Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 22 December 24 >

December 23 edit

Template:SharedIPBlocked 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 2017 January 3 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2017 (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:Hawaiian English 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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created WP:ENGVAR template, unused. Just as with "Californian English", there is no such thing as a specifically Hawaiian variety of Standard written English, so this is useless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 23 December 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:Vgrtbl/text 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) 04:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, unused template. All functions present in this template were originally used by its parent, {{vgrtbl}}, but were since replaced by a Lua module. Lordtobi (✉) 19:10, 23 December 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:Vgrtbl-no 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) 17:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, unused template. All functions present in this template are included in its parent, {{vgrtbl}}, already. Lordtobi (✉) 19:09, 23 December 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:Vgrtbl-tx 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) 04:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, unused template. All functions present in this template are included in its parent, {{vgrtbl}}, already. Lordtobi (✉) 19:09, 23 December 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:Vgrtbl-bl 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) 04:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, unused template. All functions present in this template are included in its parent, {{vgrtbl}}, already. Lordtobi (✉) 19:09, 23 December 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:California English 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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use different templates for southern English or New England English or even Cockney, for that matter. There may be spoken differences in regional dialects, but there are no spelling differences, rendering this template moot. John from Idegon (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Template:American English. See Template:Scottish English. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely useless. These templates should exist only for recognizable national varieties of written standard English; obviously there isn't any such thing for individual US states. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Kierzek (talk) 22:50, 28 December 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:Infobox former country 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. The opposition argues that mergers of this magnitude are not feasible due to disparate parameters and displays. Mergers such as this may be complex, but with interested and dedicated editors involved in the process it has been shown on multiple occasions to go smoothly, with only minor order/display changes in the final result. The only reason for these templates to not be merged is if (a) the existing parameters of both templates cannot be kept, or (b) the code really does become so convoluted that it becomes a burden to maintain (e.g. the succession boxes may need to be spun off into a subtemplate to keep things simpler). I encourage both sides of this discussion to participate in the upcoming merger, as it will help ensure a final product everyone can (at the very least) agree on. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox former country with Template:Infobox country.
Both of these templates need to be converted to use Template:Infobox... I would like to propose that as part of that conversion (which I am happy to do) they should also be merged. A former country just has a couple extra parameters that a current country doesn't have. No need to have them as separate templates. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second this notion. --Vami_IV✠ 01:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 'former country' is a subset of country anyway; it should help new editors of articles on former countries become aware of available parameters that may be useful. SamWilson989 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @SamWilson989 and Vami IV: one thing to also consider is whether country can just be merged into {{Infobox settlement}}.... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with that change. There are clear differences in usage between settlement and country/former country. The whole idea of the infobox is to summarise an idea, an event, or a place at a quick glance. The country and former country infoboxes are indistinguishable, whereas this isn't the case with the settlement infobox, and so merging them would simply cause confusion with the millions who have seen these infoboxes in use for some time. SamWilson989 (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This separation is useful to make clear that England and Kingdom of England aren't the same thing, I know that should be obvious but unlucky it isn't always; There's already too much trouble explaining the rationale for the infobox at WP:WPFC without this change. And I also think such a move would require a much larger discussion than this. Bertdrunk (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bertdrunk. The template is much too widely used to just be discussed here. Aryamanaroratalk, contribs 13:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditionally Oppose since that articles for former countries are added to hidden categories specific to former countries.
    • First, when we merge the templates, make sure we add a variable to Infobox country that indicates it's a former country.
      Second, we can put a navbar at the bottom of Infobox country for articles about current countries, so countries of the former Soviet Union can say "Preceded by Soviet Union" or something, since that Infoboxes for former countries state their successors such as East Germany.
      ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as it would become confusing to consider nations and former nations basically the same. While it would sort out the Israel-Palestine argument, it would cause problems for other things like 'The Confederate States of America' and 'The USSR', as well as when Texas was it's own nation, when the 13 Colonies were their own nation. Also, nations like the US and Russia that expanded over time would, in theory, require their own article for every time a new piece of territory was claimed. It would also require the replacement of thousands of templates that are already perfectly fine right now. All in all, no. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 13:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal is to merge all the parameters into a single template so it's easier to manage. Obviously historical sovereign nations would use different parameters than currently existing ones.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close per the above arguments, we need to distinguish between the two. This should be closed sooner rather than later as it is causing a message to appear at the top of a lot of articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Template former country is used on historical article and covers items like predecessors, successors, territorial changes, and historical era of existence. Infobox country has no parameters relating to history. Dimadick (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like many other users have said, the two need to be distinguishable. This needs to be closed soon, too, as annoyingly, the message about this appears on many articles. KHBritish (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the oppose votes point out that {{Infobox country}} is missing some of the params in {{Infobox former country}}... The entire point of this discussion is to determine if the two should be MERGED which would mean adding the missing parameters... No information would be lost.... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, can someone fix the TFD template on the Taiwan article. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 18:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like others have said, the two need to be distinguishable. I agree with KHBritish as the message appears on too many articles.Aelimian21 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly agreeing with KHBritish and UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21's comments. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a "back office" housekeeping issue only, there is no point having two almost identical templates when one can do both jobs. I'm assuming you would follow normal procedure of leaving the current template as a redirect to the new merged/combined template, therefore meaning that no changes would need to be made to any of the current pages currently using this template, (depending on the detail of the merger). I don't understand the objections as it wouldn't change the current pages - it would make no difference to the end-user experience and would make the job of maintaining just one merged template easier instead of having to replicate changes on several different templates. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 22:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is all standard template merge stuff. The name of a template isn't used to distinguish content. A simple parameter can be added to indicate the country is a former country, with tracking categories tied to that. This is condensing two complicated templates used on important pages into one, which makes it easier to maintain. {{Infobox former country}} could be retained as a redirect for those who really care how it's listed in the source code of an article. I see no valid reasons why a merge isn't technically possible while retaining all functionality, which is the real rationale for or against merges. ~ Rob13Talk 23:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Rob and ThinkingTwice, as long as {{Infobox former country}} remains as a redirect. Merging the two will not affect the content whatsoever, it will just make them easier to maintain.—General534 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as (a) the additional parameters are fully included and (b) use of the |end date= parameter automatically includes the page in all the hidden categories currently implemented by {{infobox former country}}. — LlywelynII 02:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clean up some redundancies! Pppery 03:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as (a) the additional parameters are fully included and (b) use of the |end date= parameter automatically includes the page in all the hidden categories currently implemented by {{infobox former country}}. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree in principal with merging, but these templates are actually quite different in how the content is presented. Merging isn't going to be straightforward. Some fields in Infobox former country aren't going match with ones in Infobox country. The merge is going to require a lot of careful consideration. Take Kingdom of England. The population changes over time are shown. The preceding and seceding states are important to many editors. Leaders are presented differently, since there are many for one title. I have a feeling this merge is going to screw up a lot of articles. It may reduce the maintenance burden for template editors, but mean other editors have a lot of messed up infoboxes to correct. Better would be to make a new template based on Template:Infobox, and demonstrate it can replace both these templates without causing any issues. I would support that merge certainly. Rob984 (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob984: I just want to point out that your response is basically that you oppose it unless it can be done correctly... The templates would not be merged unless all data can be properly displayed... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except it doesn't actually work that way. Testing is sometimes not extensive enough, and merges happen anyway because "consensus says so", leaving editors to clean up the mess. From what I'm reading here, everyone supporting the merge thinks its going to be simply and straightforward, and that the templates are "already identical anyway". They're not. The main reason neither of these templates have been converted to Template:Infobox is because they are very complex. The current situation isn't at all inadequate, and both templates function correctly. A merge that is entirely for maintenance purposes should first demonstrate that it actually fixes more problems then it creates. We cannot be certain of that until we have a working template. Rob984 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob984: In the past, we've had closes as "merge if feasible for all parameters to be included in OTHER TEMPLATE", and that's worked successfully. Almost all of those happen, but some haven't after additional discussion. Would you have any objection to that type of close? ~ Rob13Talk 00:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: If it is conditional on all parameters functioning as they are now, then I don't have any objection. Some of the subtle differences between these infoboxes are important. Rob984 (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking of our readers

