Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 16 October 18 >

October 17 edit

Template:Atlético Petróleos de Luanda (handball) Women's 2012-2013 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 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:32, 27 October 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:Atlético Sport Aviação 2012-13 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 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:32, 27 October 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:Atlético Petróleos de Luanda (basketball) 2012-2013 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 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:31, 27 October 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:Asseco Resovia Rzeszów team - 2014-2015 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 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:31, 27 October 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:Archie Comics 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused wrapper template which is redundant to more targeted transclusion of the subtemplates. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 17 October 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:Archiac 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

defunct, historical list maintained in parent article. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 17 October 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:Aphonopelma Species 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) 04:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

blanked, and would be duplication of Aphonopelma#Species and Euathlus#Species if it were up-to-date. Frietjes (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all such "Genus species" templates should be deleted; they have at most one or two uses, duplicate lists in articles, and are less likely to be kept up-to-date. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:22, 18 October 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:AnthemListUN 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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looks like the author meant to speedy delete it, but used the wrong template. Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 17 October 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:AnswersinGenesis 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

provides insufficient bi-directional navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nolo contendere as template creator. I thought I could develop this into something useful, but there's so much overlap between it and the various creation science templates that I don't think it's going to be workable. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:59, 18 October 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:Annandaliella Species 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) 04:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates Annandaliella#Species, Brachypelma#Species, Ceratogyrus#Species, Grammostola#Species, Haplopelma#Species, Ornithoctonus#Species, Pamphobeteus#Species, Phormictopus#Species, Poecilotheria#Species, Psalmopoeus#Species, Pterinochilus#Species, Selenocosmia#Species, Selenotypus#Species, and Theraphosa#Species. Frietjes (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all such "Genus species" templates should be deleted; they have at most one or two uses, duplicate lists in articles, and are less likely to be kept up-to-date. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as only one or two usages, preferable to write the list straight in the article --SuperJew (talk) 15:20, 20 October 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:American soccer teams by league 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 17 October 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:American football national team 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates other gridiron football infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 17 October 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:Ami Species 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) 04:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all such "Genus species" templates should be deleted; they have at most one or two uses, duplicate lists in articles, and are less likely to be kept up-to-date. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 18 October 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:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles with no significant updates progress 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; deleted as G7 by Magioladitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and points at the wrong category. should either be fixed/renamed/used, or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's unused; I had an aspiration that items in this category might be expanded one day, but that will probably never happen. I only created this because the maintenance category guidelines suggested it. But I don't understand "wrong category". Category:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles with no significant updates has 412 members currently. David Brooks (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David Brooks, if it is tracking the correct category, why does it say 0 entries? (hint click on the "undated articles" link). Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see what happened. When I set up Category:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles with no significant updates a year ago, I must have been utterly confused by Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category#Progress box template. So this template is, yes, a mistake. Delete it. David Brooks (talk) 13:52, 19 October 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:London 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates other navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:58, 17 October 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:Lists of populated places in Andhra Pradesh 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) 04:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lists of populated places are generally maintained as categories, hence navigation between list articles should not be needed. Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Template is not in use in any article and every article in the template except one is a redlink. Pratyush (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed, that one non-redlink article of the template is a redirect. Pratyush (talk) 07:47, 19 October 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:Lists of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in the administrative divisions of the federal subjects of Russia 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 17 October 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:ListBgColor1 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not clear why we need it. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 17 October 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:Linguistiek 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not in English, and duplicates the English version of the same template. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 17 October 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:Lift to drag ratio examples 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates Lift-to-drag ratio#Examples. Frietjes (talk) 20:47, 17 October 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:Lifesigns 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

provides no core navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 17 October 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:Lex 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

provides very little navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 17 October 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:Letters with reverse tilde 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not clear where it would be used. Frietjes (talk) 20:35, 17 October 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:Law Schools of the East South Central States 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and partially duplicates other navboxes like {{Law Schools of the Southeast}}. Frietjes (talk) 20:30, 17 October 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:LayTheravadaPractices 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 17 October 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:Lega Nord sidebar 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates navigation found in Template:Lega Nord. Frietjes (talk) 20:26, 17 October 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:Lil' Kim sidebar 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates navigation found in Template:Lil' Kim. Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 17 October 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:Luther Seminary 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and provides no core linking. just linking to people associated with the seminary. Frietjes (talk) 20:23, 17 October 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:Lymphopoiesis Modern Acronymia 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and not clear where it would be used. Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 17 October 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:Symptoms involving head and neck/sandbox 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 withdrawn by nominator. Per Primefac's comment below. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned and unused template. Safiel (talk) 19:30, 17 October 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:Medicine navs/below/doc 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 procedural keep. The main template is already nominated; if deleted the /doc will also be deleted. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation page for unused template. Safiel (talk) 19:28, 17 October 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:Medicine navs/below 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. No opposition. REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned and unused template. Safiel (talk) 19:27, 17 October 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:Utica locator 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

