Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 27 September 29 >

September 28 edit

Template:Scientific method 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scientific method (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is agreement at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Template:Scientific_method and Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Template:Scientific_method that this template contains original research. An actual schematic of the inter-relationships would actually be quite complex, and not necessarily useful as an educational device, but more importantly, such a graph/image is not present in the reliable sources, and I'm not sure any source actually discusses all of their relationships to each other in this way. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:OR - what exactly is or isn't 'fringe', pseudoscience' or 'protoscience' is frequently contested, and there is no consensus to which 'working within the scientific method' is a defining factor of any of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR or some kind of neutrality problem. The template takes a highly controversial position and presents it as a done deal. bobrayner (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR and as an invitation to POV problems. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Extremely simplistic OR that seriously conflicts with the vast majority of reliable sources on a very complex topic. Not of any possible use to the project, and confuses rather than clarifies. Agree with Samuel that this can generate POV problems. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jet Set Radio Games 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jet Set Radio Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN with 3 articles, one of which is the series article. Izno (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's so little to navigate between that it is pointless to have such a navbox. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Record label templates 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete (no consensus concerning the Atlantic Records template, since the format was changed). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlantic Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Custard Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Daptone Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fractured Transmitter Recording Company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Good Fight Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kickball Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Massacre Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Revelation Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Show Dog-Universal Music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Southern Lord Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uprising Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Like the recently nominated Template:Virgin Records, I believe templates for records labels listing all artists signed to the label and their related articles (band members, albums, songs) is excessive and potentially unwieldy. Even WP:ANOEP states, a navbox shouldn't be created for "a listing of articles for which there is no reasonable theoretical limit to the numbers of articles that can be included". The {{Atlantic Records}} would be a clear-cut example of this, while the other label templates may be small now, the potential still exists and sets a bad precedent. Note that I am not against templates for record labels but for listing its artists and releases in this manner. Categories and lists, some of which are small enough to list in the main article for the label, better serve that purpose. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, better to just use a category. having the same record label is not a close enough of an association. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, including every artist on the label would make it far too unwieldy. Some artists are only signed to a major label briefly but drop it in favor of another (for instance, Jerrod Niemann was on Mercury, dropped without releasing anything, then moved to Arista — should he be on the Mercury template if it existed?). Dozens, if not hundreds, of artists can have a deal with a single label, so building it up like this would make way too much work. Even more so if the albums and singles are created — that'd be literally thousands of articles on one single template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The prime direction is that each artist that has between 1-4 associated links (songs, artists or album) can have a group line item (i.e. like Template:Fractured Transmitter Recording Company). A template allows for quicker navigation between articles than does a list or category. Artists that have zero associated links can be lumped into the last group. Artists with more than 4 associated links can have their own navbox. I doubt that something like this would generate thousands of articles within the navbox, as there are likely not too many artists and ensembles with 1-4 links. In short, too small, the artist goes into the last category. Too big, it gets split off. The template can be changed over into one with executive officers and subsidiaries, such as Template:Warner Music Group. The scope of the templates can be readjusted as the organization grows, just like some artists and ensembles have templates for their songs and albums.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So we should have record label navboxes to list the newest and least notable of artists on the label? Someone seeing one of these for the first time would not understand why other artists from the label are not included in the template. If I'm going to be able to navigate between Underminded and Liferuiner, why wouldn't I also want to be able to navigate to Dr. Acula (band)? Then we could put a template for every record label an artist has been signed to into its article, so we can easily navigate between dozens of unrelated acts. To me, such navigation is more simply achieved by the list of artists shown in Uprising Records than this potentially overburdening series of templates. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - I am simply thinking out loud here, but perhaps artists with either zero related articles or at least 5 related articles should be in the bottom group. Again, as the record company becomes larger:
"The template can be changed over into one with executive officers and subsidiaries, such as Template:Warner Music Group. The scope of the templates can be readjusted as the organization grows, just like some artists and ensembles have templates for their songs and albums."
For example, Safran, ThyssenKrupp and United Technologies Corporation have templates for the highest conglomerate, and have some separate templates for their subsidiaries. IMO, for Fractured Transmitter Recording Company (and others), template size is not a foreseeable problem at this moment in time.
I think the record company templates need to be listed separately at TfD to be decided on a case by case basis, since they are all different sizes.
Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nominator's concerns.--Malconfort (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since this was not addressed before being deleted, I would like to point out that there are several additional potential candidates for Template:Virgin Records:

