Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6 edit

Template:Intricate template 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) 22:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intricate template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. I remove this on sight and no-one seems to mind. We now protect highly used templates, so novice editors cannot do the harm this warns against. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this is an informative template when used on actual intricate template's documentation pages. Just because templates are protected, doesn't mean that people shouldn't be reminded to use the sandbox and testcases pages especially on intricate templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 22:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is used on many non-protected intricate templates that do not need to be protected due to relatively low use. Also, it is explanatory, which a padlock icon itself does not convey immediately. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Intricate and highly used are different things. It's easy for a template to be one but not the other. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and note that even admins can screw up these things (i.e. protection doesn't work all the time).. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore all removed instances per above. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:27, 7 March 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.

'Country at games' 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 relisted on 2014 March 16 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country Mediterranean Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Country at the Universiade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Country SouthAm Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Country Asian Para Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Country Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Country All-Africa Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Country Pan American Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Commonwealth Youth Games Country (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.

Template:Patriarchs of the Syriac Orthodox Church 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) 01:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patriarchs of the Syriac Orthodox Church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

At the time of this template's creation there was already a pre-existing template of the same content, Template:Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, also the template for deletion is not in use. Mugsalot (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template 'Patriarchs of the Syriac Orthodox Church' is more accurate, uses the conventional English spellings for these patriarchs, and gives dates. It helps people to navigate around the articles on various patriarchs. It would be better to delete the template 'Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch', which does not even have the word Patriarch in the plural, and which contains a confusing mix of Chalcedonian patriarchs of Antioch up to the fifth or sixth century and Jacobite (Syriac Orthodox) patriarchs thereafter.
Although the Syriac Orthodox Church claims to be the rightful heir of the patriarchate of Antioch, the first miaphysite patriarch of Antioch was Severus (512 to 518). Most lists of Jacobite patriarchs by neutral observers accordingly start with Severus, and rightly too. We have the same problem here that we have with the list of patriarchs of the Church of the East, and which we have solved by not privileging the Assyrian Church of the East over the Chaldean Church. It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch or the Syriac Orthodox patriarch of Antioch is the rightful heir of the classical patriarchate of Antioch. Allow the list of patriarchs in 'Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch' and you have conceded the argument of the Syriac Orthodox (which, of course, is the motive behind the proposal for deletion). There will be endless edit wars. Retain.
Djwilms (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but see your logic and agree completely. I was merely working off a Jacobite list and I failed to notice the bias towards including previous patriarchs prior to the schism. I think the logic behind including pre-schism patriarchs was more out of convenience than bias, which is of course no excuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugsalot (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What is needed now is to integrate all the various articles on the Syriac Orthodox patriarchs and make sure that they are all linked to whatever template survives this debate. My own template links to some of the articles, but not to all. Incidentally, the list of patriarchs in my list is by no means complete, and I will need to finish it off one of these days.
Djwilms (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm well on my way to finishing that off as well as adding articles towards patriarchs we are currently lacking. Mugsalot (talk) 16:56, 10 March 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.

Template:Great West Conference navbox 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) 01:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Great West Conference navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Great West Conference disbanded entirely after the 2012–13 school year due to massive NCAA realignment. Therefore, no schools/teams would be in it and this is a stale, unused navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 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.

Template:Captain fb 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) 01:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Captain fb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template acts as a simple text shortcut, providing nothing more than a wikilink. If the target page was likely to be moved in the near future (or at all), I could perhaps see the value of this template, but it is inappropriate to use templates to simply provide a shortcut to a wikilink. – PeeJay 20:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy or guideline you are using to assess the template's "inappropriateness"? Hmlarson (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checking the edit history, seems to be a dispute between two editors concerning the appropriateness of the image (e.g., here and here). I agree that the text version is better than the image, since it can be resized with the surrounding text by individuals with vision impairment. however, I have no strong opinion on whether we need the template in the first place. Frietjes (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. Thanks for sharing that important bit of context. Seems this isn't over the appropriateness of the template, but one editor's aversion to an image. Hmlarson (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image is beside the point as it has been deleted. Regardless, if the image was the only content of the template instead of the text, it would still be an inappropriate use of the template function. – PeeJay 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to say delete keyboard shortcuts, especially without parameters, but could be persuaded if there is a special use. There is consensus for some shortcuts. If this is to encourage some kind of standard, I may lean towards keep. I am reminded of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 7#Template:HonHeadsCommonwealth, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 28#Wikilink sports templates, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 5 —PC-XT+ 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, the template is needed. The article can be renamed or deleted. The template is in use by many articles for exactly the same reason. Why would any editor use a template if it only provided a simple link? The (claimed to be deleted) image was a rendition of the captain armband. Articles are using images inline; and the template helps prevent the use of inline images. Harvardton (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All articles can be renamed, so why don't we use templates for all articles that have a lot of pages link to them? That is a silly argument. – PeeJay 11:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a really silly argument. So, why are so many articles using this template? It must be providing more than just a link. All articles have links to them. Do they all have a template just to provide a link? BTW, there are redirect pages on wiki; they provide nothing more than a link. At the very least, this template is preventing use of inline image. Harvardton (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

