Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16 edit

Template:Mwe 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Unopposed after a week. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

undocumented and unused. I replaced the two transclusions with {{pmcon}}, which was undocumented, but now has some limited documentation, and I am working on adding more. Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete creations of an unresponsive user who makes articles unmaintainable through the use of undocumented complex templates -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:10, 17 October 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).

Template:Water pollution index 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "Water pollution index" is one of many different mathematical or graphical ways of defining or categorising the level and extent of pollution in a water body. Such indicies may be based on chemistry, biology, limnology, geology, micro-biology or physics but they do not relate in any way to the examples given in this template. This appears to be either a misuse of a pre-exiting term, a complete misunderstanding of the term or pure invention  Velella  Velella Talk   13:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has subsequently been update to include water quality parameter names - This doesn't improve things. A Water Quality Index is typically the mathematical combination of many parametric values to give a single easily understood score or rank. The individual parameters are not indices.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to check a pollution we have several index which wiki lack this kind of specifically data for future reader to locate and understand, the problem of you mention is kind of weird ( relate in any way to the example), for small temple, isn't the first object is concise and simple, if I use parentheses add a full note too it the whole temple about each element limit of water can contain. many data will encumbrance reader to understand it --Composcompos12 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I feel that a navbox should only exist if it'd be appropriate to place on all the articles listed in it (otherwise, it's not very useful for navigation, and you'd be better off using normal wikilinks). Whether this is a sensible collection of concepts or not, most of them are either very general or redirects to general pages, and as such a specific navbox like this would be inappropriate there. So no navigational purpose = no navbox. --ais523 17:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
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).

Template:Infobox monarchy 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).

The result of the discussion was not merged. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox monarchy with Template:Infobox royalty.
Both the templates are for same purpose and are duplicates. Royalty is a broader template so I propose merging monarchy into royalty. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment: If merge, then merge all the parameters, too. -Mardus /talk 06:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge — After some thought, I came to realize that Monarchy in the template refers to a state that has royalty as a form of government, and includes the length a monarchy has lasted and other attributes of a state; whereas Royalty refers to individual royals. The two templates are therefore different in context. -Mardus /talk 06:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge. The parameters are very different: one is for a person while the other is for an institution. DrKay (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, rename the latter to something like "Infobox royal person". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge — As per above, both templates are different. The former contains parameters relating to the institution or the office itself. It contains parameters such as the monarchy's formation date, its first monarch, its current office holder, and its heir apparent. The latter contains parameters relating to the person holding the office, such as his or her birth date, predecessor, reign date, father and mother. XFusionSGX (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge Each infobox serves a completely different purpose. Margrethe II of Denmark (a person) uses Infobox royalty, whereas Monarchy of New Zealand (an institution) uses Infobox monarchy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:31, 19 October 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).

Template:2009 World Series 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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Oct 24. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useless and redundant to 2009 Major League Baseball season#World Series. Propose deleting. Sawol (talk) 02:39, 16 October 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).

Template:Elaborate 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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Oct 24. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

previously deleted, and duplicates Template:expand (deleted) or template:clarify. 98.230.192.179 (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If kept, Rename to {{expand-inline}} or {{incomplete-inline}} ; as it is an inline version of expand, and the current name is very poor, as it could be construed to mean that it is a cleanup template for overly elaborate material -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16&oldid=687305519"