Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 26 July 28 >

July 27 edit

Template:Algeria squad 2011 African Nations Championship 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algeria squad 2011 African Nations Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a VERY MINOR tournament. It's not known worldwide even continentally. This navbox should be extinct. Banhtrung1 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
African Nations Championship has the same-level as AFC Challenge Cup. I hope to treat this like Category:AFC Challenge Cup squad navigational boxes. Sawol (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose. AFC Challenge Cup is held for senior national team with notable footballers while African Nations Championship is held for A' national team, also called local national football team, for non-notable footballers who plays in domestic leagues only. AFC Challenge Cup is held for "emerging countries" while African Nations Championship is held for all nation, regardless of each nation's level, regardless of nations which football is strong or weak. I can guarantee they are not same-level. Banhtrung1 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose. African Nations Championship is held for A' national team which is a reserve team with non-notable footballers only. Banhtrung1 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I disagree with the nominator stating that this tournament is very minor & unknown, it gets coverage on the BBC, which is enough for me to believe the navbox is notable. GiantSnowman 10:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't remember BBC coverage of this. Are you mistaking it for the Africa Cup of Nations? SFB 12:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is "coverage" as Giant said: here. This does not mean that this tournament has big notability. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete players from local domestic leagues played there, not the strongest national sides with best players, this is really a minor tournament.--Oleola (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor tournament not including many of the top African nations. SFB 12:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Current consensus for international football navboxes is that they must be for full senior competitions, which this is, administered by a continental governing body, which this is and be continent wide, which this is. The tournament is only "minor" because it is new, that is not a criterion under current consensus. Fenix down (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - regardless of the outcomes of TfD's for youth competitions, there has in the recent months been several discussions about navboxes for minor tournaments like this, which has been closed with a consensus to delete. It should also be noted that this isn't a full international competition, but each nation fields their "A"-team which consists of home-based players only. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2013 (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:History of Iranian dynasties 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 Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Iranian dynasties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recently created sidebar navbox, not yet in use in any articles. Redundant with long-established near-identical {{History of Iran}}. The only differences are that the new template omits a few entries about ethnically non-Iranian topics such as the Proto-Elamites, but adds a handful of articles on presumed ethnically Iranian entities that are geographically elsewhere, such as Alania. These very few non-overlap articles would therefore be the only ones on which this template would be likely to be used, as the two templates are of course too large and too similar to use them together. The new template also suffers from poor definition of scope; e.g. why does it list all the modern dynasties of Shahs of Iran including the 20th-century Pahlavis, but then stops and omits all entries about post-revolutionary modern Iran? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary duplication of the History of Iran template. Also, controversial and of dubious accuracy: dynasties such as the Afsharids and Qajars listed on this template were actually ethnically Turkic in origin.--Folantin (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were of Turkic origin but they were Iranian dynasties, take a look on this about the Afsharids: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/afsharids-dynasty And i haven't putted the template on anything yet.

I have removed the Pahlavi dynasty and putted written it as Pre-19th century, so i see no reason to delete it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian peoples specifically refers to peoples who speak Iranian languages rather than people who live in the state of Iran. This template is confusing, the History of Iran template isn't. --Folantin (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would sound better and less confusing if i changed it to Iranian dynasties? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin is taking a wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in August, so i guess i just have to wait for someone else to answer me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would "Iranian dynasties" be an improvement? The ambiguity still exists: are they "dynasties of the state(s) of Iran" or "ethnically Iranian dynasties"? Again, why is this necessary when we already have the much clearer "History of Iran" template? --Folantin (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Iranian dynasties" means Iranian states, they don't have exactly to be of Iranian origin, like the Afsharids and Qajars for example, they are Iranian dynasties but of Turkic origin.

