Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 2

January 2

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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spy Fox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The characters list was merged, leaving only four articles. WP:NENAN. Delete or merge to {{Humongous}}. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2014 February 4  by Jax 0677. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep for now. Before editors can decide whether to merge the templates, a demonstration is needed of how a merged template could work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link-interwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ill (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Link-interwiki with Template:Ill.
Templates provide the essentially the same functionality ({{Link-interwiki}} displays the language code in superscript whilst {{ill}} does not. Also {{Link-interwiki}} requires parameter names be specified whilst {{ill}} does not. My vote would be to use the display of {{Link-interwiki}} but without having to specify parameter names. User:Set theorist has brought this up on the talk pages with no response in over a year. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have difficulty in understanding why Link-interwiki was created at all. It's newer and more difficult to use than ill, and isn't related to any similar templates corresponding to {{illm}}, {{ill2}} or {{ill-WD}}. I also prefer the suffix/subscript format of the ill family of templates to the superscript of Link-interwiki. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever the case this TfD is screwing up the display of thousands of articles that use ill since the TfD message is inline intrusive to the text. I'm personally happy with ill, why not add an optional parameter for super/sub-script if desired. -- GreenC 18:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if they are merged, the unnamed parameters should acquire optional named versions (keeping the unnamed versions), and a switch to swap display from inline to superscript or subscript. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 10:49, 19 December 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, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Apart from the numerical preponderance of "deletes", the solitary "keep if someone adds a tracking category" apparently does not apply, as nobody shows any sign of doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Track length needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion--doesn't seem necessary since the lack of times is obvious to the reader (it clearly needs to be filled) and there is no tracking category to ensure that they get filled anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template's creator, who is blocked, has responded on his talk page, saying

Adding a category would be trivial (you can use "what links here" instead). Low usage of a maintenance template is not necessarily a sign of non-utility, it can be a sign of the very opposite - {{Uncategorized}} for example.

rybec 00:08, 20 December 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, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2014 January 24 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian Confederation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Constitution of Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Subst & delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

nonsense template The Banner talk 00:04, 4 December 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) 01:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete Templates usually have four main purposes:
  1. to standardize input
  2. to make repetitions ease (especially when it is complex)
  3. to aid in constantly changing (updating) one thing across several articles
  4. to divert editing traffic from the article(s) to template.
I doubt the capacity of a troop transport changes over time, so reasons #3 and #4 are out of question. The template also accepts no input (#1 does not apply) and typing 3,343 troops is easier than typing the name of the template
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:58, 16 December 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, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Subst & delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

nonsense template The Banner talk 00:03, 4 December 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) 01:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete Templates usually have four main purposes:
  1. to standardize input
  2. to make repetitions ease (especially when it is complex)
  3. to aid in constantly changing (updating) one thing across several articles
  4. to divert editing traffic from the article(s) to template.
I doubt the capacity of a troop transport changes over time, so reasons #3 and #4 are out of question. The template also accepts no input (#1 does not apply) and typing 3,343 troops is easier than typing the name of the template
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:58, 16 December 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, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class propulsion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is too lazy and user-unfriendly. Copy and paste works quicker than this template. The Banner talk 23:57, 3 December 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) 01:45, 16 December 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, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2014 (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.