Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 3

[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) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help articles in any way. Ties with Template:Hawaiian name and Template:Australian name. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 19:56, 3 November 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).
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) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Included with Template:Australian name. It does not contribute to articles in any way. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 18:59, 3 November 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).
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) 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:57, 3 November 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).
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to {{party colour|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland}}, etc. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 3 November 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).
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 do not merge. If you would like to have one or more of the templates deleted, please feel free to renominate one or more for deletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:United States Postal Service with Template:Postage stamps of the United States.
These two templates and Template:List of United States Post Offices cover a similar topic. In addition to this, concerns were brought forth about the length and methodology used to fabricate the navigation boxes. I did request assistance at WP:RT, but have not received feedback, so I am discussing the issue here. Template:Simon Property Group is simliar to Template:List of United States Post Offices, and was discussed at WP:TFD here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not a serious merger proposal, I assume. It is a distraction, and would not solve any of multiple problems. Template:United States Postal Service is incoherent, with scattered items not consistent with the template's title. And the same with Template:Postage stamps of the United States. The proposal does not suggest any title for the combination, and indeed I think there is no possible title that could cover the combination. Does even the proposer want for the templates to be combined?
To User:Jax 0677, please relax. Opening this TFD which calls for community-wide attention to be paid to this random merger proposal is not the way forward, it is not proposed to be a solution to anything, by anyone, AFAICT. There is the beginning of some decent discussion at User talk:Jax 0677 about the purpose and limits of navigation templates. To other editors, please consider commenting there, or following discussion from there to some new forum (other than this merger proposal, which is a non-starter IMHO). --doncram 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I tried to go forward on my own with templates about USPS. One user asked me to put the template on every page to which it applies, but another user has asked me to pause, so for now, I have done the latter. According to Category:United States Postal Service, almost every article in the three navboxes can go in {{USPS}}, as this is all that I have to rely upon. If this category is wrong, then it too needs to be fixed. If we are not going to go forward with {{List of United States Post Offices}}, then I say throw all of the post offices (and MAYBE the stamp articles) in {{USPS}}. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project. If there are at least 5 articles in each of the three navboxes that should be in there, then the navboxes should be kept. I want to do what is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Implied in this, is deleting the navboxes if there are less than 5 articles that should be placed in that particular navbox. I decided to bring the issue here, to avoid the issue being brought to WP:ANI for going against the wishes of the broader community. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: I have interacted with the proposer on the structure and content of these templates and advised him of ways to improve {{Postage stamps of the United States}}, a topic that covers 170 years of stamps and postal history and now he wants to merge it with {{United States Postal Service}} that has only existed since 1970, and even if you consider it covers the Post Office Department it is an entirely different subject matter about the function of the postal service in the US. So while the two interact they are entirely separate topics and certainly do not belong together, especially if they get stuffed together in the same terrible unstructured format as they are at present (I have advised some structure al changes that make sense but they have not been acted on). Additionally these two templates require some understanding to the topic and I have the distinct impression he does not have sufficient knowledge of the topic based on the fact I have been a philatelist for 35+ years and with over 10 years editing philatelic articles I think you will agree I have some knowledge about this area. In that time I have not seen any philatelic contributions from this editor, and some of the comments above, such as According to Category:United States Postal Service, almost every article in the three navboxes can go in {{USPS}}, as this is all that I have to rely upon to me shows he does not know this topic; it requires more than just looking up a category, especially where articles may be missing. About 25% of the entries in each template are classified as "Related" when most can be formed into groups or sub-groups of like articles. Both are just a mess and a merge would make two bad templates into one worse one.
Indeed you are correct but only if the templates are structured in a way that is useful to the reader and not just a dumping ground for links. ww2censor (talk) 19:22, 4 November 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).
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) 03:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and the links are not to team season articles, but to the general team pages Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 3 November 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).
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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant as all links included at {{Nicholas Meyer}}. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 3 November 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).
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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 3 November 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).
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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, all redirects and redlinks Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 3 November 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).
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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, almost all redlinks Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 3 November 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).
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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and provides very little new navigation Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 3 November 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).
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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a renomination. Everything in the template has been deleted. Clearly the template itself should be deleted too. Sn00per (talk) 14:10, 3 November 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).
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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and mostly red links Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 3 November 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).
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, now that the template has been complete rewritten as a citation template and added to articles (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused attribution template Frietjes (talk) 14:05, 3 November 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).
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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

according to Southwest Conference#Members there were no members for the 1914 football season. if there were, we can clearly add it to the season articles for the various temas. Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Inaugural football season was 1915. Confusion is possibly attributably to the founding activity occuring in 1914. None of the associated team (1914) articles use this standings template, but the following (1915) team articles do adopted the 1915 standings template. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:31, 3 November 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).
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) 03:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unmanageable template for a nav box, if complete it should have 545+245=790 entries which is way too much. All articles have the requisite categories to aid in navigation. —SpacemanSpiff 08:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Means nearly 250 entries that keep changing every 2 years? Why in the first place do we need a template for members of either house? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:24, 3 November 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).
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) 03:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The countries that participate in the East Asia Summit are not a group that get particular attention as a group: a navbox listing their leaders really is verging on cruft, and serves no useful purpose. If we made similar navboxes for equivalent groupings, articles on leaders of large countries would be simply snowed under. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 3 November 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).
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theses templates are (almost) redundant to {{Infobox country at games}}, with the only difference being the country codes used. However, these can easily be added to the "country at games" template. Additionally, this falls in line with a previous TFD which declared similar templates to be redundant. Primefac (talk) 02:25, 3 November 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).
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) 03:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles in the template appear to be stand-alone pages; a third is being considered for deletion: Vidya Yeravdekar. Other entries are either red links or redirects. Pls also see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Symbiosis_Society. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 3 November 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).
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) 03:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only a half-dozen uses--it doesn't seem like there is a consensus for this in the taxoboxes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:54, 3 November 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).
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 after two relists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license tag, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 22:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:49, 3 November 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).