I think this template is useful because it shows other Iranian dynasties that was not in Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I think this template is useful because it shows other Iranian dynasties that was not in Iran". How is this compatible with what you've just said ("'Iranian dynasties' means Iranian states")? --Folantin (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What i am trying to say is that this template is meant to show Iranian dynasties, and two of those Iranian dynasties are of Turkic origin but they represented an Iranian dynasty/state/whatever. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i have to wait then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since no is answering me i guess we are done with this, i have explained with good reasons why this should not be removed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments up above, i see no reason for it to be deleted. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Since these sidebars cover the same topic area and cannot really feature on the same page, I suggest that the additional elements in the Dynasties template be added as a "See also" at the bottom of the History of Iran template. SFB 12:50, 28 July 2013 (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:Olhanense Squad 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 redirect to Template:S.C. Olhanense squad. --BDD (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olhanense Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Double and identical to Template:S.C. Olhanense squad The Banner talk 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to existing template as a probably mis-spelling. GiantSnowman 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - clear typo, templates are identical. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (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:Mark Tremonti 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) 03:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mark Tremonti (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No parent article for the band "Tremonti". The albums and singles claim to be credited to Mark himself. Even including only his solo work, this fails WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (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:Infobox rail 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 do not merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the more richly-featured {{Infobox rail line}}, with which it appears to be used interchangeably. Some articles even use both. Note the presence of |predecessor_line= and |successor_line= in the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge I was under the impression that {{infobox rail}} was for rail companies, whereas {{infobox rail line}} was for individual lines. For small rail companies with just one line (e.g. Midland and South Western Junction Railway), they are pretty much interchangeable. However, a number of railway companies had more than one line, and some of these systems were quite extensive - see for example Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (and the second image in its infobox); by contrast, a number of rail lines were built by more than one company - see for example East Coast Main Line. Rail companies and rail lines are not synonymous. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody has claimed that lines and companies are synonymous; I've pointed out that the templates are used interchangeably, and that one is redundant to the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Rail lines and rail companies are two separate identities, I don't think merging things for merging's sake is the right thing to do. That said, having both templates in one article should be minimized. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. In my eyes, the two templates are different enough that they shouldn't be merged. I question how many articles we should have about individual rail lines as opposed to the companies, but as long as they exist, we should retain an infobox that supports them, without clogging their infobox with corporate-related components or clogging the corporate template with rail-line components. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The may be different in your eyes, but they are not different in how they are used. No infobox will be clogged with "corporate-related components" or "rail-line components", as the parameters are all optional. As noted, the supposed "company" box already includes "line" parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless I misunderstand you, you're asking that we merge parameters such as conduction system, owner, coordinates, train number(from "rail line") with hq_city, marks, predecessor_line into one infobox template. Inclusion of any element in the template's code is not optional in the sense that we either have a component or we don't — you're proposing that we create a single infobox with each element of either template getting put into the single infobox or getting discarded, and I disagree because it will mean that we have numerous irrelevant parameters for every use. Your observation that they are used interchangeably is good evidence for merging to the rail company infobox per Zzyzx and for moving in order to get rid of the current ambiguous name, but not good evidence for getting rid of the distinction entirely. Imagine that we used the generic infobox company for rail company articles: would that be a good reason for getting rid of the rail company infobox, or would that be a good reason for changing the infoboxes on the articles in question? Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • They will be optional for use in articles. It will be trivial to create two blanks , one to be copied for each purpose - that's done, for example, in the documentation of {{Infobox musical artist}}. And the apparent burden of the unneeded parameters has not stopped people from using this template in the "wrong" kind of article, has it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. There are a number of differences to the parameters, and used in two different classes of articles. As per Redrose, railway companies and rail lines are not synonymous. Edgepedia (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are these differences, and why are they significant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand the question. The parameters are documented, and you say below that you understand the difference between a line article and a railway article.
      • I looked at the first 50 inclusions of {{Infobox rail}} and of {{Infobox rail line}}. I had to think about a couple, but they all appeared to be used on appropriate articles. Can you link to a talk page discussion where the infobox is discussed and subsequently changed? Edgepedia (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think Andy understood what this template is. In no way is it interchangeable with {{Infobox rail line}}. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 07:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand fully what they are intended for; and how they are actually used; I didn't say there were merely interchanagble; I pointed out that they are already used interchangeably. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If anything, it probably should instead be merged with Template:Infobox rail company. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge: All three templates are complicated enough, that any merger will probably bring up some even-more complicated template, which can be extremely editor-unfriendly. Instead, I would suggest defining the purposes of all three templates, so that editors know when to use which. -- Patrickov (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these templates is particularly complex, and the small growth in size of whichever is the final template would be more than offset by the reduction in complexity of choice, with editors demonstrably unable to determine which of the current templates should be used for which purpose; and their mismatched parameter names (|open= vs |start_year=, for example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge as Train2104 said. Kevin Benoit [Let's discuss!] 13:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The only parameters in {{Infobox rail}} which are not in {{Infobox rail line}} are:

  • the logo parameters
  • system_map
  • marks
  • predecessor_line
  • successor_line
  • hq_city