commons:File:Captain sports.svg Actually, the image is not deleted. Articles are using this image directly, so the template serves a purpose after all. Harvardton (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted from the template, not from Wikipedia. – PeeJay 11:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it wasn't deleted, because it is serving a purpose. It is a perfect rendition of the captain arm-band of USWNT. Unfortunately, not all teams have image rendition of the captain arm-band. No one had put the image back in the template, because different team have different arm-band design. (c) is how FIFA denotes captain. The template is also providing uniformity in notation. It is a silly argument that it is only providing a link. Harvardton (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be using images to represent things like team captaincy anyway. Images should never be used when a text alternative is available, that is Wikipedia policy. (c) has been the typical way of representing a team captain in prose for as long as I can remember. – PeeJay 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This template isn't protected. Anyone could just add the image back, if it is a matter of contention. Substitution will reduce the damage resulting from someone trying to use the image, instead. If someone really wants to use the image, they don't need to use the template. It is really a keyboard shortcut. (If anyone, [well, any registered user,] wants a copy/paste UserScript to use this template as subst-only, regardless of whether it is deleted, it would be easy to make.) I understand that others are inclined to use it, and may revert to the image if they find the template gone. Perhaps it should be deprecated, first? —PC-XT+ 10:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my preferred course of action would be that the template is deprecated, subst'ed and deleted. – PeeJay 14:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image had been removed from the template for close to a year now. No one has put the image back in it. You should wait for consensus. The template is providing uniformity in notation; and preventing the use of inline image. Harvardton (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uniformity can be obtained by people enforcing the Manual of Style properly and linking to the correct pages in the correct way. – PeeJay 12:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
commons:File:Captain sports.svg Hundreds of articles are using this image inline. Are those articles in uniformity? If MOS should be followed those hundreds of articles are not, for simple reason the image has been around for many years probably predating the MOS on this point. The template is providing an alternative. It had options and was removed around the time the image was removed. In any event, a consensus is needed, for deleting the template. It is providing more than just a link or a short-cut. If the notation is to change, it can be modified at the template level; enabling uniformity in modification. Modifying hundreds of articles are tedious and error prone. Is anyone enforcing the MOS on the aforementioned inline image which had been in use for more than 7 years? Harvardton (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually Wikipedia policies against using icons such as that one: see WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images, and MOS:ACCESS#Images (thanks to User:Struway2). The notation is unlikely to change, and I don't see "It's gonna be a lot of work" as a valid reason not to force these pages to conform to the MOS. – PeeJay 20:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of us are against finding consensus. That's why we're here. We could deprecate it, but keep as a subst-only template for a while, if it really helps to protect the MOS. I'm looking through the template's history, and will come back here with any further thoughts. —PC-XT+ 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —PC-XT+ 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History summary: This template was created by User:Harvardton, and others contributed to it being a template that produced the image by default, with a text alternative. User:PeeJay2K3 removed the image, once, twice reverted by Harvardton, and once by User:Davykamanzi, who changed the default to text. This could have been ok, in my opinion, if the documentation had defined when it was appropriate to use the image, (though I would still be tempted to say subst-only or delete, due to the simplicity of the dual keyboard shortcut.) PeeJay2K3 finally removed the image once more, before nominating for deletion. —PC-XT+ 21:04, 9 March 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.

