Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12 edit

Template:Infobox Complexity Class 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) 02:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Complexity Class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

2 transclusions. It has been removed from all complexity classes but two. I am not sure we need this. Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Who removed it? And was it removed by editors familiar with the topic? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. In fact I wanted to write "if it was ever used... it has been now removed". I don't know if it was ever used. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems more likely that this template simply has not been used yet. Having such an infobox doesn't sound like such a bad idea in principle. —Ruud 18:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The template was created 4 years ago, so I suspect if it was going to be used it would have been by now. The navbox Template:ComplexityClasses does the navigational work of this template. Is there other functionality here that can't be handled in the article text? --RDBury (talk) 01:44, 1 October 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) 21:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comments. LT910001 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 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 future comics 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, I replaced it in Vampire Hunter D: American Wasteland, and added a unpublished=y parameter to that transclusion if someone wants to merge it with Template:Infobox comic book title. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox future comics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. I think Template:Infobox comic can do the job. Magioladitis (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes and no. If there has been a decline in articles for forthcoming comic book series has stopped (haven't checked that though...) then, yes. (Frankly Vampire Hunter D: American Wasteland may be worth a look for possible deletion.) But Infobox Comic isn't set up to deal with something that either never was published or is yet to be published. I'd rather err on caution and 'keep the template even if it is currently unused. Actually, all things being equal, between notability guidelines and sourcing guidelines, the template should see limited usage at the best of times and no usage at others. - J Greb (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace per nom. The alternate templates can be expanded to include a "future/unpublished" parameter. -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @J Greb: what does this template do, that Template:Infobox comic book title cannot handle? Can't it be edited to add any additional functionality?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:16, 3 October 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) 21:54, 12 October 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.

All language icon child templates 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, there is a clear consensus at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language icon templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Aa icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
etc.

There's absolutely no need for all of these, can be handled centrally by {{language icon}}, just like with {{lang}}. — Lfdder (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this system is confusing and should be simplified. LT90001 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete the two-letter redirects, but keep the icons for now. also, probably should be procedurally relisted considering the lack of tagging or broader notification. Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna go about tagging 300-odd templates. I left a note at {{language icon}}. – Lfdder (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unnecessary clutter, risk of forking and maintenance burden. I would also call for the official deprecation of {{language icon}}, especially considering that there exist valid alternatives (e.g. the language parameter of the various {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} etc). 219.73.122.176 (talk) 03:07, 12 October 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) 18:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the language icons will still work after deleting these templates, right? --Երևանցի talk 19:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure this was discussed before... with a resulting keep... if anyone can dig out the old discussion. August 2010, if that helps. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, see 2010 August 20. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saves you a lot of typing? Just set up a redirect then. Maybe {{licon}} or {{langicon}}? Whatever. Better yet, use a proper fucking text editor to edit Wikipedia. That's the only argument I see that was made then in favour of keeping these. — Lfdder (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These mass deletions are a solution looking for a problem and have no real benefit. {{aa icon}} for example already translates to {{Language icon|aa|Afar}} an is certainly much less typing than the latter. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Afar' is redundant. With a redirect this could just be, e.g. {{licon|aa}}. Yes, they do have a real benefit; the benefit of having to maintain only 1 template versus 300. The benefit of having the full array of ISO codes at your disposal vs. having to create a new template for each one that's missing. I'm sure there's more. — Lfdder (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous discussion - easy to use and easy to check articles using them with "what links here". Simon Burchell (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my response above. You know what's easier still? Checking the category the tpl puts articles in. — Lfdder (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The keep votes so far basically amount to "I don't like change". — Lfdder (talk)