Other than the undocumented "marks" (what is that for?), it's not clear why any of these would not be useful, or would overcomplicate, the later template; much less how they justify the existence of a separate template. Also, the rail template has only |length=, while rail line has separate parameters for track and line lengths, in both imperial and metric units. Finally, the line template wrapper {{Infobox SG rail}} is unnecessary, and should be replaced by a |standard_guage=y switch in the merged template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • While generally sympathetic to the goal of merging redundant rail templates, I do think there's a compelling argument that a railway company and the railway line that it serves are semantically different enough to warrant different templates. One has to look a couple of steps ahead to see exactly why that's relevant: eventually, the mergist position would hopefully be that a railway company is a specialised form of company, and so could be represented by a subclassed {{infobox company}}, whereas a line is a piece of infrastructure and, although our infrastructure templates are hilariously eclectic at the moment could hopefully eventually be unified into something that railways could be subclassed to. That these are misused at present would seem to be a documentation problem. It's not too late to sort that problem out, and one step forward would be (as suggested above) to merge {{infobox rail}} to {{infobox rail company}} (protests regarding seemingly unnecessary national distinctions notwithstanding). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have some articles about railway companies, which operate many lines. We have some articles about individual railway lines, which may be owned or used, over their lifetime, by more than one company. But we also have many articles which conflate the line and the company that owns or owned it. A single combined box addresses all three of these cases. Two distinct boxes, only two of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The |marks= parameter is for the reporting mark. If you fill in that parameter - as was done at Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway - the label gets a suitable wikilink. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - They all have different uses. Perhaps introducing clearer documentation, as per Patrickov's suggestion would be a good idea. Jr8825 • Talk 08:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge The two templates have different purposes. If one is mistakenly used as the other in some articles, that is an editing error that can easily be corrected by the Wikipedia community. In any case, such an error (where it may exist) has no negative effects on our readers, and our readers are the people we serve. Let's find another more important cause to expend our energies on. Truthanado (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • LIKE TO SNOW THIS As it appears there is overwhelming consensus here, and the tag pukes in some articles, any objections to a snow close on this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No snow because you had your caps all on. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. The issue the nom states, repeatedly, is better be solved by disentangling these confused infoboxes. That is: check and change the infobox into the missing parameters. Really, since they do not mean the same, they not are the same. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rail lines and rail companies are two different things, if this template is going to be merged many of Rail Line's parameters are not going to be applicable to rail companies, conversely, Rail Company is going to need a lot of extra parameters not found in Rail Line.Brad Shen (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I abstauin from voting because I never edit in this area. However, reading through this discussion, I wonder if it might not be helpful to rename the rail template to "railway company", so that it is more obvious to editors what the differences between the two is and that they shouldn't be used interchangeably. --Randykitty (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2013 (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:MedalCountryTop 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) 03:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MedalCountryTop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table template rejected for wide use by the Olympics WikiProject. Include also {{MedalCountryBottom}}, {{MedalCountryGold}}, {{MedalCountrySilver}} and {{MedalCountryBronze}}. SFB 18:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was concerned that these might be used in articles about medal-awarding competitions other than the Olympics, but there's nothing. Not used for six years by the most relevant project + rejected by said project + not used by other projects = useless = delete. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't have any transclusions. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2013 (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:The Powerpuff Girls 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Powerpuff Girls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Genndy Tartakovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:The Powerpuff Girls with Template:Genndy Tartakovsky.
Genndy Tartakovsky's relationship to Dexter's Laboratory and The Powerpuff Girls is the same; these two series should therefore be treated the same way with respect to their navboxes. It would in no way bloat the Genndy Tartakovsky navbox to include a Powerpuff Girls section similar to the Dexter's Laboratory section. Neelix (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Banhtrung1 (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate - Genndy Tartakovsky created, wrote, directed, and executive produced Dexter's Laboratory as well as Samurai Jack and Sym-Bionic Titan, the other two big series in the Tartakovsky template. On Powerpuff Girls, his main roles were supervising producer and director, meaning that his relation to the two series was not the same. Craig McCracken would be the "Genndy" of Powerpuff Girls (for the first four seasons and the movie anyway, but Genndy also left Dexter after season 2). I'd suggest doing away with the PPG template and making a Template:Craig McCracken similar to Template:Genndy Tartakovsky. Paper Luigi T • C 21:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that The Powerpuff Girls is a television series and not a film, but, normally, films are linked in navboxes by director, and Tartakovsky is the first director listed for The Powerpuff Girls. Is there a different convention for television series? Neelix (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tartakovsky's appearance at the top of the directors list was an error. I rearranged the names to reflect importance; Tartakovsky, having directed 22 episodes, is now fifth on the list. At the top is Craig McCracken, who directed 52 of them. Paper Luigi T • C 04:54, 12 August 2013 (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:MedalCommonwealthGames 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) 03:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MedalCommonwealthGames (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Redundant to template {{Medal}} which allows sport-specific links. SFB 17:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Commonwealth Games isn't a major multi-sport event. Templates which similar to this are necessary for Senior Olympics only. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2013 (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:Hd 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 per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. Not used. Rezonansowy (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, you could've probably db-test tagged it, not really a valid tpl. — Lfdder (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, kill my baby! :-( --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2013 (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:Afc decline-rand 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) 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afc decline-rand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A test by Steven (WMF) for comparison. No changes or updates since months. mabdul 16:10, 27 July 2013 (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:Afc decline-default 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) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afc decline-default (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A test by Steven (WMF) for comparison. No changes or updates since months. mabdul 16:09, 27 July 2013 (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:AfC batch warning 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) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AfC batch warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

