Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 8 January 10 >

January 9 edit

Template:B. 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 {{c.}} and {{circa}}, leave the others be. Closing early due to overwhelming consensus. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:B. with Template:Circa, Template:c., and Template:Floruit.
These four templates give generally the same output, namely <abbreviation><year>. I see no reason to have four different templates that do essentially the same thing. Proposing they be merged into a meta template, maybe {{year abbr}}, with the main templates being wrappers that send the word to be abbreviated (born, circa, floruit). Open to other merging options (modules, etc). Primefac (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As far as the actual backend template, I'm thinking along the lines of what's currently in {{circa}}, but replace "circa" with a #switch to add born/circa/floruit. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Circa and C., but leave the others alone. Somebody in need of either will not think of looking for circa. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Circa and C. Ollieinc (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Circa and C., but leave the others alone, per Clarityfiend --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Circa and C. per above. B., Circa/C., and Floruit have different applications. Thus, while they may produce the same output today, we may want them to diverge later, and separate templates is the cleanest way to leave that option available. And the OP proposes a lot of added complexity (meta template, wrappers, sending words) just to reduce the template count by 3 2 (counting the new meta template); that's a bad trade-off. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Circa and C. per above. — Mediran [talk] 05:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would appreciated this being settled asap, this TfD has left ‹See Tfd› tags all over the place. --Hillbillyholiday talk 06:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Circa and C. per above. Floruit is not a birth or death year. Please resolve this asap per Hillbillyholiday. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "fl." is an abbreviation for "Floruit", the Latin for "he/she flourished". It shows a date or period during which a person was known to have been alive or active when there are uncertain dates of birth/death. It is very different from Circa and should not be part of this proposal. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:42, 10 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:See section 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 any additional functionality of {{See section}} into {{Section link}}. The resulting template should be located at {{Section link}}. ~ Rob13Talk 00:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:See section with Template:Section link.
"See section" is largely redundant to "section link". The only major difference is the text output; it would be trivial to modify the latter to allow for the article title to follow the linkz. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why include a link to the main article if the subsection is what's desired? Primefac (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge functionality of Template:See section with output syntax of Template:Section link – I agree that there is no need to link to the main article when there is already a link to the desired section, but I like the ability to link to multiple sections if necessary. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jkudlick, just as a note, {{slink}} also allows for multiple section links. I know that doesn't really affect your !vote, but I thought I would mention it for accuracy. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{section link}}. {{see section}} offers better context, more options and is better documented. It is also better at linking plain anchors, either by themselves or in combination with section anchors, with optional editor-inserted link text. Also: editor-inserted related pre- and post- text, and punctuation, that is integral to the template. In many articles, editors are forced to add related text or punctuation outside templates. When/if templates are removed additional editing has to be done to re-fit the context and meaning of the article at the place the template occupied previously. There is also better overall presentation because of added display options. I would also say that "Link (in Page)" is more understandable and precise than "Page Section". This also applies if the section heading (and underlying anchor) has changed later, since in these cases the link destination (i.e) the page, is made explicit. {{See section}} is also easier to use, as errors will almost always be signaled, in language that makes sense to the average editor. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Pppery 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
??? What is above is not a Merge but a Delete. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By above I did not mean "directly above", like you assumed. Pppery 01:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with conditions: Does {{See section}} provide a way to reproduce the compact display of {{Section link}}? To my mind,
    is somewhat more complex in structure, and a bit more of a "bump in the read", than
    If there's a way to do this in {{See section}}, I didn't see it. And if it's not to be done, I oppose merger.