Not really, just not this change which is pretty self-evident. Comments like the above will not help your cause one bit, and everyone would be happier not to be patronized. Reasoned, non-ad persona arguments only please.Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some moderation would help, but what Lfdder meant was "WP:ILIKEIT". Reasoned arguments, you say? Sorely lacking in the "keep" camp, given their inability to read how their concerns are either invalid or already addressed. 219.78.115.45 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per recent posts. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 18:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consolidate into a single template that can be easily modified, use all ISO codes, and do any tracking and checking en masse. Tracking and categories is not a technical issue. Maintenance burden however is an editorial issue. Typing should not be an issue, it's a little far fetched--in my opinion--to say that a few more characters outweight the clarity and benefits of a central template. There doesn't have to be a burning problem for us to improve something and reduce clutter. Not to mention, to most people rarely used things like "Aa icon" don't mean anything until they realize "Aa" is a language code. I surely think that "Language icon|Aa", even "langicon|Aa", even "licon|Aa" once seen once is way more readable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "consolidate into a single template that can be easily modified, use all ISO codes, and do any tracking and checking en masse" All of which {{language icon}} already can do! — Lfdder (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say we need to make a new one. I even used "Language icon" as example. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know you didn't, I was just making it obvious to other people. — Lfdder (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge please dont delete highly used templates. merge them into better templates; subst all old transclusions if you must. When you look at an old revision of an article, it is very annoying to see 'red' templates, especially cryptic ones like 'icon Aa' - in order to understand what it was, the reader needs to click on the red template link, go to the deletion log, which hopefully links to this TfD, and then the reader needs to understand this template discussion in order to guess what it used to do and look like. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're gonna be substituted in articles before they're deleted. — Lfdder (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is better than doing nothing, but still makes the (hundreds/thousands of) revisions before the substitution still show a redlink when previewing old versions of pages, like John said. Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is unfortunate, but not a deterrent. If that were a concern, we'd never delete any template, ever. — Lfdder (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Deletion is good for templates that have only limited use, and a better solution exists. Once a template has hundreds of thousands of uses, it is nice to keep it. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with Lfdder. Who is looking for a problem now? 219.79.91.36 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category and xyz icon named templates. Whether we convert these into wrapper templates or not, we should not be deleting them, per comments about using WhatLinksHere, and categorization of the redirects is a good idea, so keeping the category around would allow us to see what redirects exist. As they are highly used and widely known, deleting them will cause alot of disruptions and people will go back to adding "(X)" in text, instead of using the alternate template, as they will not know it exists. ; Delete all the templates/redirects that are not xyz icon as those are highly inconsistent, many other templates for languages are not language icons but use that naming, xyz. We should try for consistency in their naming to make sure they all function alike, instead of mistakenly choosing some other language template that isn't a language icon template. As for converting the templates to become wrappers neutral -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already addressed WhatLinksHere above. "categorization of the redirects is a good idea, so keeping the category around would allow us to see what redirects exist" This isn't CfD. We're not deleting the category while it's still got templates in it. {{xyz icon}} redirects should also be deleted; they're separate codes and should be treated separately -- even though they resolve to the same name. "As they are highly used and widely known, deleting them will cause alot of disruptions and people will go back to adding "(X)" in text, instead of using the alternate template, as they will not know it exists." People are somehow gonna overlook thousands of edits to substitute {{language icon}} in? "language icon" is also much more intuitive than "xyz icon". "As for converting the templates to become wrappers neutral" They are wrappers.
Your continual uninformed !votes on TfD are borderline disruptive. — Lfdder (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may sound funny but can anyone please ping me once the result of this deletion request is over? I use this template a lot. Might have to go through each of my articles and switch it up. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. See Lfdder's comment above: "Transclusions will be replaced with {{language icon|fr}}" 219.79.91.36 (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per John Vandenberg. Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with language icon per nom, as the output is identical and this will save some maintenance work.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep solution looking for a problem; every redirect is a potential "fork" problem, a "maintenance" problem. These, despite years, has proven to be neither. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • how is this a "solution looking for a problem"? Have you come here to spout a bunch of idealistic bullshit? — Lfdder (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Proven how? When I look through the histories of the individual templates, I see dozens of edits for each. This is thousands of edits altogether that could have been done in a single central template. This proves that they are, in fact, a bigger maintenance burden than redirects could ever be. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge at best. I also fail to see the point in arguing deletion. A technical solution that provides all the existing features while being somehow better does not really constitute a valid reason to spam TfD tags all over the place. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge with what? and why? what's your rationale? — Lfdder (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge into whatever technical solution is best. Certainly I see no point in having a bot run through the entire database replacing {{hr icon}} with {{language icon|hr}}, but if it rocks your boat, have at it. Without a discussion that implies to readers that these tags will be deleted, which they won't. