Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 1 August 3 >

August 2 edit

Template:Atlantic 10 Conference Baseball Player of the Year 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).

The result of the discussion was move to userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links not enough to navigate... Corkythehornetfan 05:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:REDLINK (not broken) with clear WP:GNG subjects. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, weak keep at 3 blue links, now. If more are coming, this can stay. I'm not opposed to keeping a few of these short term. —PC-XT+ 07:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:EXISTING and WP:NAVBOX. We don't use navboxes for non-existent articles because our guidelines say navboxes are used to (quoting NAVBOX) "facilitate navigation between ... articles". Per WP:REDNOT, excessive red links are not used in navboxes. No prejudice against immediately recreating this when we have 4-5 links, but it's not clear that more of these articles will be written soon. ~ Rob13Talk 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that this nomination was created nearly 30 days ago, and the forthcoming articles have still not been created. @PC-XT: Not sure if this would change anything for you, but since your rationale states "If more are coming", I thought you might want to look again. ~ Rob13Talk 00:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3 articles to navigate, including the main article, with no work towards more at present, so ok, deletion or userfication would be ok with me. It's rather trivial —PC-XT+ 20:35, 12 August 2016 (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:Pac-12 Conference men's soccer seasons 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).

The result of the discussion was move to userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links... Corkythehornetfan 05:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:REDLINK (not broken) with clear WP:GNG subjects. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:EXISTING and WP:NAVBOX. We don't use navboxes for non-existent articles because our guidelines say navboxes are used to (quoting NAVBOX) "facilitate navigation between ... articles". Per WP:REDNOT, excessive red links are not used in navboxes. ~ Rob13Talk 04:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature, delete or userfy at least until another year turns blue (preferably both unlinked years) —PC-XT+ 03:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 2 August 2016 (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:Fb team Al Itthad Al Sakandary 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 redirect. ~ Rob13Talk 18:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a template for this club (Template:Fb team Al Ittihad). There is no use for this template. Ben5218 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2016 (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:Ethorama 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template with only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 2 August 2016 (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:Fotopedia 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 2 August 2016 (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:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto 2012-13 Summer 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have current squad templates in football, but not templates for a particular squad/season. Serves no purpose, needs deleting. GiantSnowman 19:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need for non-notable historical squad navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2016 (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:CGN 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 18:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete, many potential uses, but I believe most of those are in citation templates. but, it would be good to get an exact count. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2016 (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:CalPhotos 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 keep now that has more transclusions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate external link templates. The first has only three transclusions; the second only one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A CalPhotos template would serve a purpose. There are many links to CalPhotos image galleries on Wikipedia, and the use of a template would simplify and standardize them. Currently, Template:Calphotos (with more convoluted template syntax) doesn't work, and Template:CalPhotos does. I support deletion of the template that doesn't work, and replacement of manually generated links to CalPhotos galleries with Template:CalPhotos. I can add a few transclusions today. — Eru·tuon 06:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Worrying though, that the CalPhotos template produces a warning about an invalid web site certificate (self-signed root certificate, expires 2020). If this isn't fixed, I'll consider removing links to the site. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I'm not sure where you're seeing that. Could you contact the staff at UC Berkeley? — Eru·tuon 17:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just clicked a link generated by the template, and the problem was my mistake: I used https:// and somehow that generates an error. I switched to http://. Does that fix the problem? — Eru·tuon 17:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I click the link from Sisyrinchium bellum, it generates the https version, and the error. If I manually change that to the http version, it works. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing http in the link from Sisyrinchium bellum now. — Eru·tuon 18:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, working now. Thanks! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{CalPhotos}} now has 118 transclusions; I'm happy for that to be kept, and have redirected the other template to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. Can the deletion message be removed then? — Eru·tuon 01:17, 6 August 2016 (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:CanRiding 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 keep, looks like the number of uses has substantially increased. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 2 August 2016 (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:Catscan2 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 relisted on 2016 August 13. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:05, 13 August 2016 (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:Acronym 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 18:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, created 2005. Only two transclusions. In both cases, redundant to our own disambiguation pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 2 August 2016 (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:HAGAM object 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 18:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 2 August 2016 (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:WNYC 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 move to userspace until it can be used. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this for the WNYC radio archives people, who we're still in touch with, and I'm hopeful will still use it.--Pharos (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. In that case, I suggest userfying. