fine without the navbox, and I can see their usefulness on groups of articles where there are many spurs, but only one? Pair of reciprocal links in the text will do just as nicely, and is no less usable (actually more usable on the spur article).
81.104.170.16707:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: Without expressing an opinion on the instant question, let me just say that I am nervous at the suggestion that "they cannot be deleted" because "this project says that they are needed for consistency". It's dangerous when WikiProjects start to think they have some sort of authority over other Wikipedians...
User:Glenn Willen (
Talk)
15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. As a member of the roads project, I do not believe that these templates provide anything more than a link. --
NE218:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak keep for now for the purposes of consistency, although I would much prefer a compromise solution like those being discussed currently at
WT:IH. --
NORTHtalk00:33, 2 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
A navbox that includes very tenuously linked articles. These games share very little in common with each other save that they use the same stock game engine; otherwise, they were released years apart by different developers and many share little in common regarding gameplay. -
A Man In Bl♟ck (
conspire |
past ops)
14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
change to cat I can see the usefulness of wanting to see how different games have been created using the same engine. This would be fine as a cat, provided there are enough articles written (more than 3 or 4). -
Zappernapper20:29, 31 October 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
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 page.
3di-series templates with two links
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 page.
These templates exist to provide links between main routes of the
Interstate Highway system with their spur routes. Some of these templates link to several routes, e.g. {{3di 5}} or {{3di 80}}. These above contain only one link, along with one in their title. Navboxes containing only two links are a Bad Thing™. It is specifically these and only these that are for consideration here, not the entire set of templates.81.104.170.16700:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not have to blindly follow WikiProject guidelines if the result is something ridiculous like a template for a single link. Go ahead and subst but the templates themselves are unnecessary. --
Polaron |
Talk02:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Not if they consist of only one item. Again, what is wrong with replacing those cases where there is only one spur with a pair of reciprocal links? You can always recreate the template when they're actually needed (i.e. when another spur appears at a later date).
81.104.170.16707:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
You are looking at one-line entries in navboxes. As an example, see
Interstate 184 to see what the actual box looks like (it involves use of meta-templates). You should find yourself looking at a navbox with one and only one entry in it. It is only the templates behind the navboxes, and only those with only one entry. Each is used in only two places. This is clearly not what the
Template namespace is for, and in those cases of only one entry, it is counter-intuitive on the articles on the spurs (where you are presented with a link to the page you are on, rather than a link to the related route, which is hidden in the title). Articles for Interstates not having spurs manage just fine without the navbox, and I can see their usefulness on groups of articles where there are many spurs, but only one? Pair of reciprocal links in the text will do just as nicely, and is no less usable (actually more usable on the spur article).
81.104.170.16707:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: Without expressing an opinion on the instant question, let me just say that I am nervous at the suggestion that "they cannot be deleted" because "this project says that they are needed for consistency". It's dangerous when WikiProjects start to think they have some sort of authority over other Wikipedians...
User:Glenn Willen (
Talk)
15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. As a member of the roads project, I do not believe that these templates provide anything more than a link. --
NE218:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak keep for now for the purposes of consistency, although I would much prefer a compromise solution like those being discussed currently at
WT:IH. --
NORTHtalk00:33, 2 November 2006 (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 page.