Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4 edit

Template:Trademark 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 2018 December 13. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:20, 13 December 2018 (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:List of Anime Ep TV-Pokemon 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Gonnym (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2018 (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:Substitute:Peer review 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 G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently blank template; perhaps test by new editor? David Biddulph (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (surely there is a relevant speedy delete criteria for a blank template like this?). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2018 (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:Mountain dogs 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) 23:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion – this template duplicates the lower half of {{Pastoral dogs}}, it was only created recently after the deletion of the Dog breed navboxes by FCI classification series which were themselves only created recently. The only breeds currently in this navbox that are not included in the Pastoral dogs navbox are extinct. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, many do not share my points of view. When I return to my library I will include some citations on the talk page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This is a content fork and possibly even a PoV fork. The motivation/confusion is simply that vying dog fancier/breeder organizations (see WP:UNDUE) use different exact terminology for how they group dogs. We've been merging various content-forked, redundant articles into broader, more neutral, more reader-useful articles that simply identify the variant terminology in the lead. In this case, "mountain dogs" is a synthetic term with a single and rather non-sensical criterion (high altitude) that has nothing to do with either close genetic relationships between breeds, or a specific working function for which the breeds were developed, so it does not actually serve an encyclopedic purpose (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). There are numerous ways one could group dog breeds together (pointed or floppy ears, pale or dark fur, curved or straight tail, you name it – and some would even have a sourced genetic basis) but we have no need for categories for all such things much less any redundant navbox templates. We need neither articles nor templates for narrow breeder/shower terms that so closely overlap with other terms with broader use – and thus more WP-reader interest and search likelihood – that we can cover them together at a broader article. I.e., per WP:NOTDICT, "this term exists in sources" does not equate to "this term must have its own article and navbox".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not content fork, nor a pov fork. It is a logical step to include a recognised term for a group of dogs types, used in several European countries, in mountainous areas, that is itself a large part of Europe. Must we continue pushing for more generic terms, at every turn, loosing specialism by its very nature reflects true human condition. The term may not be in the Americas, in that is where the confusion lies. It has always been function not looks that define what dog types are grouped into. scope_creepTalk 08:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep, surely you recognise that this navbox simply replicates the original and as such in no way assists in navigation. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2018 (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/2018_December_4&oldid=1138372988"