Template:Infobox Jain ascetic 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 into {{Infobox religious biography}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Jain ascetic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only sixteen transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox religious biography}} (Transclusion count: 793), to which any necessary parameters might be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Serves the same purpose as these templates do for other religions- Template:Infobox Christian leader, Template:Infobox clergy, Template:Infobox Dalai Lama, Template:Infobox Hindu leader, Template:Infobox Jewish leader, Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography, Template:Infobox minister of religion, Template:Infobox Muslim scholar. If this needs to be done, I suggest merging all of these templates into Template:Infobox religious biography. As you rightly said, any necessary parameters can be added to Template:Infobox religious biography. Thanks.--Aayush18 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your !vote is contradictory, because you say both "keep" and "I suggest merging ... into Template:Infobox religious biography". Regarding other templates, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and note that such arguments are routinely discounted as irrelevant in discussions of individual templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, my vote would appear contradictory if people ignored the context. I said that if this needs to be done, we should merge all of the above templates.
        Also, WP:OSE isn't applicable here because the circumstances differ for articles vs templates. The definition of the word "template" is inherently counter-intuitive to the guidelines mentioned at OSE. Again, like you rightly said, we don't want redundant templates, there is no point in having 10 different templates for the same thing when the purpose can be fulfilled with one, and merging here would be pretty straightforward since the parameters differ only slightly in these templates.--Aayush18 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OSE is highly applicable here; which is why I said "note that such arguments are routinely discounted as irrelevant in discussions of individual templates". You are, of course, welcome to nominate any other templates for merging, in a new discussion, and using the {{TfM}} or {{TfD}} notification templates. Their existence is not, though, a reason to keep this low-use example, which, as stated, is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I actually went around to have a look at discussions where OSE was used. I noticed that people used it to prevent merging and/or deletion. I'm not contesting the merging. I'm simply contesting selective merging, when every single one of the templates listed above is clearly redundant. Not sure what the cause is for the selective nomination for merging here, since in addition to redundancy, most of those templates have low transclusion counts as well. If redundancy is not the concern here, then transclusions can be addressed separately and brought to the level of other similar templates. But again, I'm in favor of merging all of them.--Aayush18 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then feel free to nominate them, as previously suggested. Meanwhile this is a clear-cut case of WP:OSE, and the discussion becoming repetitive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • You didn't address my query about why a selective nomination was made. I'm sure there must've been a reason you didn't nominate the others, was just curious, since both of us want the same thing- to remove redundancy.--Aayush18 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but reverse compatibility required as many parameters are not in religious biography template like Rank, name given after initiation, initiator, etc. If reverse compatibility not there then keep. I think User:Aayush18 should propose here merger of all above suggested templetes to be merged into one as a Religious Biography as a separate discussion. Regards -Nizil (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Infobox religious biography per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:56, 11 March 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.

Fictional location 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 merge all --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox fictional location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 117)
Template:Infobox comics location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 197)
Template:Infobox fictional country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 48)
Template:Infobox Forgotten Realms cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 7)
Template:Infobox Forgotten Realms countries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 17)
Template:Infobox LOTR place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 44)
Template:Infobox Middle-earth place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 60)

Too many templates for effectively the same purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 6 March 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.

Template:Infobox StarWarsOrganizations 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 --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only five transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox fictional organisation}} (Transclusion count: 23), to which any necessary, and not overly in-universe, parameters might be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 6 March 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.

Template:Infobox fictional business 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 --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox fictional business (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only seven transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox fictional organisation}} (Transclusion count: 23), to which any necessary, and not overly in-universe, parameters might be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 6 March 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.

Template:Infobox fictional political party 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 --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox fictional political party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox fictional organisation}} (Transclusion count: 23), to which any necessary, and not overly in-universe, parameters might be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 6 March 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.

Template:Largest metropolitan areas of India 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) 22:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest metropolitan areas of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is based on 2008's estimation (the reference link of which is now not working). We already have a Template:Largest cities of India which is based on 2011 Census of India. Had this template been based on any of the previous censuses, there would have been a point to maintain historic records. Given the estimate nature of the source, i see no value in maintaining this here and hence should be deleted now. It also is unused. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 6 March 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.

Template:Honor-stub 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 to delete, but there seems to be potential consensus for modifying it. So, feel free to "boldly" do so if there are no objections. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Honor-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This low inclusion stub-type (less than 40 transclusions) is built incorrectly, as it is directly transcluding the category "Category:Honor societies" which is not a stub-type category, therefore should not be being transcluded by the template (it will disappear when the stub template is removed) And "honor" is not equivalent to honor society, which is not equivalent to fraternity/brotherhood, which seems to be the only type of society transcluding this stubtype. At the very least this needs renaming, as it is not suitable for articles of the type similar to the US-medal-of-honor. I'm not sure this is needed as {{organization-stub}} works well enough. 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Perhaps I misunderstand. I'll agree that it shouldn't transclude that cat as you've described, but I don't think it should be deleted. I point to previous discussions where it appears the rolling consensus is that this stub type serves a purpose. Fair disclosure: I'm a member of Phi Alpha Theta, one of those aforementioned honor societies. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to {{organization-stub}}, but if this is kept, rename to {{Honor-society-stub}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Modify It shouldn't be adding Category:Honor societies as normal categories are supposed to be in the stub article, not transcluded by the template. So add the category to the articles that have this stub template and then delete the transclusion from the template. If you still feel the template itself needs to go or to be renamed then relist at CfD as when SfD shut down it was decided that all things stub related, including the templates, would be discussed there. Carolina wren (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no stub-type category associated with this template. It uses the organization-stub category. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 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.

Template:WikiProject Cleanup taskforce 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) 01:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Cleanup taskforce (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cleanup taskforce closed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cleanup taskforce 1911 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These notices, which currently appear on the talk pages of 340 articles, indicate that a project which has been defunct since 2008 at one time worked on, or considered working on, the articles. The project has been superseded by WikiProject Cleanup and is unlikely to ever be revived; more importantly, there is no reason to so obtrusively tag talk pages of articles that are undergoing routine cleanup and improvement. After six years of inactivity, the notices just add to talk page clutter without providing any value. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:36, 6 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_6&oldid=1138534049"