Is there really a need to have this internal bureaucratic discussion posted on all our country pages? As with the mobile view by default...we should invoke no text in this case. More then enough editors will see this by the normal posting on project pages. Again making the average reader read this is pointless and will not help the debate here or inform our readers of anything relevant to what they are reading about..-- Moxy (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we do, most editors dont watch those templates because they cant edit them. I'd have no idea this discussion was happening otherwise. The message isn't a big deal at all. Readers have to deal with all kinds of hat notes related to the maintenance and editing of pages. This small note is hardly obtrusive. Rob984 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we go out of our way to not have these types of things on FA and GA articles. Waste of time for us having to ask questions why these are all over the place. Those of us that have been here a long time find all this displacement disheartening.--Moxy (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, readers have to deal with the huge fundraising banners which now appear within the introduction article text. I doubt a tiny note at the top of the infobox is much of an issue for them.
Challenge the policy that actually mandates them. And then, if you can't have it changed, stop asking.
Rob984 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fundraising and internal coding is not the same thing at all. As for policy and the coding yes we have the option not have this all over our main namespace. In fact we do it all the time. -- Moxy (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some opposers above have argued that there are functions (parameters) in the "former country" box that the main "country" box doesn't have. That is not a valid argument against merging: we could simply add these as optional features to the merged template; that's just how routine merging works. A much more serious problem would be if there were features that are in fact common to both templates but have to be handled differently in each. (e.g.: are there parameters that both boxes have, but that need to be displayed in different places or in very different styles, perhaps because they are much more important in the one box than in the other?) – Second, some opposers have also pointed to the large number of automatic categories emitted by the "former country" box. However, please note that these categories are not working well at the moment and that they were never really a good idea in the first place. The WP:TEMPLATECAT guideline rightly recommends "that articles not be placed in ordinary content categories using templates". If there is going to be a reworking or refactoring of these templates, we should take that as an opportunity for getting rid of this overgrowth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are fields handled very differently, because the former country infobox shows changes over time to leaders, area, population, etc.. I would probably support this merge on the condition that the infobox at Kingdom of England is used as a test case and all the parameters are to function correctly. If there's any need to remove functionality to make this work, I don't see the point. Rob984 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't already clear that there's no consensus for a merge? This type of thing only let me think that is the common "discussion should continue until it agrees with me". Bertdrunk (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I wasn't convinced before the relist but it seems clear to me that there's no consensus for merge here. As an aside, though, I am very much in favour of most of the categories being emitted by Template:Infobox former country. While they certainly bear improvement, I do think categorisation of former monarchies, states of the Holy Roman Empire and former countries on the Italian Peninsula, for example, is useful. I also definitely like the idea of adding predecessor state(s) to the bottom of Template:Infobox country — OwenBlacker (Talk) 01:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify what I said above about the categories: Obviously I'm not opposed to the categories as such; only, per WP:TEMPLATECAT, they should be added directly/manually, not through the infobox. One reason is that many of these articles will be the main article of their own topic category (e.g. Byzantine Empire as head of Category:Byzantine Empire), in which case most the "former country" categories ought to be placed on the category page, not on the article page. Also, the error rate of the current automatic categorization is far too high. The template currently has to check for about two dozen logical conditions regarding invalid or inconsistent parameter settings, almost all of them related to the categorization scheme, and puts problematic articles into Category:Former country articles requiring maintenance. This maintenance category currently contains 1,912 pages – out of 3,083 that have the infobox. Editors have failed to get the input for the categorization right in almost two thirds of all cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there should be a clear distinction between former and existing countries. This is beyond technical issues of template similarity.GreyShark (dibra) 11:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditionally oppose per Eric0928. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with conditions All parameters unique to the former country template should be added to the country template, and they should be fully inclusive. If the merge goes through, the difference should not be visible when viewing an article. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge! Long overdue. And merge both into Template:Infobox Settlement. All are the same type of items, there is nothing fundamentally different with "country". And whether something is former or not, can be managed by one parameter: "end date". 