obsolete template, not used since a few years as the AFC system was changed. mabdul 16:06, 27 July 2013 (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:WikiIPA 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiIPA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hatnote tpl used for tagging individual language categories for no apparent reason. Suggest deleting. — Lfdder (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories link to categories. This links to a help page. Why is it not placed in the language article? — Lfdder (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because that help page sort-of belongs to that category. I said "sort-of", because it's not in article namespace, but it is certainly one of important Wikipedia resources devoted to that language, and deserves some kind of link. Now, we can discuss if the current {{for}} wording is appropriate -- probably not, but that's the debate for the talk page, not for Tfd. I would deem its inclusion in the article too intrusive, and a "hatnote-cruft"; but on the category page, its prominence is about right. No such user (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a hack to get it to show on the category's page, without actually adding it to the category? I've seen portals and templates and user templates placed in categories, but this is where the line is drawn? — Lfdder (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well... yes... is it a rhetorical or genuine question? To tell you the truth, I'm not sure where we're supposed to draw the line, but I think that it's OK to draw it here. No such user (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. — Lfdder (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2013 (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:IPA diacritic description 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) 03:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA diacritic description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little used wrapper for {{unichar}}. Suggest deleting. — Lfdder (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could be replaced with {{unichar}} and straigt <ref></ref> link if needed. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and change to a subst-only template. I'll even convert the preexisting transclusions through AWB. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 22:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why though? Nothing this tpl brings is actually needed. Diacritic is a duplicate and the ref....well, I'm not sure what it's there for. — Lfdder (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a subst-only template? why? -DePiep (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template author here. Um, have you guys checked the actual template code? It isn't mere "{{unichar}} and straigt <ref></ref> link", as there is a plenty of subtle formatting (thinsp, size adjustment, ref placement), introduced because those diacritics are barely discernible at normal size. Other people made numerous tweaks to the template since I made it. I'm all for standardization, but I wouldn't have created it if it were just a simple wrapper; it does a lot of work behind the scenes. The ref is there, obviously, because it conveniently links to a table of IPA in Unicode. Templates are used because of editors' convenience and standardization of appearance, aren't they? Well, this one is a textbook example of that. No such user (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re because those diacritics are barely discernible at normal size: that is basic formatting, no special need for "IPA diacritics". In other words: that is valid for every diacritic. (I can add: {{unichar}} already enlarges the graph into 120%) In general: if {{IPA diacritic description}} is that specific in details, please promote it to the main template. And this remains: it has a single fixed ref. (me the creator of {{unichar}}) -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I took a closer look at an actual transclusion, I see what you mean. Unichar|size=200% produces quite nice and readable formatting, so most of my concerns are invalid; the ⟨ &#x{{{1}}}; ⟩ stuff that precedes unichar is largely redundant. Fixed ref is kind of convenient for lazy typists, but it's inflexible and could harm articles with e.g. Harvard ref style. So, in order to practice what I preach (getting rid of largely redundant templates), I change my !vote to subst and delete. No such user (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All transclusions have been subst'ed. — Lfdder (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2013 (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:Nursing journal 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) 03:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nursing journal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is completely redundant. We have a whole tree of categories for nursing journals that is much more detailed than this template (which includes some -possibly non-notable- redlinked journals. Several nursing journals are not in this template, but no selection criteria are given. (And I note that adding them all would make this template even larger than it already is). The template also mixes up medical journals with professional magazines, which in the category tree are carefully kept separated. Finally, we also have a List of nursing journals. All these (more complete and more detailed) navigational aides make this template redundant and unnecessary. Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No other kind of journals has, or should have, that kind of navigational template. The category and the list are more than sufficient, although may be in need of an update. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:36, 1 August 2013 (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:European Youth Olympic Festival 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European Youth Olympic Festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It don't have enough blue links. It is also a minor multi-sport event only, non-notable. So this templates should be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Although this template has been created too soon, I believe all the links are for notable targets - biennial international sports competition with participation over 2000 athletes. SFB 17:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: for WP:NAV#Advantages. Sawol (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, perfectly acceptable use of a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. NickSt (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2013 (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:Infobox NBA biography 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 procedural close - wrong forum.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even it is connected to basketball biography, why not renaming all of the 2600+ articles that include it into Template:Infobox basketball biography. Maybe some bot can do this work? AirWolf (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a matter for TfD. In any case, as the nominated old name redirects to the other, new, name, there's no need to change it in each article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_27&oldid=1141876066"