Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16 edit

Template:Economy of Sudan table edit

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.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Economy of Sudan table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think there is no reason to keep this template anymore. It isn't included anywhere (see), and the main article Economy of Sudan uses more common template {{Infobox economy}} instead of this one. RoadTrain (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – it is orphaned and the article that it was intended for now uses another template. —Airplaneman— 01:13, 24 March 2010 (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.

Template:Chiddy Bang edit

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.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Underpopulated navbox. RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chiddy Bang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete as template with link to only one other article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2010 (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.

Template:Baseball Year edit

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.

The result of the discussion was Keep for restricted use. There is consensus that the links produced by this template should not be used in regular prose, per WP:EGG. However, the consensus (taking into account the WIkiProject discussion as well) is that for baseball articles, these links continue to be useful and acceptable in tables and infoboxes. Therefore, the template will be kept, with the understanding that it is for use in non-prose portions of articles only. Since the template is not being deleted and administrator tools are not needed to remove individual transclusions, this is left for editors to do in the relevant articles. RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baseball Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:EGG, creating pipelinks such as [[2010 in baseball|2010]] is deprecated — and that's exactly what this template does. There is a precedent per TFD discussions such as this that such templates should be deleted. Any transclusions can easily be removed by hand. For more consensus, similar templates {{lityear}} and {{ymu}} were both deleted here as being contrary to WP:EGG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WikiProject Baseball seems to be arguing that these should remain for their use in tables, but I'll leave this open for further consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just present my argument here as a quote of what I said at WT:MLB: "I disagree with the removal of this template, as it's eminently useful in tables where that information should be provided. We have several other similar templates that several similar purposes and shouldn't be removed ({{nlcsy}}, {{alcsy}}, {{mlby}}). I have no problem, however, if the template is removed from prose... in tables, the added information was previously allowed under the MOS because those year links provide context ("An article is said to be underlinked if subjects are not linked that are helpful to the understanding of the article or its context" - from WP:LINK). There is also a section that says that those links may be acceptable if they provide appropriate context ("Year articles... should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year" - from WP:LINK#Year linking). Regardless, if you look at most featured lists that use this series of templates (at least the ones I've worked on), there is a key which explicitly defines where those links are going, so the destination is not unexpected at all. A main argument of mine for keeping them would be that - using an example from a list I recently worked on, List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions - winning the ERA title in 1910 is a lot different than winning the ERA title in 2000, and that context is provided by the link to the MLB season article or year in baseball article." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While most people will have no problem with their use within the narrow context of an infobox, as you stated, there remain clearly problematic usages, as visible in this version of the Hank Aaron article. Because the 'debutdate' field in the infobox is separate from the 'debutyear' field (by the same token 'finaldate' and 'finalyear'), yet juxtaposed when the infobox is in display mode, using of the template in this manner unintentionally creates the undesirable Easter egg. So is it simply a utilisation issue? It's clearly a conception issue, if you ask me. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an argument to use the template correctly, not to delete it. I don't think anyone would disagree that the template should be used correctly. Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think you are missing it by a light year. If its conceived to put April 13, {{by|1954}}, thus creating the April 13, 1954 easter egg, it will give the easter egg howsoever it's used. How can it be a utilisation problem?? Put another way - can you recommend how editors should use it "properly" without it giving rise to the EGG? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 21:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggested. But if one has a table of ERA champions by seasons, the "year" field in the table should link to "19xx in baseball", not "19xx", as would be explained in the key. Hence, if used correctly, no easter egg. Hence, a usage issue, not a deletion issue. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting you, KV5: “I disagree with the removal of this template, as it's eminently useful in tables where that information should be provided.” I agree with you 100% about providing useful information. The issue lies only in how the link is aliased (“piped” in wikitalk). Very many regular readers of Wikipedia have learned to not click on a link that looks like “In the art of DNA sequencing, in 1973, Gilbert and Maxam reported the sequence of 24 basepairs…” because they fear the colossal waste of time they will suffer being taken to an article comprising a near-random list of events that have nothing to do with DNA, DNA sequencing, Gilbert, or Maxam.

    Links are required to be germane and topical to the subject matter at hand and should help the reader to further explore the subject and related subject matter. Aliasing a link like this: [[2010 in baseball|2010]], takes a useful link and masquerades it as something useless to someone interested baseball (like this tidbit, from our 2008 article: “Demonstrations by Tibetan separatists turn violent as rioters target government and Han Chinese-owned buildings.”) You might as well alias 2008 in baseball so it reads as Irrelevant.

