Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 28

< September 27	September 29 >

September 28 edit

Template:Infobox Sanamahist leader 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sanamahist leader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rarely used, and doesn't do much as a wrapper. we can simply substitute the existing uses and delete or redirect it. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why this template is nominated for deletion. Is there any mistake in this template. Awangba Mangang (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- the template is not needed, you can use Template:Infobox religious biography directly. there is no need for a wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template:Infobox religious biography suffices. —Mythdon 09:05, 29 September 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:ISO 639 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO 639 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a proper template, and disambiguation pages aren’t for templates: templates can be linked by being in the same category, or by see also links in documentation. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mythdon 23:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what's wrong with a disambiguation page in the template name space? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 00:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation pages are for articles. In fact it says so on the very page under discussion: "Disambiguation page providing links to articles with similar titles". See Wikipedia:Disambiguation which talks exclusively about articles, with all use cases for articles. E.g. when there is a primary topic so a disambiguation hatnote to disambiguation page is needed. Or when editors frequently link a word or phrase, but there is article for it, not an obvious single target for which a redirect could be created, a disambiguation page can both help deal with existing and future links to this title. None of that applies or even makes sense for a template. It‘s not a plausible search term as search does not normally find templates – if readers e.g. type "ISO 639" into the search box they don’t see this or any other templates.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I remain willing to revise my opinion if any argument of harm is presented, but the fact that the disambiguation guidelines talk only of articles is due to the fact that the need for disambiguation is disproportionately more common in the article namespace, it's not a deliberate decision to exclude the rest of wikipedia. Disambiguation is occasionally necessary in the case of templates (see Category:Template disambiguation pages, though this is very incomplete) – if several templates can reasonably be expected to be at a cetain title, then disambiguation is acceptable. And of course, it's not for the use of readers, it's there to serve editors. In this particular case, there are several related templates that one might easily imagine could be titled {{ISO 639}}, so a disambiguation page is helpful. Deleting it and sending editors to the search engine is not helpful as the search results are inundated with hundreds of specific "ISO 639 name xx" templates. – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That it does no 'harm' is not an argument to keep. I could upload a copy of my cv and it would do no harm. But it would be against policy and so not belong. The policies here are the disambiguation policy, and the policy on the templates, that they are for transclusion in other pages (and templates with no transclusions are normally deleted).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, seems no worse than Template:IMDb. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But {{IMDb}} was once a template, or more precisely a redirect to {{IMDb name}}. It will still exist in old versions of pages seen in page histories or when undeleted, and editors might remember using it. Having something there for anyone still looking for it or looking to use it makes sense.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, maybe even Speedy keep See: {{Category disambiguation}} {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} {{Portal disambiguation}} are all used and each has their own category. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 4 October 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:ISO 639 code edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO 639 code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a proper template, and disambiguation pages aren’t for templates: templates can be linked by being in the same category, or by see also links in documentation. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:ISO 639 as a standard {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. – Uanfala (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- that is listed immediately above, as up for deletion for the same reasons, that disambiguation is for ambiguous article titles. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disambiguation is for ambiguoius titles, and it only so happens that ambiguous titles are overwhelmingly more common in the case of articles. Disambiguation pages do exist in the wikipedia (for shortcuts) and template namespaces. Is there any reason why they should be disallowed in the latter case? – Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mythdon 23:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what's wrong with a disambiguation page in the template name space? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 00:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment in the above discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, seems no worse than Template:IMDb. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, maybe even Speedy keep See {{Category disambiguation}} {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} {{Portal disambiguation}} are all used and each has their own category. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 4 October 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).