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.
{{cubes}}
Not a useful navbox. There aren't enough legitimate cube articles to justify the navbox, and the other articles are just things that happen to be cubes - they have no other relation to justify linking.
JaGatalk07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Another editor has added substantial content, and I shall do the same this weekend. As I mentioned before, there are many cubes lurking throughout mathematics, e.g. in harmonic analysis, measure theory (e.g., Menger's sponge), coding theory & discrete metric spaces (Hamming metric).
Delete or significantly rewrite. A navigation box should be an organized collection of internal links, not a place for long descriptions of
Klee–Minty cube,
Cosmic cube and
Lemarchand's box. Navigation boxes are for navigation. I can click on the link to find out that the "Cosmic cube has the power to alter reality according to wielder's wishes."
Frietjes (
talk)
20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I have reviewed it, and my opinion is still for delete, for the same reason. The same reasons apply: no reader will be well-served by a navbox of random cube-related stuff. Who would avail themselves of convenient links between Rubik's Cube, Cubism, and Cesium Chloride? The idea is ridiculous. —
Mark Dominus (
talk)
21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete: It's hard to imagine people wanting to navigate between these wildly-differing articles. Zonotope is haredly related to Menger sponge, and those aren't at all related to Yoshimoto Cube or Kaaba. I'll admit, there's some value to linking the various Rubik's cubes together, but not with the other material.
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I updated the box to have Penrose tilings and quasi-crystals, linking mathematics, art, and chemistry (again). BTW, I should inform you that the puzzle section is mostly a selection from a navbox on Rubik's cube. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (
Discussion)
19:49, 22 April 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.
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.
Other than the nom being a likely sock, this template is useless in that typing out "#'''Support''' ~~~~" doesn't take long at all, but this template encourages drive-by votes/votes without rationales. Even though it's in support of someone, we shouldn't be using templates so people can be lazy and not be bothered to write a little extra comment when they would have without the template. /
ƒETCHCOMMS/03:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - It isn't that hard to type out, and doesn't accept a rationale parameter. Even if it did, it would not be very valuable as it would take more time to type the template than it would to type "Support - Blah blah blah...
Example (
talk)"
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
10:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is a template that (if it is kept) should be substituted, and {{subst:Rfasupport}} (20 characters) is actually longer than #'''Support''' ~~~~ (19 characters). The main factor, of course, is the one cited by the nominator: the template encourages drive-by voting. -- Black Falcon(
talk)16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete We absolutely shouldn't have a template that encourages easy, blank !votes. If someone really wants to leave a blank !vote, they can type four tildes instead of typing out {{subst:RFAS}} or whatever we would change it to. SwarmX22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – Usually you're not the first person to !vote in an RFA, so it's easy to follow the way others have !voted. Unnecessary template.
HeyMid (
contribs)
21:21, 22 April 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.
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.
{{cubes}}
Not a useful navbox. There aren't enough legitimate cube articles to justify the navbox, and the other articles are just things that happen to be cubes - they have no other relation to justify linking.
JaGatalk07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Another editor has added substantial content, and I shall do the same this weekend. As I mentioned before, there are many cubes lurking throughout mathematics, e.g. in harmonic analysis, measure theory (e.g., Menger's sponge), coding theory & discrete metric spaces (Hamming metric).
Delete or significantly rewrite. A navigation box should be an organized collection of internal links, not a place for long descriptions of
Klee–Minty cube,
Cosmic cube and
Lemarchand's box. Navigation boxes are for navigation. I can click on the link to find out that the "Cosmic cube has the power to alter reality according to wielder's wishes."
Frietjes (
talk)
20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I have reviewed it, and my opinion is still for delete, for the same reason. The same reasons apply: no reader will be well-served by a navbox of random cube-related stuff. Who would avail themselves of convenient links between Rubik's Cube, Cubism, and Cesium Chloride? The idea is ridiculous. —
Mark Dominus (
talk)
21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete: It's hard to imagine people wanting to navigate between these wildly-differing articles. Zonotope is haredly related to Menger sponge, and those aren't at all related to Yoshimoto Cube or Kaaba. I'll admit, there's some value to linking the various Rubik's cubes together, but not with the other material.
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I updated the box to have Penrose tilings and quasi-crystals, linking mathematics, art, and chemistry (again). BTW, I should inform you that the puzzle section is mostly a selection from a navbox on Rubik's cube. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (
Discussion)
19:49, 22 April 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.
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.
Other than the nom being a likely sock, this template is useless in that typing out "#'''Support''' ~~~~" doesn't take long at all, but this template encourages drive-by votes/votes without rationales. Even though it's in support of someone, we shouldn't be using templates so people can be lazy and not be bothered to write a little extra comment when they would have without the template. /
ƒETCHCOMMS/03:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - It isn't that hard to type out, and doesn't accept a rationale parameter. Even if it did, it would not be very valuable as it would take more time to type the template than it would to type "Support - Blah blah blah...
Example (
talk)"
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
10:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is a template that (if it is kept) should be substituted, and {{subst:Rfasupport}} (20 characters) is actually longer than #'''Support''' ~~~~ (19 characters). The main factor, of course, is the one cited by the nominator: the template encourages drive-by voting. -- Black Falcon(
talk)16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete We absolutely shouldn't have a template that encourages easy, blank !votes. If someone really wants to leave a blank !vote, they can type four tildes instead of typing out {{subst:RFAS}} or whatever we would change it to. SwarmX22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – Usually you're not the first person to !vote in an RFA, so it's easy to follow the way others have !voted. Unnecessary template.
HeyMid (
contribs)
21:21, 22 April 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.