    Also, I'd like an abbreviation for "See section". Ssec is not in use, and I propose that. Of course redirects are ridiculously simple, but I want to put this on the table. Besides, when I mentally pronounce what I'm writing "ess-seck" sounds much better than "C-section"! --Thnidu (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, ONLY if some way to use section link's display is added to {{see section}}. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)t[reply]
  • Merge, on two conditions (1) {{see section}} has a parameter options to duplicate the output of {{sectionlink}} and (2) that {{sectionlink}} is implemented as a redirect to {{see section}}. If not, then DONT Merge. YBG (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See below for revised opinion. YBG (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Sectionlink}} unchanged, because it is heavily used. I'm ambivalent about {{see section}}, largely because I don't use it. It could be replaced with or merged into {{section link}}. YBG (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, same basic functionality can be achieved by a single template. Noting the vast difference in usage, 73 transclusions for See section compared with 26072 transclusions for Section link, the default output should be that of {{Section link}} – which as others noted above, is simpler than the {{See section}} output, and without a somewhat redundant second link to the article. - Evad37 [talk] 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with this. {{See section}} should become a redirect in this case, since {{section link}} has a superior parameter scheme and functionality. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{See section}}; it is redundant, disused, and produces multiple links to same article. If merged, fix its functionality to do something more sensible, and make it an option at {{section link}}, a template that is used several orders of magnitude more than {{see section}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please also close this one quickly. Like the C./Circa TfM above, this one is causing TfD notices to appear in a bazillion articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Section link}} because, as noted above, it is much more heavily used and is simpler than {{See section}}. It may be easier to delete {{See section}} than to try to merge it into {{Section link}}, since merging could excessively complicate the syntax of {{Section link}}. Or keep both. But in any case, keep {{Section link}}. Biogeographist (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Section link}} as the more heavily-used template, but no objection to the merger. As a tangent, while you're mucking about in that area, it would be nice to create a template that contained {{Section link|{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}|{{{1}}}|nopage=y}} for use on talk pages when discussing parts of the associated article. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Section link}} for its current technical advantage, but consider implementing some {{see section}}-compatible parameters and output format. --Artoria2e5 emits crap 15:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed I too see no need to link twice to the article you are going to either way... Don't we call this overlinking on here...? — Iadmc♫talk  19:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom yoyo (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could someone noinclude the TFM templates? They're messing up {{pd-textlogo}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge {{see section}} into {{section link}} for the sake of simplicity. Text output of {{section link}} is more compact and elegant, whereas {{see section}}'s positioning of the page name in parentheses after the section name (which is often identical across many articles) is awkward and potentially confusing. In the example above, the use of {{section link}} makes it clear that it's Albert Einstein's scientific career that's being discussed. If for some reason it's undesirable to have the page name appear first, it's easy to supress it using |nopage=y. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete both. The number-sign formatting works just fine. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number sign is overused, while the section symbol (§) is relatively unambiguous—it is used almost exclusively as section notation. We should format links with section symbols for clarity. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{See section}}; replace its uses with {{section link}} (to be more precise than "Merge"). I went through all of the template's twenty-odd transclusions in the article namespace, and a few in others. Some uses were in creating nonstandard hatnotes, in the broad form :''See also {{see section|page=Page|Section}}''. Those I corrected immediately to the standard form (i.e. {{see also|Page#Section}}), because standardizing hatnotes is a bit of a project of mine; that said, the use of the {{section link}} style in widely-used hatnote templates is probably relevant here. The most common use case overall is items in "See also" sections; in those cases the output of {{section link}} is preferable as more concise and readable. Most of the remaining uses are idiosyncratic uses within ref tags to create in-article crossreferences; in these cases I also think that {{section link}} is preferable, but would recommend tweaking those instances to use different approaches (e.g. rephrasing to use a normal wikilink, or at least a "notes" ref group). Also worth noting is that no article uses {{see section}}'s multi-section functionality, so that's not a barrier to its deprecation. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{section link}}, merge and delete {{see section}}: In addition to {{section link}} having more transclusions, it uses Lua, which means that the displayed result of {{see section}} can probably be easily added. — Eru·tuon 09:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary note: By my tally, 18 editors have participated in this discussion
    First, I note I originally thought the nom wished to merge {{sectionlink}} into {{see section}}, but after re-reading the original nomination, I realize that the request was in the reverse order, to merge {{see section}} into {{sectionlink}}. Re-reading some of the other early commenters, it appears that others might have suffered this same confusion.