single use template, which I have now merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I guess I created the first one. Buffaboy talk 04:06, 19 October 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:Twilight Force 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) 02:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one working link. Does not serve a navigational box's primary purpose, which is... well, to enable navigation. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, does not provide sufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • no problem with delete. I am eventualist in this case so I created it mainly for other Wikipedians who would be interest in creating pages about TF´s albums. But if you´ll feel free to delete it, do that.--Michal Lenc (talk) 17:53, 17 October 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:Canada at the Commonwealth Games 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. It appears that the information found in the infoboxes might be better suited for the navboxes. A discussion to that effect should take place, with NPASR for this family of templates should the decision be to keep the infoboxes as they are and delete the navboxes. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list

I am nominating this one (along with all the other nation at the Commonwealth Games templates, as these are redundant. There is an infobox at the top of all pages which use this template. with the exact same links. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/question - Sportsfan 1234, just to clarify: are you only nominating this template, or did you intend to nominate multiple templates in this nomination? Primefac (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am nominating all the countries with similar templates. I am not sure how to nominate multiple templates under one nomination. Primefac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sportsfan 1234, please list below this comment the specific templates you would like to delete, and I will add them to the nomination when I relist the discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that per the above discussion there are now 85 templates being nominated. TFDlinks disabled to avoid breaking transclusion count of the page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant to the navigation provided in the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am uneasy about using Infoboxes to provide navigation in this fashion - that's not what infoboxes are for. I see no problem in providing a "previous" and "next" link in the infobox but otherwise infoboxes should be used for a summary of information, and navboxes for navigation. I wouldn't want to see this case providing a precedent. Is there a precedent elsewhere for using infoboxes for navigation? --NSH002 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NSH002, as near as I can tell these infoboxes are actually really ugly infobox/sidebar hybrids, with the "years participated" bit hardcoded into the IB. As to your question, I don't think there is such precedent for using IBs for navigation, but sidebars often do. The entire IB system surrounding the Commonwealth Games needs to be looked at, but that's a completely different discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Primefac. I don't think we can decide to delete these until the question of the infoboxes is resolved. Hence I am "!voting" procedural keep. --NSH002 (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural keep. Best to wait until the question of the infoboxes is decided: if it is decided to remove the navigation links from the infoboxes, then these can be kept, otherwise they should be deleted. --NSH002 (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The navigation links should be removed from the infobox. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 21 October 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:Mexican TV by channel number 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 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:30, 27 October 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:Bsexi 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 {{Bsexi}} with {{Importance example}}. Keep {{Better source example}}. ~ Rob13Talk 23:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: merge Bsexi with Importance-example Propose merging Template:Bsexi with Template:Better source example.
Inline templates derived from {{Refexample}}. The two used to display [importance?] and [better source needed], respectively, which was no different from {{importance-inline}} and {{better source needed}}. So I edited both to [importance of example?]. I think the templates should now be merged and then renamed to {{Refexample inline}}. Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For future reference, Ilovetopaint, any deletion you make (be it AFD, TFD, etc), it is automatically assumed that you support it as the nominator. You don't need to put a !vote down as well. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I opposed said changes to {{better source example}} and reverted them. I'm not sure I have any opinions about where to proceed, though. Primefac (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is it that you oppose? All you just did was revert them back to dupes of {{importance-inline}} and {{better source needed}}. The templates were created as an inline version of {{Refexample}}, and were supposed to be used in cases like Patience Wright and Neo-psychedelia.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Specifically, the fact that "importance of example" is not obviously what one would see when using {{better source example}}. As stated, I would be okay moving it to {{refexample inline}} or doing something similar, I'm just not thrilled about the idea of having a template that is somewhat of a surprise. Primefac (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, but I don't see how [better source needed] is any less of a surprise for a template called "better source example".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The name came from taking the {{Better source}} template and customizing it for poorly-sourced examples, hence "better source [example]". Similarly, "refimprove [example]" was spawned from {{Refimprove}}. You can name them anything you like as long as you leave a redirect behind, I find it easy to remember "better source needed for this example." BrightRoundCircle (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - visually they produce the same superscript, but the hyperlink is different and the tooltip/hover-text is different. "importance?" is more concise than "importance from example" and I'm in favor of keeping visual noise to a minimum. The difference between "importance?" and "better source needed" is subtle but it's explained in the docs; "importance?" is for examples that may not be important at all; "better source needed" is for examples that may be important but their source does not discuss their importance. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We could rephrase the differences another way:
