Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 4 March 6 >

March 5

edit

Template:V

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, assuming there are no technical problems Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:V with Template:Navbar.
These three templates perform almost identical functions. The module that implements {{Navbar}} would need to be updated to include the H/M/W links, but that's about it. No reason to have three templates that do the same thing. I could maybe see {{v}} being converted to a wrapper, if only to avoid the necessity of |mini= being added to the 6k pages that currently transclude it. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merging V and View doesn't really work in terms of how the template calls work. About the only thing that could be done would be to make View dependent upon V but it would be a bit kludgey. As has been previously expressed the most logical move would be to have V (perhaps a Lua module of it) be the master template which Navbar and View would tap into. 2001:A62:101E:FC01:706D:5F17:967B:1998 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the code for Template:View shows that it already calls Template:V so it essentially acts as a redirect which means there's no need for a merge there. That leaves potentially turning Template:Navbar into a sort of redirect by having it as well calling Template:V. 2001:A62:1025:5501:1FC:1ED:7B9E:EA7 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
bad idea, Module:navbar is the place to merge things, far better than adding a massive overhead to template:navbar by making it a wrapper for bloated code in Template:V. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Template:V could be a wrapper for Template:Navbar. Looking at its code the logic used to develop it will be broken if anything other than V is used (save perhaps Template:T) this logic will breakdown and it will just be wrong. Going through the talk archives for Navbar this popped up→ Template_talk:Navbar/Archive_1#Possible_new_Tnavbar_concept. It appears that the original creator of Navbar developed V as a potential alternative, not the other way around. 81.253.22.68 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 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:Tariq Nasheed

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. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems unnecessary. It has only 3 links, and two of them, the book and the film Dark Medicine, are one or two line articles that should be merged with Nasheed's BLP article. It isn't even obvious that the film is notable. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 5 March 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:PD-NZSection27

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 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:12, 15 March 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:TLS/SSL support history of web browsers

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 with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subst: and delete--only one transclusion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This template has some really useful information in it (speaking from practical experience here!). The template documentation gives the use case: "This template is for transclusion in Transport Layer Security#Web browsers to separate edit histories, due to this table receiving the vast majority of edits to the article, making edits to the main article hard to track." I think this is acceptable and should be permitted. gbrading (ταlκ) 15:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This table is one of the most helpful in regards to varied versions and deployments of web browsers in today's connected society. This table provide immense amount of easily retrievable information for use in troubleshooting device connectivity. abitson 17:27, 3 Mar 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I often use this table, it is hard to get these informations from browser histories 83.135.151.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. @Abiston and 83.135.151.209: You're misunderstanding the request. This isn't about removing the table from the rticle. It is about making directly part of the article's wikitext instead of transcluded from a template. Pppery 14:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 5 March 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:PD-Highsmith

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 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:12, 15 March 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:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine

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 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:12, 15 March 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:Field marshal (India)

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) 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only two people have been given the rank of Field Marshal in India, and a template that only links those two individuals fails most of the navbox guidelines. A trout to the AFC reviewer who accepted this is in order. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Field marshal (India) is currently a good topic nominee, and a common template is required per the GT criteria, and is required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Field marshal (India) already is a Good Article, and there was nothing on the GA review that implied there needed to be a navbox. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I am not talking about the good article status, but the good topic criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about point 1.C at WP:WIAFT, it says preferably using a template, not "must use template"; if there are only two Field Marshals, they can very easily be linked in a See Also section. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 5 March 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:South Carolina Gamecocks women's basketball coach navbox

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) 23:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each template only has two links. Never should have been accepted at AFC. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 5 March 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:Summit League baseball navbox

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) 21:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:21, 5 March 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:Western Athletic Conference mascot navbox

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) 21:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:13, 5 March 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:I liga Top scorers

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 2017 March 15. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 15 March 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:NCAA Division I FCS independents navbox

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) 12:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One (1) link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:58, 5 March 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:NCAA Rowing Championships

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) 12:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One (1) link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:52, 5 March 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:Trine Thunder athletic director navbox

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) 20:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One (1) link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:43, 5 March 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:Olivet Comets athletic director navbox

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) 20:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:42, 5 March 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:→§§ This Is A Streetway §§←

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 speedy delete - vandalism or, at best, pointless. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-creation of previously speedied template. Not at all clear what appropriate use it could have : Noyster (talk), 11:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also recreated by likely sock of blocked user; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JordanBaumann1211. JohnInDC (talk) 15:12, 5 March 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 Christian church body

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Christian church body with Template:Infobox Christian denomination.
Essentially the very same thing. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: Perhaps "template:Infobox religious body" Withdrawn. Would accept either merge as "Infobox:Christian denomination" or "Infobox:Religion". "Religious body" or "Religious denomination" would only add extra verbiage, but little added clarity. --Zfish118⋉talk 19:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If so, I would argue better "Infobox religious denomination". Either way, the name of the future merged template should suitably be the subject of another, separate discussion after merge. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:55, 14 March 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:Mississippi RiverKings roster

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) 23:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. All substantive content was removed[1] in 2011. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 5 March 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 French political party

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) 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Infobox political party; merely uses dated syntax. Mélencron (talk) 01:54, 5 March 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_March_5&oldid=1146661689"