    There are any number of ways to fix the link, such as “So-n-so was one of five players to hit four home runs in one game without benefiting from steroid injections in 2008 (see 2008 in baseball ).” Or you can add 2008 in baseball to an article’s See also section. Or it can be aliased another way. I’m sure the Wikipedians specializing in baseball-related subjects can come up with all sorts of alternatives rather than alias a link so it looks like time-sucking quicksand. In the mean time, Template:Baseball Year, which carries somewhat of a presumption that it is a paradigm way of doing things, needs to be deleted. Greg L (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, Greg, if I'm reading you correctly, then I should add a link to every year in baseball and every Major League Baseball season article to the See also section of List of National League pennant winners, for example? I will say again that I do not support the use of these templates in an inline format (with any prose whatsoever). However, their usefulness in tables and lists, especially when they have been keyed so that readers known exactly where they are going, is more than sufficient reason to keep these templates. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here, I think, is that the Wikipedian’s who specialize in baseball-related articles get accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of the way things are done in their little world and loose track of the way our regular I.P. readers react to confusing, poorly aliased links. As for your surmising that my observations must inevitably lead to the requirement that every (Year) in baseball appear in our See also sections, I find that to be conjuring an absurd solution to make a point. I had expected that Wikipedians specializing in baseball-related articles are sufficiently creative to figure out perfectly workable solutions on their own without having to be lead all the way to the watering trough. Greg L (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't "conjure" anything; I simply utilized one of your suggested methods and led it to its ultimate, and indeed absurd, conclusion. By the by, I don't appreciate your misleading characterization of every member of the Baseball WikiProject. It's unbecoming in this environment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, conjuring. You know… horse pucky stuff where one takes another’s proposal and takes it to an extreme “this absurd outcome when taken to an extreme then follows from your advise.” It’s a transparent tactic frequently used in debate and is one you resorted to. I tried to forestall such a cheap shot by stating “I’m sure the Wikipedians specializing in baseball-related subjects can come up with all sorts of alternatives rather than alias a link so it looks like time-sucking quicksand.” Though your post might lead one to conclude that was too much to expect, I really don’t think so. The problem of this way of linking is the links appear to be something else entirely. And please don’t try to hind behind the apron strings of taking deep offense to being called out on your post. Goodbye; I tire of dealing with you. Greg L (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete.--Yankees10 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per KV5. No reason to delete. I can't necessarily speak for any similar templates that have been discussed, but with respect to the ones in the nomination, baseball articles lend themselves much more readily than film or music to year by year tables, making such structures like this template more important, relevant and useful for baseball than for film or music articles. Rlendog (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not at all what I said. I said "Keep" for the reasons KV5 and I have stated. Rlendog (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Substantive reasons have been put; people declaring "Keep" need to address them rather than dismissing with a wave of the hand. Tony (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substantive reasons have been put why the template should not be used in prose, not why the template should be deleted. I don't think anyone is arguing for using the template in prose, we are arguing to keep the template for appropriate use in tables. Rlendog (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are appropriate ways to point readers to “Year in (subject)” articles; aliasing them so they appear to be identical to irrelevant (year) articles isn’t one of them. Greg L (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is usage in a table or list with a key stating where clicking on the year link will take you "aliasing them so they appear to be identical to irrelevant (year) articles"? Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have come here because I want links to be clicked on. Easter-egg links are almost certainly not going to be recognised as useful by readers: they beg to be ignored because they look like a plain year-link—the type that was finally deprecated with good reason last year. This is why WP:EGG states that such links should be avoided. The simple solutions are: (1) to use an explicit "gateway" link into the year in basketball category, like this: "(see 1986 in baseball)", within the text on first occurrence; and/or (2) to place the explicit link in the "See also" section. Year-in-X articles all have prominent navboxes that make it redundant to plaster an article with blue links to every year-in that occurs. THAT is the way to stop readers from clicking. Tony (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where WP:EGG states that. As I've stated above, these use of these links is (and should certainly be) deprecated in prose; however, in tables, where there is a key that specifically explains their use, they are valuable and enhance, rather than detract from, articles. As I mentioned above, WP:LINK#Year linking states that "Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter"—which these year/season/series articles do, for the reasons I outlined above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm… I’m pleased to see that KV5 writes …use of these links is (and should certainly be) deprecated in prose… and I see he mentions how this template should be used only in tables where there is a key explaining the meaning of the dates—(at least the ones [he's] worked on). If this template were used only in tables that always featured a key explaining the functioning of the linked date, then that would be fine. But…

    That is clearly not be the case. Examine Seattle Mariners; the article’s body text is chock full of the use of this template. That was the first article I examined; shall I click on more? Again, the Wikipedians who specialize in editing this niche subject of baseball have, IMO, lost themselves in groupthink with regard to the routine use of this template in body text.