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep – it is diffult to remember to write {{Language icon|fr|French}}, much more easy to write {{fr}}Christian75 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • dear lord, just read above — Lfdder (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read it - and it gives absolutely no sense. What ex·act·ly will the output be if I type {{fr}} after it got "merged" or deleted? (and what should the content of {{fr}} be after a merge?) Christian75 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • redirects are getting deleted. I dont know what on earth we're supposed to be merging and what with. — Lfdder (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per John Vandenburg. Not having the red template links in article history is a Good Thing™. Keep the existing templates as redirects and set up a bot to automatically subst when it finds someone using one. While I appreciate the effort to consolidate a mass of unwieldy templates, there is no point to inconveniencing users when we have technological solutions. —howcheng {chat} 18:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone at some point will hopefully explain the meaning of this proposed "merge"... 219.78.115.45 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, are you saying that with a bot in place we would officially make the wrappers {{deprecated template}}s? This could be a possible compromise. 219.78.115.45 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes that would be it. The bot would serve as backup in case anyone still used the old templates, but we would encourage them to use the primary one. —howcheng {chat} 02:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would the expansion be automated as "language icon|xx", or would it look up the current definition of the template (which is not necessarily "language icon|xx"? Because in the latter case we still have the risk of forking. 219.78.115.45 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per John Vandenberg ... "child templates" you say? Where did you get that? Poeticbent talk 19:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • theyre wrappers for language icon. — Lfdder (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or replace with a template that functions the same or replace with a template that displays a big red warning to the editor showing what the correct usage is. By the way, I didn't see this until the template {{de icon}} was flagged as being up for discussion, so thank-you to whoever marked it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't this rather prove that maintaining all those wrappers is a pain in the neck? 219.78.115.45 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please see the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_18#Ar_and_En and the working file User:Jonesey95/sandbox/language-templates that I created during that discussion. It may prove helpful if you decide to make changes to a list of these templates; I've already created a list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wtf? There's nothing "confusing" about it, it's actualy super intuitive. I use it all the time for external links. --Niemti (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the merit of maintaining a single template instead of all the templates, but having a working "what links here" is a bonus I'd rather we kept. //Halibutt 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a pity the nomination didn't explain what exactly will change for editors after deletion. I started reading through the comments and clicked on the linked templates to understand if I'm for or against this, then I realised I'd reached my limit of time I can give this. Gronky (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I suggest we start again with a better explanation, explaining what the current problems are and targetting the most common concerns. 219.78.115.45 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge. Why "delete" something when you can merge-redirect? --dab (𒁳) 15:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
maybe because you cant? — Lfdder (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easy to remember, not broken, and not all of us use citation templates. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • so all your citations are external links? — Lfdder (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are free to write citations without templates, see WP:CITECONSENSUS Christian75 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • ....when did I say otherwise? This template places the article in a cat called Articles containing external links in X, so it's unsuitable for referencing. — Lfdder (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You wrote "so all your citations are external links?" - indicating he didnt fill in title, pages, etc. Its really hard to understand; I was not talking about any "what-links-here", and either was Yngvadottir. Christian75 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is a good idea and maybe it's not. One thing that is definitely not helpful is the nominator's snarky replies. Don't think everyone is dimwitted and you are the smartest one in the room just because half of the people can't figure out what the nomination is about and the other half misses its point. Obviously the nomination is not presented and explained clearly, since so many people aren't getting it (or are unwilling to waste time figuring it out—a clear explanation is the nominator's job, after all). I'm going to oppose the deletion strictly because I don't believe that most of the people participating so far actually understood what's going to happen and how the result is going to work and look like. Do a better job next time, please.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 14, 2013; 16:47 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Yngvadottir. --HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Solution in search of a problem. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Very useful for external links, can't see the reasoning behind this deletion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to future TfD of the same template. Nominator is free to try again with a clear, reasoned explanation of why this template is proposed for delete/merge/whatever, what effect it will have on existing articles and editors, and the pros and cons of making a change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like it kept because we need them to represent something! 