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 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).
I've restored the content to {{American Experience}} due to a failure to seek consensus for an enormous edit. And secondly, the template was nearly deleted in it's entirety by
Robsinden by his edit time stamped
11:29, 19 May 2016. Posting "Longstanding consensus not to have cast and crew in navboxes" for the edit summary with no link to the "Longstanding consensus" discussion does not establish the truthfulness for this claim.
showing only "notable" (i.e. episodes with existing articles) episodes in the result
"Each
link should clearly be identifiable as such to our readers. In general text colors should be consistent with
Wikipedia text color defaults, so links should be blue; dead links should be red; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text. However, specific navbox guidelines for color of text and background other than the defaults are
available."
"Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to
write the article first."
The purpose of those templates is to link the films to the series. This template is no different than
Template:The Simpsons episodes. If you are opposed to the redlinks, than please create content. I have stated the above policies
Wikipedia:NAVBOX and
Wikipedia:EXISTING to Robsinden recently at the following talk pages with diffs:
Actually,
WP:NAVBOX is a
guideline, and
WP:EXISTING is an
essay, neither are
policies. You're cherry-picking though by quoting the bit which says what colour links are to be if they are included, when actually the pertinent part of
WP:NAVBOX is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". Although not specifically precluded, redlinks do not point to articles. A sea of redlinks hinders the reader from finding the articles they want to find. And with the switch function of this navbox, they are only finding a couple of active links each time, which is frustrating for anyone.
As far as consensus regarding cast and crew go, see
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:James Bond film crew and related discussions. The other entries (TV network, theme song, etc) were just too tangential for inclusion. The fact is, as it stands {{American Experience episodes}} is unusable. You have to select the seasons one by one, only to find the majority of links are redlinks. This works with {{The Simpsons episodes}} where nearly every episode has a blue link, but this is not the case here. By combining the two navboxes and only including links with target articles, you help the reader navigate to existing articles, rather than a complicated navigation system that hinders the reader finding the articles. --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
07:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)reply
What do you call it when you do it? Everything in that Wikipedia policy is pertinent. Not only the parts you like at the exclusion of the parts you dislike.
As far as consensus regarding cast and crew go
That is a link to
Template:James Bond film crew. A template dedicated solely to the film crew of James Bond. That is not a comparable comparison to this template. Nor does it reflect a consensus discussion. It's a nomination you started with two supporting deletes. You're going to need something more substantial to prove this claim.
other entries (TV network, theme song, etc) were just too tangential for inclusion
The creator, executive producers, theme music composers, and related articles are too tangential for inclusion? Was there a discussion that appointed you to determine which articles are pertinent or redundant to a template? No editor makes that determination by themselves.
redlinks
I've addressed this issue numerous times as stated above. Ignoring this aspect of the policy is a personal choice.
Yes, by all means, create a list of directors and narrators. I don't know if they would pass notability guidelines though... --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
09:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)reply
As far as the theme song goes, this would be suitable for inclusion if it was composed for the TV series, as it is intrinsically linked to the show. However, take a look at
Time Has Come Today#In other media and see how many other TV series it has been used in. And it is against standard practice to link the TV network, you can look at any other TV series navbox for this (although it might be appropriate to include the show in {{PBSTV}}). --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
09:07, 23 May 2016 (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).
@
Frietjes: Given lack of participation here, could you show the redundancy by converting both of the existing mainspace transclusions? If that's successful, I'll close as delete (as unopposed). ~ RobTalk15:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Rob, all meaningful transclusions were converted weeks ago. anything left can be easily corrected by just adding |relief=1 and using the standard USA map.
Frietjes (
talk)
12:34, 29 May 2016 (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).
The result of the discussion was delete as per this discussion with consideration to the long-standing consensus that three links is not sufficient for a navbox. (
non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk17:31, 28 May 2016 (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).
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).
I've restored the content to {{American Experience}} due to a failure to seek consensus for an enormous edit. And secondly, the template was nearly deleted in it's entirety by
Robsinden by his edit time stamped
11:29, 19 May 2016. Posting "Longstanding consensus not to have cast and crew in navboxes" for the edit summary with no link to the "Longstanding consensus" discussion does not establish the truthfulness for this claim.
showing only "notable" (i.e. episodes with existing articles) episodes in the result
"Each
link should clearly be identifiable as such to our readers. In general text colors should be consistent with
Wikipedia text color defaults, so links should be blue; dead links should be red; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text. However, specific navbox guidelines for color of text and background other than the defaults are
available."
"Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to
write the article first."
The purpose of those templates is to link the films to the series. This template is no different than
Template:The Simpsons episodes. If you are opposed to the redlinks, than please create content. I have stated the above policies
Wikipedia:NAVBOX and
Wikipedia:EXISTING to Robsinden recently at the following talk pages with diffs:
Actually,
WP:NAVBOX is a
guideline, and
WP:EXISTING is an
essay, neither are
policies. You're cherry-picking though by quoting the bit which says what colour links are to be if they are included, when actually the pertinent part of
WP:NAVBOX is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". Although not specifically precluded, redlinks do not point to articles. A sea of redlinks hinders the reader from finding the articles they want to find. And with the switch function of this navbox, they are only finding a couple of active links each time, which is frustrating for anyone.
As far as consensus regarding cast and crew go, see
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:James Bond film crew and related discussions. The other entries (TV network, theme song, etc) were just too tangential for inclusion. The fact is, as it stands {{American Experience episodes}} is unusable. You have to select the seasons one by one, only to find the majority of links are redlinks. This works with {{The Simpsons episodes}} where nearly every episode has a blue link, but this is not the case here. By combining the two navboxes and only including links with target articles, you help the reader navigate to existing articles, rather than a complicated navigation system that hinders the reader finding the articles. --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
07:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)reply
What do you call it when you do it? Everything in that Wikipedia policy is pertinent. Not only the parts you like at the exclusion of the parts you dislike.
As far as consensus regarding cast and crew go
That is a link to
Template:James Bond film crew. A template dedicated solely to the film crew of James Bond. That is not a comparable comparison to this template. Nor does it reflect a consensus discussion. It's a nomination you started with two supporting deletes. You're going to need something more substantial to prove this claim.
other entries (TV network, theme song, etc) were just too tangential for inclusion
The creator, executive producers, theme music composers, and related articles are too tangential for inclusion? Was there a discussion that appointed you to determine which articles are pertinent or redundant to a template? No editor makes that determination by themselves.
redlinks
I've addressed this issue numerous times as stated above. Ignoring this aspect of the policy is a personal choice.
Yes, by all means, create a list of directors and narrators. I don't know if they would pass notability guidelines though... --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
09:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)reply
As far as the theme song goes, this would be suitable for inclusion if it was composed for the TV series, as it is intrinsically linked to the show. However, take a look at
Time Has Come Today#In other media and see how many other TV series it has been used in. And it is against standard practice to link the TV network, you can look at any other TV series navbox for this (although it might be appropriate to include the show in {{PBSTV}}). --
Rob Sinden (
talk)
09:07, 23 May 2016 (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).
@
Frietjes: Given lack of participation here, could you show the redundancy by converting both of the existing mainspace transclusions? If that's successful, I'll close as delete (as unopposed). ~ RobTalk15:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Rob, all meaningful transclusions were converted weeks ago. anything left can be easily corrected by just adding |relief=1 and using the standard USA map.
Frietjes (
talk)
12:34, 29 May 2016 (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).
The result of the discussion was delete as per this discussion with consideration to the long-standing consensus that three links is not sufficient for a navbox. (
non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk17:31, 28 May 2016 (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).