    • {{Better source example}} is for examples whose importance are disputed and need a better source for clarification.
    • {{Bsexi}} is for examples whose importance are disputed (in other words, examples that need a better source for clarification).
    As for "visual noise" - huh? [importance of example?] is only 2 characters more than [better source needed]. The former also addresses the issue clearer, and wouldn't have required me to click on it to learn that it's a different template from {{better source needed}}. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like you are deliberately ignoring the difference between "may not be important" and "may be important but requires a better source". "importance?" carries the same message as "importance of example?" at less than half the length. If you don't want to click on the link, don't; it doesn't matter if it's a different template if you don't click it or read the hover text. The solution is the same, but if you click it or read the hover text you get a more informative description of the issue.
    This merge proposal relies on not differentiating between the templates (and in fact stemmed from your edit to make both templates the same) and ignoring their hover text and links. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To make things crystal clear, we are dealing with four templates here:
    {{better source}} and {{better source example}} produce the same superscript but link to different explanations of the issue, with the latter being specifically about examples.
    {{importance inline}} and {{bsexi}} produce the same superscript but link to different explanations of the issue, with the latter being specifically about examples.
    {{bsex}} and {{bsexi}} produce different superscript but link to the same explanation of the issue, with the former more leaning towards the example being significant and merely needing a better source, and the latter leaning towards the example being insignificant and likely without any source to demonstrate its significance.
    Neither of these pairs needs to be merged. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a precedent for inline templates that produce identical superscripts? Your rationales carry as much weight as a proposal to make {{according to whom}} produce [accordingly?], as well as {{according what source}} to produce [citation needed].-Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very good question. I still oppose the merge but now I see your point. If there are no inline citation templates that produce the same superscript, we can change the superscript to something that'll be acceptable to everyone. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found {{who}} and {{who2}} which have the same superscript but a different link. Despite this, I acknowledge the practice is rare and might be confusing, and I am in favor of differentiating the superscript. Let's discuss differentiating the superscript instead of merging the templates, because they serve different purposes. Additionally, I've noticed almost all inline templates use {{fix}}, so I'll convert these templates into {{fix}} templates too, for consistency. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Following the principles of least surprise, consistency, and seeking to avoid redundancy, I've merged {{bsexi}} into your {{importance-example}}. Bold merge and all, but I assume this is an acceptable solution for {{bsexi}}, which only leaves {{bsex}} to be fixed. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming the above merge goes well, I hope we can leave {{better source example}} to peacefully coexist with {{better source}} the same way {{who}} and {{who2}} coexist. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrightRoundCircle: I've reverted your merge as I don't think it is proper to merge relevant templates while a discussion is ongoing (even though you are doing a different merge). Perhaps {{importance-example}} should be added to this tfm instead. Pppery 19:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. I was originally rather neutral on the merge issue, but with the cogent argument presented above I am inclined to agree that everything is fine the way it is (i.e. nothing needs to be merged). Each template is useful in its own way. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Suggestion I think the best option is to merge all 3 templates to [self-sourcing example?]. If not, then we could compromise by merging {{bsexi}} with {{importance-example}}. I still don't see the value in {{better source example}}, nor can I think of anything concise to change the superscript to. "Better source needed for clarification"? "Source doesn't explain pop culture reference"? We already have {{elucidate}}, so...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's merge {{bsexi}} with {{importance-example}} and set the superscript to "example's importance?" so we can move on. "better source needed" is fine as it is, it's rare but not unprecedented to have two inline cleanup templates produce the same superscript with different links. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "self-sourcing example?" is not a good superscript because it doesn't offer a solution. "better source needed" immediately offers a solution (provide a better source), "importance?" hints at a solution (provide a source that discusses the importance in relation to the article), "self-sourcing example?" is kind of a yes/no question... but perhaps this is better discussed on the template page and not on the merge discussion. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    superscript discussion on template talk page. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in favor of this.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:06, 22 October 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:McCombs School of Business 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... the title "McCombs School of Business"... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:17, 17 October 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:Taiwan color 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 after replacing, as discussed. ~ Rob13Talk 23:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template was mainly used by {{Taiwan line}} (before it was merged into {{rint}}, but there are still pages using it. Fully redundant to {{TRTS color}}, {{Taoyuan color}}, and {{KMRT color}}, and should be replaced with these templates for consistency and avoid redundancy. Note that since the output of this template is a color parameter, I had to put noinclude tags or risk breaking almost 80 pages. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 17 October 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_October_17&oldid=1073609820"