Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 17

< September 16	September 18 >

September 17 edit

Template:Maryland Terrapins men's soccer squad 2008 College Cup 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) 03:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maryland Terrapins men's soccer squad 2008 College Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not notable. – Michael (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - squad templates for college-level soccer is overkill. Giant Snowman 11:50, 19 September 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 aqueduct navigable 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) 03:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox aqueduct navigable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox aqueduct navigable with Template:Infobox aqueduct.
This should either be merged to {{Infobox bridge}} or {{Infobox aqueduct}}, but as far as I can tell it has only a few extra parameters. If it's not simple, it wouldn't be worth it, but if it is an easy change then it would be a lot simpler. James^x12345 23:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have to merge then {{Infobox bridge}} is the only option, as {{Infobox aqueduct}} really refers to a large piped water supply. But do see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_9#Aqueduct_Infoboxes, where we have discussed before, and I don't see any new reason to change my views from then. If it ain't broke don't fix it... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging to {{infobox bridge}} would give a much more consistent user experience. It doesn't make sense to me to discriminate between a railway viaduct and an aqueduct given the similarity of the engineering, whereas a motorway bridge is a very different proposition. James^x12345 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, a navigable aqueduct is like a canal on a bridge. I can't !vote to merge with {{Infobox bridge}} because it is not in this discussion, but if that template supports all kinds of bridges, such as rail, highway, foot, or ornamental, it could probably handle pipes and canals, as well. Maybe these could be turned into modules for use in that template. Perhaps in the "carries" part —PC -XT + 02:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merging the two, one size doesn't fit all. Imveracious (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging the two listed —PC -XT + 21:01, 27 September 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:Chinese calendar 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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chinese calendar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chinese calendar/cycle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chinese calendar/year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chinese calendar/month (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chinese calendar/day (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

and all templates listed in Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Chinese calendar/

unused outside of a handful of user pages. incredibly complex hierarchy of templates which partially duplicates Template:Year in other calendars. I was going to convert this monstrosity to use lua, but then was wondering why I should bother if it's not going to be used. I would also support simply moving it to userspace to preserve the existing userspace transclusions and history. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if it won't be used for articles —PC -XT + 02:43, 20 September 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:Considered the best 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) 23:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Considered the best (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only links three articles in a much larger superlatives category. better to just add a couple see also items to the three articles in question. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 17 September 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.