  1. Richard Branson
  2. Capitol Music Group
  3. Charisma Records
  4. Front Line Records
  5. Nik Powell
  6. Virgin Group
  7. Virgin Records artists
  8. Virgin Schallplatten

Similarly, Template:Atlantic Records could be changed into one with people and subsidiaries. I recently reformed this template into something more compact, and I strongly believe that the same can be done for other large conglomerates as well.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break edit

Comment - I just modified the templates for the record companies in question.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- I think that label navboxes in general could be excessive and unnecessary. But those concerns aside, I can't even figure out how Jax set some of these up. On {{Fractured Transmitter Recording Company}}, neither of those releases from Integrity were even released by Fractured Transmitter. How were just these handful of albums selected to be mentioned? Why was Meshuggah's I left off? Two of the three Weedeater albums listed on {{Southern Lord Records}} weren't actually released through Southern Lord, and neither of the Warzone albums listed on {{Revelation Records}} were actually released through Revelation Records. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is it determined which artists have their releases on their template, which artists are "other artists", and which artists don't get mentioned at all? I think that templates such as those of Southern Lord Records and Massacre Records leave out too much information, and I would imagine that the others leave out significant information as well. The amount of information to put in the templates so that most important information would be left out would be a lot of information and may not be worth thee effort. Some of these templates are most likely redundant. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just modified the 3 aforementioned templates to include only the artists, until we can think of a proper way to disposition the albums and singles. I think these templates should remain now that it only has artists affiliated with this label, and that we can do something similar to the other templates. I am open to suggestions as to what to do with the albums and singles.
Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Navboxes serve to navigate between articles that are strongly related. A list of albums and releases aren't strongly related to each other and just serve to clutter up the the articles. What we really have here is a category stuffed into a navbox. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Whpq, "I just modified the 3 aforementioned templates to include only the artists".--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I missed out adding that exception for me is the reformed Atlantic template which does restrict itself to strongly related items such as the sublabels. I do not support the idea of adding artists. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - A navigation box allows much quicker navigation between articles.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply - A navigation box allows much quicker navigation between articles when there is a good reason for that navigation. I don't see that there is a good reason. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:And So I Watch You From Afar 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:And So I Watch You From Afar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. There are articles for only two of this band's albums and each one, plus the artist's article, already link to one another just fine. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not a useful navbov given the small number of articles. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient number of existing articles to warrant a navbox at this time.  Gongshow Talk 18:21, 3 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sports-related South Park episodes 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sports-related South Park episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this grouping appears to be WP:OR. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I see no good reason to group these episodes together for navigation. I don't see that there is any indication that the world at large considers this grouping as significant. -- Whpq (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Chrome (band) 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chrome (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Keep. Regardless of the amount of redlinks, this template links to seven legitimate articles and is not suitable for deletion.--Soul Crusher (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Brave Entertainment 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brave Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two distinct links in addition to the main article, each of which link to one another without the template. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:11, 28 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Scullion 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scullion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Mostly red links. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NENAN (hits that critical number of 5 easily). I'll trim the redlinks out. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Defunct shipping company 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Defunct shipping company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox company}}. Just 5 transclusions. Note that we have no {{Infobox shipping company}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 28 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox summit meeting}}. Only 23 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose provisionally (author). I would support a redirection as proposed if this template's functionality were merged with that of {{infobox summit meeting}}. Currently, the latter does not support specifying the number of heads of state or government (a heavily reported feature of CHOGMs), chairperson (which, particularly as the chairperson becomes the Commonwealth Chairperson-in-Office, is very important to CHOGMs), retreat location (which is unique to the CHOGM, takes up approximately half of its length, and is widely-reported), or the issues addressed (which should really be a part of any summit meeting's infobox). Include them - obviously as optional fields - and I'd support the move. Otherwise, there is no need to merge infoboxes if they reduce functionality and do not help future transclusion, because CHOGMs are a small, finite set. Bastin 10:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:07, 28 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MPLinksCA 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MPLinksCA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CanParlbio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:MPLinksCA with Template:CanParlbio.