77.179.111.169 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Similar but not the same template, even if done carefully a merge could screw up a lot of articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rab-k (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose, there is so much succession flag crap in {{infobox former country}}, that a merger would just add complexity to {{infobox country}} for no significant benefit. but, I could see some benefit to splitting the succession links into a separate module, as well as the automatic categorization, and using {{infobox country}} as a backend for {{infobox former country}}. this would also demonstrate whether or not it's really feasible to merge the two. on a related note, I think that a fairly sensible merger would be {{infobox former country}} and {{infobox former subdivision}}, assuming that I am reading the code correctly. even better would be to have all of them use {{infobox settlement}} as a backend, but that would require even more work. note that much of the oppose sentiment could be answered by creating a merged template in the sandbox before proposing the merger. that would answer many of the concerns about functionality and feasibility. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge many of the objections above are based on false premises, or are resolved by the kind of changes regularly made during template mergers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 1 January 2017 (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:FUT2014riders 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2014 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2014 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 04:05, 23 December 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:BCF2013riders 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2013 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2013 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 04:02, 23 December 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:DPZ2012riders 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2012 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2012 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 03:58, 23 December 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:VLL2011riders 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2011 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2011 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 03:55, 23 December 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:FEN2010riders 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2010 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2010 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 03:47, 23 December 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:MSI2009riders 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2009 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2009 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 10:58, 23 December 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:TFA2008riders 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2008 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2008 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 10:55, 23 December 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:FRW2007riders 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2007 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2007 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 04:19, 23 December 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:UPT2006riders 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2006 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2006 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 04:17, 23 December 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:Unblocked 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 2017 January 4 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2017 (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:Infobox EN Standard Details 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 2017 January 4 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2017 (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:1943 college football independents records 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 ~ Rob13Talk 01:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. GXXF T • C 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Was filed while the template was still being populated. Nothing unique about this one in particular. Has siblings in every year (see List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1869–1955)) which are also being flushed out with additional teams from that season. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it were "flushed out" (or better yet "fleshed out"), this template has problems. Unless it were limited to "major college independents" (as done in the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia), it would violate WP:OR in that it would compile records for unrelated programs at all levels of college football without support in reliable sources. My "delete" vote is without prejudice to later creation of a "1943 major college football independents records" analogous to or tracking the one found in the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This 1 of 148 templates is no different in any way than the others. Removal breaks existing and future transclusion locations. By intent, this and similar templates display the highest level of CFB within that season year, as shown by the existing and poorly named Category:NCAA Division I FBS independents football records templates. Renaming to include "IAAUS" (1906-1909) and "NCAA" (1910-present) in the existing 1906~1949 templates is overdue, which this template simply mimics for 1943. Now that we have templates in every season in support of CFB's team season article project, it is a good driver for the renaming as prior discussions have gone nowhere. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I could see having an article, but we don't need the relative ranking of a select group of unrelated teams. ranking within a conference makes sense, ranking all teams makes sense, but ranking by "not in a conference" makes no sense. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cbl. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:54, 27 December 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:EngvarA spelling 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 as per nom ~ Rob13Talk 01:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{American English}}. Redirect. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:16, 23 December 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_December_23&oldid=1141875785"