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pharos: Do you have any objection to userfying this to your user space? Would this damage your communications with these folks in any way (i.e. have you already given them a template name)? (Note that I'm a potential closer, and I'm expressing no opinion as to keep/delete/anything else, just seeking more info to assess the discussion.) ~ Rob13Talk 18:40, 12 August 2016 (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:PASTMAP 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 relisted on 2016 August 13. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:10, 13 August 2016 (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:Birmingham Images 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, with hard-coded link to the external site's search page, and a text instruction to perform a search there. Only 5 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 2 August 2016 (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:Websearch 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, but it may be useful to redirect? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Performs a Google search. Has 68 transclusions, compared to 1,664 for {{Google}}, which does the same thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 2 August 2016 (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:Sonyclassics title 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 relisted on 2016 August 13. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:14, 13 August 2016 (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:SHH 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 2 August 2016 (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:Hkadb name 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template, created 2005. Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 2 August 2016 (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:World Heritage Committee members 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 merge/delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is intended to be transcluded (not substituted), but it is only transcluded into one page. As such, it is contrary to the very definition of WP:TMP (intended for inclusion on multiple pages). I propose this template should be substituted and than deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2016 (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:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach 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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 14#Template:Secular_cantatas_by_Johann_Sebastian_Bach. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant fork of {{Bach cantatas}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — logical subset of Bach's cantatas, see List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: when the template was created it was not a subset of Bach cantatas, but the cantatas listed in the template for discussion were removed from the traditional template. I reverted that because I believe all cantatas should be in one template. NOW it is a subset. I don't think it's necessary, but also not harmful when shown in addition to the other. It has (more than the other) a lot of German titles, which I don't think will help the average reader. Nice, but not needed, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't have problem with "shown in addition" why did you remove them from
instead of just re-adding the general template?
The rest of the reasoning (and in fact also the nomination) is undiluted WP:IDONTLIKE. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to speak for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bach's secular cantatas form a meaningful set, see List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach and Category:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. Your argumentation reads: "redundant fork ...", then see WP:NOTDUP: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. etc."
So I stand with my assessment of the arguments in favour of deletion that were brought to this discussion: WP:ATA/WP:ATADP, in particular WP:IDONTLIKE. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a forked navbox, the navbox under discussion is redundant to the navbox from which it was forked; not to a category, and not to a list. Your overly verbose, hectoring responses and attempt to paint my logically-reasoned argument for deletion as a matter of mere personal distaste are facile, if not transparently dishonest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A navbox with all cantatas by number, without context or even names, is entirely unpractical for navigating the secular variant subset. A navbox that accomplishes that is not "redundant". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2016 (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:ARSS 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template that seems rather unnecessary for a few reasons. For one, it's only purpose seems to be to link to pages within Wikipedia with built-in paragraph formatting; this is redundant to manually linking pages within Wikipedia with paragraph formatting. And secondly, per the way Template:ARSS/1 is currently built, those internal pages within Wikipedia are set up as external links instead of internal links. (Even if this were to be fixed, this template still seems unnecessary. Also, the template's instructions since 2009 were to substitute the template ... which creates over a hundred lines of unnecessary code.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2016 (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:Clone Wars 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) SSTflyer 05:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template that lists the media that is set in or around one in-universe event of Star Wars, the Clone Wars. It fails WP:NAVBOX No. 1, as they are, collectively, not a "single, coherent subject". It is redundant because the content of this navbox is covered by several navboxes already. The main {{Star Wars}} navbox provides links to general articles, Category:Star Wars film navigational boxes has navboxes based upon Star Wars films, {{Star Wars games}} mentions video games, {{Star Wars comics}} comics, {{Star Wars Legends novels}} links to the "expanded universe" literature, while {{Star Wars canon novels}} mentions the "official canon" ones. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've notified WP:WikiProject Star Wars to receive their input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2016 (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:Sylhet Super Stars current squad 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This being duplication of Template:Sylhet Super Stars squad and is anyway out of date and of no useful purpose for future (if any) editions of BPL Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nazcheema: You've nominated two templates citing the other as redundant. This is kind of circular. Is there any reason you oppose keeping one of them? ~ Rob13Talk 23:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in the absence of an answer to the above question. ~ Rob13Talk 00:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (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:Sylhet Super Stars squad 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This being duplication of Template:Sylhet Super Stars current squad and is anyway out of date and of no useful purpose for future (if any) editions of BPL Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nazcheema: You've nominated two templates citing the other as redundant. This is kind of circular. Is there any reason you oppose keeping one of them? ~ Rob13Talk 23:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in the absence of an answer to the above question. ~ Rob13Talk 00:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (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:Rangpur Riders current squad 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This being duplication of Template:Rangpur Riders Roster and is anyway out of date and of no useful purpose for future (if any) editions of BPL Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unless another rationale can be provided. The template cited as redundant has been deleted, and a template being out of date means that it should be updated, not deleted. ~ Rob13Talk 23:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (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:X-Wing 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 Delete (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template because of {{Star Wars games}}. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not quite sure about it, but I do agree that it could be more useful, and I have created this book here that could be added to the bottom of the template. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I am slightly leaning towards delete, but, if the book that I have created is useful for the discussion, then, I am leaning otherwise. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2016 (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:Catholic mysticism 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 relisted on 2016 August 14. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:32, 14 August 2016 (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:KP QWP & others 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 merged to create a smaller number of templates using switches, and added documentation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be a reason to put the number in a template rather than just directly in the single article in which it is used. WOSlinker (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The templates are for use in the political party's article, plus the article for the legislative body. Except for "PakSen JIP" (which was previously created for Senate of Pakistan), these other templates are new and have only been applied to the party-specific articles. Eventually, I will add them to the articles for their corresponding assemblies, where they can also be used for calculated values for the size of ruling & opposition coalitions, as well as a count of total vacant seats. The objective is to reduce editing time, page histories, and errors. Farolif (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are kept, then each of them could do with some documentation stating what the figure represents, as at the moment, it's not very clear. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 00:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, it is perceived that there needs to be more discussion on this matter, but I'm not sure how much more needs to be said. In the time since the selection of templates were flagged, I have also introduced "Punjab PPP" and "Punjab JI" into the article for Provincial Assembly of the Punjab in exactly the way I outlined previously. Farolif (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about using WikiData for these? —PC-XT+ 05:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't explored WikiData as an option. What would be the advantages of using that vs the current template method? Farolif (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WikiData can be used on other projects, similar to files on Commons. It would need to be set up, though. I'm not sure what the best way to do it would be, but it might be worth looking into... —PC-XT+ 05:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • WikiData still requires a code to call up the piece of data within an article. Maybe I'm oversimplifying the platform's functions, but how does that remedy the original concern in this case? Farolif (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The original concern of data storage in template space would disappear. WikiData would use parserfunction calls instead of templates, with much the same result. The documentation concern should be handled by part of setup on WikiData one time, instead of once per template. A drawback is that retrieving a different article's WikiData entry is expensive, so it may be better to have a copy for each page, for better performance. The templates can be used anywhere on Wikipedia relatively cheaply. WikiData can be used on other projects relatively cheaply if assigned to the page using it, meaning one or two copies of the data to update in total instead of one template or hardcoded data to update per language. Template names are easier to work with than WikiData identifiers. It's still not obvious to me that WikiData would be better, but the trade-off may have some advantages. —PC-XT+ 17:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • The original concern was not template space. The original question raised by WOSlinker was the purpose of creating the templates in the first place. The only space that could potentially be saved is in the documentation of said purpose, which the OP has expressed should be added in order to justify the objects' existence to other users that might stumble across them as well. Farolif (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was reading the nomination as asking why template space is being used for these. I'm not talking about space as a measurement, such as number of characters, but an area, as in, having the prefix "Template:" similar to article space or user space. (I'm actually not sure how much the size of template documentation really matters, as it's not transcluded.) To simply avoid the need to document every template, another idea is to organize these as subpages of one template which has the documentation. —PC-XT+ 02:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • I understood what you meant by "space", and that's still not what the nomination was concerned about. How about we skip the tedious documentation entirely, since it should otherwise be obvious to an editor (ie - one who would find these in the first place) what the objects are used for? Farolif (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In general, every template should have documentation. Simple subtemplates often don't, instead relying on the main template's documentation. Templates are often misunderstood, even hardcoded ones. Hardcoded templates have no code to look at for purpose, so we need to rely only on usecases to figure them out, which is unreliable. If there are not many usecases, vandalism or accidental damage can easily hide the purpose without any indication to anyone looking at it for the first time. It's hard to check for this. Though original usecases can often be found in the author's contributions around the time the template was created and edited, this can be rather tedious, and they don't always show the full purpose. —PC-XT+ 04:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into one template at the very least, and add some documentation. this doesn't seem any worse to me than say Template:DW episode count. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a switch, probably the best option —PC-XT+ 01:10, 13 August 2016 (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/2016_August_2&oldid=1076218486"