    For I.P. readers with limited-to-no experience in Wikipedia’s baseball articles, many will be loath to click on a 1999 link (go ahead, click on that one; and I dare you to actually read it from top to bottom) for fear of simply being taken to those articles of random trivia totally unrelated to baseball. I can think of at least two remedies for this:

    One: Put an indented, italicized header at the top of those articles that use this template in body text with this explanation: “In this article, linked years that appear like ‘1999’ will take you to articles like ‘1999 in baseball’, which are lists of notable historical baseball events of that year.”

    Two: De-link the years and put a bullet point in the See also section advising that ‘(year)-in-baseball’ articles can be directly typed into the Search field.

    These are just two ideas. And of these two, I prefer the first. Don’t like these two ideas? As I’ve repeatedly stated above, there are no-doubt many other workable solutions and I have every confidence that Wikipedians specializing in baseball-related articles are sufficiently creative to figure out others on their own; that is, once we agree on the facts and the nature of the problem, and get beyond “outsiders not welcome, not-invented-here syndrome-itis.”

    The facts are that Wikipedia used to be absolutely chock full of idiotic links to years in text like this: “James D. Watson and Francis Crick are credited with the 1953 discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule.” Our regular I.P. readers (those 99.95% of people we’re supposed to really be writing for) rightly assumed that by clicking on “1953”, they would be taken to an article expanding on the details of that 1953 discovery. Sure… go ahead and have a big belly laugh about how naïve those readers were to believe those links were somehow topical and germane to the subject. But readers quickly learned to stop clicking on links like that. This shortcoming is now being addressed throughout Wikipedia and our baseball articles mustn’t appear like they are those old-fashioned time wasters.

    The new guidelines for links require that they must fairly clue readers to the nature of the article to which they would be taken (truth in advertising; no ‘intrigue’ and Easter Egg hunts) and that all links must be topical and germane to the subject matter at hand so they can enhance a reader’s understanding of that topic. As I stated above, in option #1, one solution to ‘truth in advertising’ might be a header statement. Greg L (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have presented examples of incorrect usage of the template. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the template should be used in this manner. Any template can be used incorrectly, that doesn't mean they should all be deleted. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m citing *incorrect usage*? Seattle Mariners uses this template 13 times and only two appear to be used in a table. So, just pardon me all over the place for noting that Wikipedians specializing in baseball-related articles are, in 80+ percent of the instances, using this template improperly. That strikes me as objecting to land mines because “99% of the legs blown off some unlucky bastard is just an innocent civilian.” And then you respond “Well, all you’re doing is pointing to the *improper* uses of land mines.” Perhaps it’s time for the baseball crowd to go dig up the vast majority of those template land mines if you want to continue to use them. Right now, they degrade Wikipedia more than they help. Greg L (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has use in tables and similar non-prose portions of baseball-related articles. It does not violate WP:EGG, in fact, pretty clearly falls within the type of exception in that guideline illustrated with the example: "The exception is when it is clear from the context that links go to specific articles, as in template:2008 Summer Olympics Calendar, where all links go to the article about these specific games." List of National League pennant winners has already been provided as an example of the template being used appropriately. All of the objections in this TFD are good arguments against its abuse; but not for its deletion. This is better addressed by documenting how the template is to be used, rather than by deleting it.
Put another way: in List of National League pennant winners and similar articles, every current occurrence of {{by|NNNN}}} will be replaced with [[NNNN in baseball|NNNN]]. This requires extensive duplication of repetitive text and makes it more likely that errors will creep into edits. This is exactly what templates are made to address.
This is a usage issue, not a deletion issue. I will also concede that the template should be better named; but again, this is not a matter of deletion. TJRC (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. I struck my Delete vote because there appears to be a clear consensus here that the use of this template in body text, as it typically being used currently, is a practice to be deprecated. I agree that it is an appropriate tool to use in tables featuring a key that fairly clues readers as to the nature of the article they will be taken to if they click the link (per KV5’s practice). So, is that it? Or does anyone have a proposal to advance this goal (correcting the body text in these baseball-related articles) as a formally declared objective? Greg L (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken it upon myself to update Template:Baseball Year/doc. I'm sure it's not a panacea, but I hope it will cut down on some misuse, or at least provide something that editors can point to as a reason to revert or remove uses of the template in prose. TJRC (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The change is an improvement, but when you say "Instead, limit its use to tables, infoboxes, navboxes, and similar uses, where it is clear from the context that the link is to a particular year in baseball", how exactly is that context conveyed? Tony (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—as per the well-reasoned points given by Tony1 and GregL.  HWV258.  21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is it that I wander into the TfD page to poke around, as is my wont every month or so, and I run into familiar names from the date-delinking arbitration? Tony and GregL, it's good to see you again, and I say that without a trace of sarcasm. I haven't bumped into either of you in a while, and I've generally appreciated our discussions in the past.
As has been well-argued, this template (and other similar ones) should never be used in prose due to the problems caused by easter egg links. However, as has been equally well-argued, the template is useful and even necessary in tables. The focus should be on making sure that the template is used correctly. Tony, you asked above for an explanation of how the context of the resulting links is conveyed. There are many examples, but I can point you to good ones of the two main approaches. On List of New York Yankees seasons, context is provided by a table key that appears above the table. On List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons, context is provided by linked footnotes that appear below the table. It's worth noting also that both of these are featured lists, promoted in August 2008 and July 2009, respectively, and so I think it's not unreasonable to draw a conclusion that there's at least some degree of community support for this usage that extends more broadly than just the members of WikiProject Baseball. Mlaffs (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, can someone please check to see that it's not used in prose? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have observed that it is used fairly pervasively in baseball biographies, prose or otherwise. Such practice is definitely misleading, and should be ended at an early opportunity. 81.57.191.143 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TPH, as a one-time effort, doing a pass through the existing usages of this template to make sure that usages in prose are cleaned up seems like exactly the kind of gnome work into which I could happily sink my teeth. After a one-time pass, I'm unsure how that could be maintained going forward, though. Mlaffs (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2010 (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.