Since it seems to serve the same purpose of {{CanParlbio}}, but extends its functionality, I think it would be best to merge the pages, probably by just replacing {{CanParlbio}}'s code with{{MPLinksCA}}'s. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:47, 28 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Merge discussion 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Merge discussion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Relatively recently created template that is thoroughly confusing. If you add it to Page X, it says "This page (X) is proposed to be merged." There's no way to say with what. It's completely pointless WP:BURO. I've seen it cause confusion in practice too. People add it and think it will somehow find the article page tags and generate a proper text. But it does nothing of the sort. Dialog goes like: "Err, what are you proposing to merge here?" That's probably because of the highly misleading documentation. The template itself also has a prominent reference to WP:AT, which says nothing about mergers. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I agree that in its present form it is confusing, but a good merge discussion template would be useful. I have proposed changes at WikiProject Merge. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's frankly a completely different template you're proposing over there. I don't see any discussion leading to the insertion [1] of this template in the help page, so I've removed it. This template is clearly counterproductive as is. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And after some thinking, even with those modifications, I don't see what's to be gained by having an extra template to add/remove for every discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have some semblance of usefulness if it at least added the talk page to some category so that merge discussions can be found and closed by admins. But it doesn't do that either. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}} templates do that, so adding it to this one would be redundant. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it even less useful then, even potentially. (By the way, merge tags stay on articles for years sometimes, so clearly those categories don't get much attention.) Tijfo098 (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the purpose would be to draw attention to the merge discussion, encourage the proposer to provide a rationale for a merge, and point users towards Reasons for a merger. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need any more boilerplate for the merge process. The articlespace tags suffice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looking at Reasons for deleting a template, I think the reason most likely to apply here is that it is redundant. It is true that its function of calling attention to the debate is already done well by the {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}} templates. However, I think it can be useful if it reminds users how a merge debate should go. Otherwise the debate can get quite off topic. RockMagnetist (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem with merge discussions has always been non-existance. Discussion tags should be placed for one of two reason - either users are not following discussion guidelines, or to place the discussion in a central category or clearing-house (such as Request for Comment or Requested Moves). People simply don't violate talk page guidelines in merge discussions, for whatever reason, I've just never seen it. Since this tag neither corrects behavior or categorizes, it's useless. If someday someone finds a merge discussion where people are not following guidelines, I'd suggest placing a more generic talk page template instead. Asking people to put more tags reducing the chance of the discussion getting started, and that makes the real problem worse. [[User:|Ego White Tray]] (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A couple of users seem to think that if the template exists, then everyone will be required to use it. Not true. In the documentation for merging, it can be offered as an option. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • People started using it after the instruction to place this template was added as a non-optional step to Help:merging. No shortage of lemmings, that's fosho. The creator of this template was warned that "a lot of your edits seem rather odd, either not explained or with no apparent discussion before making sweeping changes" on other occasions. See his talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite make it look like {{Requested move/dated}} ; and then implement an autolister bot like Requested Moves has, to list discussions with this as a templated section of a talk page. The bot would then autolist discussions, and autodelist them when the template disappears. Thus we get a good centralized list of proposed mergers with the appropriate talk page location indicated. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While not necessarily opposed, this is far outside the scope of Templates for Discussion, and would involve many other templates and a whole pile of instruction pages, not to mention converting the 13,000 article backlog into this format somehow. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can be used going forward, and old discussions will be updated to this new form as time allows, but adding the template to the discussion section. Since the first comment of a merger discussion section would normally be the filing date (or atleast date the discussion was opened), adding the template to the top of the discussion section should have the bot pick it up automatically by date. Then pages can be made for division by month&year automatically, to make manageable sized reading lists. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concur with Ego White Tray. I don't see that this template provides anything useful to the merge process. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creating a huge and disruptive tag on a talk page just because there is a possibility of merging a page to somewhere else is pointless. The sooner it is deleted the better. Apteva (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Acoustics 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Acoustics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Musical acoustics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Acoustics with Template:Musical acoustics.
Overlap and redundancy. However, keeping them separate will result in smaller templates. Hyacinth (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eww, regardless what's merged, those navboxes need some internal structure. They're a hodge-podge of topics right now. Hardly anymore useful than plain categories. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do you mean use "acoustics" or use "musical acoustics" as the name? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:37, 28 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:X1/sandbox/is not talk 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename, although what the name should be is not clear. I will move it to User:lowercase sigmabot/is not talk for now. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X1/sandbox/is not talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only used by one bot, should be moved to a different title to avoid confusion with the other x templates, like template:x1. 198.102.153.1 (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this appears to be a sandbox of someone's test to create an is-not-talk template. What bot is using it? I don't see any incoming links that could be a bot page or user page. The {{x1}} etc are sandbox areas for testing template code. Indeed, checking from the edit history of the template, shows that several experienced long term editors consider it a sandbox.-- 70.24.245.122 (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_28&oldid=1123484127"