Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 12

< August 11	August 13 >

August 12 edit

Template:USCity 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 once orphaned through substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

(a) Wikilink obfuscation is a barrier to entry and should be discouraged. (b) Per the MOS, we don't typically link to both the city and the state. (c) Only 300 transclusions after 10 years, indicating that there has been no community uptake. Alakzi (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems similar to City-region. 98.230.192.179 (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after appropriate replacement per MOS. --NSH002 (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2015 (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:Elementary 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused/historical template. Can't see why we're keeping it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2015 (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:London ward populations 2011 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London ward populations 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and a duplicate of Template:London ward populations. A redirect wouldn't be the best idea, as it would go out of date after the next census data was added. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 20:20, 12 August 2015 (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:London ward populations 2007 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London ward populations 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and Template:London ward populations (with the 2011 census data) should be preferred. I could see a case for keeping this if the old data was actually used, but if it isn't, then it should probably go. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 20:18, 12 August 2015 (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:Table Indian subdivisions 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. (Softly, I suppose, but the creator last edited in 2009 and is unlikely to return.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Table Indian subdivisions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used anywhere apart from userspace sandboxes of the creator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete or userfy. Existing uses should have their code preserved in case the creator returns and wants it back, but I'm not opposed to deleting this on cleanup grounds. BethNaught (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2015 (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:Ursula K. Le Guin about the author 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. Templates should not store article text. Note: @Thnidu: you can keep template text on your user (sub)pages and use it for copy-paste or transclusion, if you need a hand please reply to my talk page - Nabla (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ursula K. Le Guin about the author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:TG, templates should not store article text. The template should be substituted and deleted. Alakzi (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: OK, makes sense. But I want to transclude this content onto all the pages on works by this author, unless there's already something more detailed there. At first I was going to make it a subpage of her article, Ursula K. Le Guin. But then I saw that subpages aren't allowed in Main space, so where should I put it, please? --Thnidu (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be used on a large number of pages, then perhaps an exception could be made. But book articles do not typically contain an "About the author" section, as the author's article is only a click away. Alakzi (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author information should be on the author article.Algircal (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I agree--although I dislike reading the lead sentence prose that seems to me the current norm, "Title is a book by American author Ursula K. Le Guin"; sometimes "a book by American science fiction writer Ursula K. Le Guin", or longer.

Catwings needs a *section* not about its famous writer Le Guin but about its illustrator S.D. Schindler, who does not have a biography here, and perhaps a redirect from S. D. Schindler [

Done hours later -P64]. (Same for Catwings Return and The Catwings Collection but I think the three pages should probably be merged. To be continued substantially at some of the pages linked here.) --P64 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, section headings do not work by transclusion (see Catwings, version 2015-08-11), only by substitution. I initiated the illustrator section this hour. --P64 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@P64: I don't agree with Schindler's Redirect or Schindler's Section. If they aren't mentioned in anything else, they aren't notable. Now, a search turns up ten books in nine articles, so Schindler may well be worth an article, but without one, I don't see any point to a redirect. Why Catwings and not the other books? Even a stub simply listing the books with links to those articles might be worth it. And if there's an article, even just Schindler's List, then certainly a redirect from "S.D...." to "S. D...." (or vice versa, whichever) would be right.

BTW, your Yes-check was showing up as [[[File:Yes check.svg|18px|link=]] Done hours later -P64]. I inserted a space after the first "[", and that fixed it. --Thnidu (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thnidu, Thanks for the technical fix.

I suppose you mean WP:NOTABLE. That concerns which subjects (persons) are suitable for English Wikipedia articles (biographies). It's one purpose of article sections, and list entries, to cover subjects/persons who fall short of WP:NOTABLE.

Substantial discussion of Schindler and the Catwings page(s) belongs in article talk space (where I suggest we have only one Catwings page, Talk:Catwings#Merge). --P64 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--P64 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2015 (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.