22dragon22burn (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Simple to use, easy to remember. — JJJ (say hello) 01:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no need to fix what isn't broken, especially when said fix will break page histories needlessly. SnowFire (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template is big usage in foreign language descriptions. ApprenticeFan work 09:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • summary of keep votes from people who understood what would happen (maybe): whatlinkshere, redlinks in history, dont fix it if it aint broke and lots and lots more rhetoric. Also some who try to blame the nom for others inability to read and for making stupid assumptions. — Lfdder (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Id call it a factual summary. — Lfdder (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Works, useful shortcut. In case the nom didn't notice, they are derived from a template the nom suggests to use. I.e. it is like saying "Let's delete {{cn}}; redundant, we have {{Citation needed}} already". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm getting really tired. — Lfdder (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Time for a wikibreak, then (and read the WP:DGAF; also the number of your comments in this section (25 and counting) reminds me of WP:DEADHORSE). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have any more wisdom to share or is this it? — Lfdder (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "In case the nom didn't notice, they are derived from a template the nom suggests to use" I say that in the nom itself. 'it is like saying "Let's delete {{cn}}; redundant, we have {{Citation needed}} already"' {{cn}} is a redirect; these are wrappers. So no, it's not like saying that at all. — Lfdder (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't freaking care how they are implemented: wrappers, redirects, or portals into parallel universe, as long as it saves me typing and thinking and searching. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So yes, I am beating a dead horse, trying to get things thru your thick head. — Lfdder (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand what deletion would accomplish besides some technical gobbledygook which was not well-explained. Shii (tock) 06:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use this template a lot for German and Dutch sources in articles and find it easy to use. It also provides useful information to anyone checking sources, letting them know its a non-English source. Calistemon (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or replace with a redirect if that is somehow better (and by better I don't just mean "equal"). As others have explained there is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from changing {{fr}} to {{language icon|fr}} and a disbenefit to editors from doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't like the idea of typing {{language icon|ko}} instead of {{ko}} to produce (Korean) . This "I don't like" has a name, it's called ergonomy. Replacing a 6 key-strokes sequence by a 20 key-strokes sequence seems to be a strange way to provide a short cut for the 14 key strokes sequence '''(Korean)'''. Obviously, all of that could be solved by using [quotation] a proper fucking text editor [end quotation]. May be the nominator should join the Visual Editor team: his proficiency in discussing with the random user, as proven here, would be useful there. Pldx1 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per John Vandenberg. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Pldx1's comments on ergonomy. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:51, 17 October 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:Airline codes/A 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) 00:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airline codes/A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is part of a series that was replaced a while ago with articles like Airline codes-A. Do all 27 of these (A-Z and 0-9) need separate nominations or can they all be deleted once this one goes? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it, as unmanageable listcruft. If we really have to have lists like this, articles like Airline codes-A are the best place for it. bobrayner (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per bobrayner and histmerge where/if appropriate per 76.65.131.217. — Lfdder (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these all need to be histmerged into the list articles, since the list articles were copy and pasted from the templates, so the history attribution remains a problem, and considering the nature of the content, the attribution history is not insignificant -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. LT910001 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 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:Statistical regions of Serbia 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, now that it has been revised. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Statistical regions of Serbia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a hoax. It describes NUTS regions of Serbia, but in reality:

  • Serbia is not shown on the latest NUTS map here
  • Serbia is not mentioned in the 2010 NUTS catalogue here
  • Serbia is not mentioned in the latest update to NUTS, here.
  • This list of non-EU countries using NUTS does not mention Serbia.

Templates should not present fiction as fact. bobrayner (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or delete the article as well. now fixed here to match sources in Statistical regions of Serbia. Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. LT910001 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let us separate grains from the chaff, please. As, for example, this thoroughly referenced revision from 2010 says, those regions exist by the Law of the National Assembly of Serbia, and are widely used in Serbian statistic publications, including {{Serbian census 2011}}. The point of contention is whether these regions are official, EU-sanctioned NUTS 2 regions; as I explained on Talk:Statistical regions of Serbia, they are probably not; or at least, EU does not have a mandate yet to accept or reject them as such. However, the template as of today [1] does not mention the NUTS classification, so that issue is moot. Let us just settle down the edit warring and explain the situation in the article in a NPOV manner, OK? No such user (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the NUTS stuff has been taken out of the template - a nice simple solution - the main problem has gone away. I still think it's somewhat redundant as a small navbox, but others would disagree. Any objection to me withdrawing the TfD? bobrayner (talk) 15:38, 14 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_12&oldid=1140217434"