Template:Nickelodeon episode edit

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.

The result of the discussion was G6 as never used. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nickelodeon episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Svick (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Perhaps G6 as, per the creator's contribs, this template was never used. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (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.

Template:Domingo Faustino Sarmiento edit

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.

The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. The nominator and the one other editor supporting deletion changed positions following the addition of more blue links. RL0919 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Domingo Faustino Sarmiento (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very poor navigational template: an author and his book. The author has more books, but "Facundo" is currently the only one with a written article, so there isn't much more to fill this template with. Perhaps it may be recreated in the future, when more related articles are written, but as for now this category should be deleted. MBelgrano (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how deleting this template will be an improvement for the encyclopedia. Incomplete as it is, its easier for non tech savvy editors to add to it when they write a new article than to have to create it from scratch. Acer (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox templates are solely for navigating around existing articles. They are created on demand. We don't create boilerplate templates to be filled with future work because we have no idea how the encyclopedia will develop, and because they fill articles with large boxes full of nothing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NENAN. Two articles and a red link are not nearly enough for a navbox at this point. What's the rush? Wait until he has at least five works to navigate among. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Keep now that more links have been added. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I beleive all very pressing issues raised by zealous editors above have now been taken care off. Acer (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I withdraw the nomination I made, due to the recent articles created and added. The reasons for deletion are no longer applicable. However, I'm not sure if I can close this nomination, as I'm not admin, but whoever closes it should consider such changes and that the previous supports for deletion were formulated during an earlier stage of the template MBelgrano (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2010 (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.

Template:Northern Premier League One teamlist edit

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.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Premier League One teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Northern Premier League One (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These navboxes are for a football division that no longer exists. Since it no longer exists, it is not possible for any teams to be in it, making these templates redundant. Furthermore, these templates are no longer used on any articles. – PeeJay 14:37, 16 March 2010 (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.

Template:Technical (expert) edit

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.

The result of the discussion was Delete after updating and substituting so that the transclusions of this template are replaced with its two counterparts. RL0919 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Technical (expert) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template predates the discussion which resulted in {{technical}} being altered so that it works on articlespace. In its current form, it is equivalent to simply adding both the {{technical}} and {{expert-subject}} tags. As these templates are really orthogonal in purpose ({{technical}} is a style issue, while {{expert-subject}} is a content problem) it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a composite template. Recommended action would be to replace the existing code with the following: 

{{technical|section={{{2|}}}|date={{{date|}}}}}
{{expert-subject|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|date={{{date|}}}}}

After which, the existing transclusions (currently ~50) can be subst:ed and then the template and documentation deleted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment shouldn't all three templates be merged together? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the use for the present template, but nevertheless agree with the nominator that replacing it by those two templates would be more sensible and likely more productive as well. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template can be replaced with the two suggested above. This template's scope is relatively narrow, and therefore it is not widely used; I agree with the nominator: substsitute and then delete. —Airplaneman— 01:10, 24 March 2010 (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.

Template:Maine portal edit

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.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G8. RL0919 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maine portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links to portal that doesn't exist. Svick (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2010 (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.

Template:Resident Evil film character edit

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.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objection to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resident Evil film character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. All its three instances are replaced with the superior {{Infobox character}}. Fleet Command (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2010 (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.

Template:11 September edit

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.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:11 September (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - Only used for Portal:Karachi/Daily Economic Indicators/Archive/September, 2008, also nominated for deletion; clearly misnamed, as it doesn't apply to this date in all years; there appear to be no related templates for other days. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:45, 16 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_16&oldid=1142563124"