    It appears that only two or three of the 18 disagree with the nomination
    This leaves 15 16 who wish to retain the current functionality of {{sectionlink}}, with some difference of opinion about what to do with {{see section}}, including @Primefac, Wugapodes, Jkudlick, Pppery, Enterprisey, YBG, Evad37, SMcCandlish, Biogeographist, Artoria2e5, Iadmc, Yahya Abdal-Aziz, Sangdeboeuf, and Nihiltres: and the IP 71.41.210.146.
    There seems to be a consensus to replace the uses of {{see section}} with calls to {{sectionlink}}. Some wish to leave {{sectionlink}} unchanged so all calls consistently use the § format. Others would prefer to incorporate some {{see section}} functionality in {{sectionlink}}.
    I have pinged all of the contributors so that they can verify my analysis. YBG (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • YBG, your re-assessment of me is correct; I wanted to merge "see section" into "section link". However, I'm not completely opposed to just deleting/replacing the former altogether (I figured merging would be a better place to start the discussion). I certainly don't think the code of "see section" should be merged (per one concern above), but that there might be some useful functionality like hiding the §. Primefac (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not horribly concerned which direction the merge goes. I trust whatever editors do the close and merge will know enough about them to be able to make an adequate decision. Whatever direction the merge is, I'd say we should subst existing instances to minimize changes to articles and redirect the template to preserve history (since it's a merge and the attribution is needed). Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @YBG: Ah. I'm one of the misinterpreters. I use {{sectionlink}} a lot; I don't think I was even aware of {{see section}} till I saw this discussion. I like {{slink}} and, as I said and others have too, I think it makes for easier reading. I don't much care if {{see section}} is deleted or is merged into an additional functionality of {{sectionlink}}, but I would oppose any proposal to remove the functionality and easy access of {{sectionlink}}. --Thnidu (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I have modified my counts accordingly above. That makes the tally 16-2. YBG (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • YBG  Y I'll just add that we need consistency on WP: one template should be enough if it does what is needed on its own. The fact is that I don't see any real need for {{See section}} which feels like overlinking to me. Can anybody come up with a compelling reason to link both to the section and to the article? If so, could its functionality be included in {{Section link}} without overcomplicating that template? — Iadmc♫talk  08:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Iadmc. We don't need multiple styles of things like this, when both serve the same function. This, and the redundant linking, are why I recommended deleting {{see section}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Iadmc and SMcCandlish: Let me give an example. In Compiler § See also, there is a link to List of important publications in computer science § Compilers. When I see that, I may wish to go directly to the list of compiler publications, but I might -- instead of or in addition to this -- decide that I want to have an overview of these important publications. For this, it would be most useful to go directly to the lede of the linked article. Having the extra link would facilitate this. Granted, it would be possible to go to the section and then scroll up to the top, but this would help the user who wants an overview without impeding the user who does not want the overview. This example may see a bit contrived, but I created it by looking at the transclusions of {{sectionlink}} and picking the first one that used the template to link to a different page. Now, I must say that I do not find this to be compelling, but would definitely find it to be useful. And since it is for reader convenience, I think the page name (if present) should either always be linked to the lede or always not be linked. It should not be up to an editor to remove a reader convenience. But while I would prefer to have this functionality added to {{sectionlink}}, I won't object if others prefer not. YBG (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I does seem contrived, and moot, because you can use {{anchor}} or {{vanchor}} to provide more specific link targets, that work with {{Section link}}, than those auto-provided by headings.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the thoughts but couldn't the functionality you pointed to be coded into a single template by an adept editor? E.g. as:
List of important publications in computer science§Compilers
with the § separating the article lede and the section? If we really want it that is — Iadmc♫talk  17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge {{See section}} into {{Section link}}, don't particularly mind which. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seeing the "See Tfd" in almost every good/featured article is irritating and reduces the perceived quality of the article. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 15:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Luis150902, this is a merger discussion - are you advocating keeping both as they are? Primefac (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - absolutely no need for two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that the key question is whether there are any {{See section}} users crying out to keep that template's behaviour. Only then does the question of merging come up. If this proposal won't be resolved quickly then I suggest reraising it as a deletion proposal on {{See section}}. That should get rid of the TfD spam on {{Section link}} and with it, any sense of urgency. The proposal can then stay open long enough for the few (if any) users with a genuine stake in the outcome to notice it without bothering anyone else. TuxLibNit (talk) 20:30, 16 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:Cozi Zuehlsdorff 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 Primefac (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and only non-redlinks are apparently acting credits? Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely unused, even on the subject's own page. Been around since May 2015. Karunamon ✉ 02:45, 13 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 KHSAA Boys Regional Tournament 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 Primefac (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sole pages that used this template were recently deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1966 KHSAA Boy's 4th Region Tournament). No reason for this template to stick around. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:18, 9 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:Japanese Regional League storico 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 G8 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox full of redlinks. WOSlinker (talk) 13:11, 9 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:Chemical synthesis 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 ~ Rob13Talk 00:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly duplicates Category:Chemical synthesis. Useless as a navigation template; does nothing the category cannot. Main topic redundantly linked as a "See also" topic, alongside the category - again, redundant. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The template is about different types of chemical synthesis which are not classified in an identical category. For example Radiosynthesis is wide away from LASiS or Biosynthesis. The template can make the navigation possible between the chemical synthesis types. --Sahehco (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all the links in the template are categorized as described above. If they are not meant to be in the same category, why are they in a template named for said category? Furthermore, those few that were not already in the category were described by their articles as belonging there, so I put them there. Now it is fully redundant to the category. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so, you have to request deletion more than half of the navboxes. First of first, the encyclopedia is under development and the template has enough capacity to be expanded in future. Secondly, the navboxes are for exact navigation and they are helpful for the non-professional users who don't know what category is. Thirdly, for professional user too it would be bothersome where in a category all related articles are available not the exact articles about a subject.--Sahehco (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your first sentence, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Next, it doesn't take much of an ability to use Wikipedia to know what categories are and how they're used. It's day three stuff at the latest. And again, all the articles linked by this template are categorized as previously described; those that weren't already I went to the trouble to categorize as such because their articles specifically said they are forms of chemical synthesis. If others don't belong in the category, I ask again: Why are they listed on a template named verbatim for said category? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We permit substantial overlap between categories and navboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Substantial overlap" is one thing, but entire duplication is another. Navboxes are intended to function in ways a mere category cannot, which includes logically flowing from one subject to the next. A template like a recording artist's discography is useful as readers can freely move between LPs, singles, live DVDs, and other releases that may have the same parent categories but would not be as freely accessible from each other without the navbox as they would not always be members of the same categories as each other, nor would chronological templates - such as "last album, current album, next album" infoboxes - be able to cover it. Navboxes like the one under nomination, however, are pointless as they do not provide any added functionality; there is already a category that takes care of this task as all its links are already in the category. Navboxes would group related concepts that don't get to have the same category spread across all of them. There is also no way to organize them that helps readers get some understanding of them without needing to click on them; the best we can use is alphabetically, which completely ignores what each concept actually is. Whereas in a recording artist's navbox, each link has context - you know a link refers to a single if it appears under the Singles heading, for example. This may all be grounds for just fixing the template, but let it be said that I never once explicitly called for this template's deletion in this discussion - this is "Templates for discussion", after all, so any action is better than none (the tag on the template's page may say it's being discussed in accordance with the deletion policy, but I never actually said it myself). If we can give it a facelift that makes it suitable for keeping, that's fine by me. As it stands, though, it's not helpful above and beyond the category. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 00:14, 13 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:LD50 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 I'm withdrawing this nomination, per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article content not permitted to be stored as a template. Would not be difficult to code this into articlespace when needed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "not permitted" is there a specific guideline you are referring to? It seems like this template is in line with other templates in Category:Typing-aid templates. 73.170.41.47 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just part of the general template guideline. I'm looking through as many of those templates as I can but none of them seem to match the kind of use this was made for. For those that do, we probably just haven't gotten to them yet - I was looking through Category:Chemistry templates when I ran across this one. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The exact guideline is the first bullet point of WP:TMPG. As a minor procedural point, it says "should not", not "not permitted". Primefac (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but it has been applied in the sense of "not permitted". That is the precedent as I understand it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, it's just a formatting tool. No real article content in the template. The only meaning of LD50 in Wikipedia is "Median lethal dose", the other articles on the disambig page are just cultural references. Maybe the template could be moved to {{Median lethal dose|LD50}}. Explicit formatting is more difficult, and may be inconsistent. Teaktl17 (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make subst-only as a pretty straightforward case of article content being stored in templates. Pppery 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make subst-only - it is far easier to type {{subst:LD50}} than it is to add all the code manually. It would be trivial to add a bot task to substitute all instances of {{LD50}}. I hardly think that this is the type of "article content" referred to in the first point WP:TMPG, but I can understand the point raised by the nominator. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a useful template that aids the editor - it's not obvious or easy for a typical editor to know and remember that proper formatting is "[[median lethan dose|LD<sub>50</sub>]]", but remembering {{LD50}} is easy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edgar181. This is the kind of keystroke saving that templates were basically tailor made for. Making it subst only would resolve Zeke's complaints while leaving editors a valuable timesaver. Karunamon ✉ 04:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a standard sort of typing aid template; we have hundreds of them. Nominator is badly misunderstanding WP:TMPG's rule, which is about doing things like trying to hide the entire lead, or a controversial quote and its citation, inside a template to make it harder to find and edit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, standard typing-aid template stuff. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "LD50" isn't "article content", it's a commonly-used unit of measurement for biomedical articles. I wasn't aware we even HAD a template for it, until I began editing a short article in Reference desk about a toxic substance, and was referred here. It's a useful template we need to have. loupgarous (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not seeing the issue. Works fine as is. Do not break what is not broken. Goal is to write an encyclopedia. If the rule does not support that we have WP:IAR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What exactly is it for? That needs to be explained on the template's page or a doc subpage. — Iadmc♫talk  10:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Iadmc, I've added a basic doc. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Keep in that case — Iadmc♫talk  17:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC) PS its snowing — Iadmc♫talk  17:51, 15 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:Airport icon 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 Primefac (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete template replaced by {{Rail-interchange|air}}. Useddenim (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as deprecated. It is only transcluded into itself and its own documentation page. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like an easy call as this temple is obsolete ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:38, 10 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:Altaic languages 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 Primefac (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly used and is already discussed by article infobox. 2001:DA8:201:3512:9D:C95D:A943:7F57 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 2001:DA8:201:3512:9D:C95D:A943:7F57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be a PoV-based nomination of a controversial (in the real world) linguistic categorization to help "get rid" of it from Wikipedia. Everywhere a discussion about the Altaic language family comes up, dispute ensues. The language family (to the extent linguists accept that it is one) is small for navbox purposes (it would show only the top language families of Asia that are, in the Altaic theory, closely related), so it would automatically be "hardly used" like any navbox with a small scope. The nomination doesn't make sense. Infoboxes don't "discuss" anything, and they are not navigation aids, but abstracts of article details, ergo they don't pertain to what is or is not in a navbox (or category) nor whether it should exist.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fits WP:NAVBOX to a tee. Spurious nom with no good reason articulated for deletion. Karunamon ✉ 02:37, 13 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_9&oldid=1136430064"