Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17 edit

Template:Infobox cooperative 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) 05:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox cooperative (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox company}}, once |members= is added to the latter. Keep as a redirect if the name is an issue. 190 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 9 August 2013 (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) 22:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, they seem very similar so the merger should be doable.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and keep a redirect. As long as the members field is retained, there should be no problems. Gobōnobō + c 01:11, 29 August 2013 (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.

Category:Interwiki translation 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 those that are redundant to {{iw-ref}}, but keep {{iw-ref}} deprecated for now. Checking the transclusions, it appears these are being mistaken for language icons like {{de icon}}, so some hand conversions will be necessary. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:De (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:EsTrans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Finnish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:French Wikipedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Frenchtrans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Georgian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:German (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Greektrans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hebrewtrans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ITsource (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lithuanian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nippon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Polish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Portuguese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Russian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spanishtrans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SPATRAref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SPATRAsec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:Interwiki translation templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These have survived two TfDs ([1], [2]). It's time to either standardise them or delete them en-masse. I also note they were deprecated before the second TfD....wat. — Lfdder (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - These all seem to provide less functionality than {{Translation/Ref}}, which has 4802 transclusions and should be able to incorporate them all. Although some of these have few transclusions (ITsource:41, Hebrewtrans:6, Lithuanian:12, Portuguese:10, PtTrans:7, Georgian:0), several have much more (German:1085, Russian:608, Polish:401, Italian:339). A bot would be very helpful to standardise these. It's necessary to keep at least {{Translation/Ref}} which helps avoid copyright-violation problems. - tucoxn\talk 22:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some of them survived a third TfD ([3]). - tucoxn\talk 22:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Translation/Ref}} uses {{Iw-ref}}, which has apparently been deprecated in favour of 'edit summary attribution'. — Lfdder (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It shouldn't be too difficult to substitute the code from {{Iw-ref}} into {{Translation/Ref}}, in order to get rid of the former. 'Edit summary attribution' works a little when people actually use edit summaries. In the end, keeping one short line about the translation (using the Translation/Ref template) in the article seems like a sensible yet not cumbersome thing to do. - tucoxn\talk 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Iw-ref}} is used a lot more than {{Translation/Ref}}. I would suggest to redirect {Translation/Ref} to {Iw-ref}, set up a bot to replace {{De}}, {{Greektrans}}, etc. in articles w/ {Iw-ref} and then delete all of them except {Iw-ref}, which will stay deprecated; a relic, if you will. — Lfdder (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these should be replaced with {{translated}} since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source (WP:RS), and these are source indication templates. The attribution template {{translated}} goes on the talk page, the same as other attribution templates (ie. {{copied}}) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English. - tucoxn\talk 20:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of these templates provide bilingual support, which is not provided by other templates. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. What bilingual support? — Lfdder (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2013 (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) 21:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace/delete the ones that are simple deprecated frontends for {{iw-ref}}. the {{iw-ref}} usage needs to be cleaned up as well, but that would require significantly more work to sort out. Frietjes (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2013 (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:Gypsy 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/delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gypsy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gypsy Rose Lee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Gypsy with Template:Gypsy Rose Lee.
No need to have the two templates. One is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - no need for separate templates. - Whpq (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although there is room on either template for the other, they serve different purposes. One serves to link WP content associated with a single work and one serves to link content associated with the author of that work. Not all the content on either belongs on the other.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:12, 1 August 2013 (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) 21:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gypsy Rose Lee. The resulting template will not be too large, and a header can be made to distinguish the topics. Abductive (reasoning) 00:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gypsy Rose Lee - An example merged template looks like this. Readers interested in Gypsy Rose Lee likely would be interested in both the single work and in content associated with the author of that work. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to a subpage (e.g. {{Gypsy Rose Lee/old}}) and then merge. I agree with the others that these are closely enough related that they might as well go together. That being said, "Template:Gypsy" is not appropriate to use in this way: anyone seeing it will expect it to deal with the Gypsies/the Roma people. Merging it from this title will force us to keep the history for copyright reasons, so we'd do much better to move the history somewhere else so that someone who goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Gypsy won't get a confusing redirect to the Gypsy Rose Lee template. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after this is merged, there should be no redirect left at "Gypsy", since this isn't about gypsy. The edit history should be moved to some other name, per Nyttend. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2013 (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:MOBA 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) 03:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary navbox; content is based on video game genre, which is already covered in the category listing. Fails purpose of navboxes. Soetermans. T / C 20:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a sidenote, I accidentally hit the edit button of the template instead of my message, and noticed this hidden note in the template: "The categorization is a little WP:OR, but it adds a little more value to the list.", which shows that it is an arbitrary list. --Soetermans. T / C 20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "The categorization is a little WP:OR, but it adds a little more value to the list." means that the two groupings are what are OR, not the articles listed in the template (which reflect the list at list of multiplayer online battle arena games per WP:WTAF). So far, I've not seen any edits made that attempt to change which articles are assigned to which groupings. Of course, what makes the template useful (per WP:CLN) are the groupings...
    Additionally, the genre isn't so large currently that I see a need to delete the template. Were it the case that the genre were to grow past even just 50 listed items (and I have admitted this fact on the template talk page), I would myself recommend the template for deletion. It was an experiment to see if it would stick. :) --Izno (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll argue to keep the template here, per the above, though I'm not (as the template creator) unexpectant that there might be a consensus to delete it. --Izno (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions: It would be fine to delete it if it has a lot of entries, so why not now? That is working on a reverse deadline. I still don't see what the point is in having a navbox, solely based upon a video game genre. Even for reader accessability, there would be a link to MOBA in the VG infobox, the article lead, probably in the gameplay section, and of course in the category listing. Concerning reader accessability, the split between classical and non-classical raises some question, and, like you said, is OR. I have not heard of the distinction (and in fact, it is not mentioned on the article multiplayer online battle arena), so let us assume the averager reader hasn't either. So what is the use of this template? --Soetermans. T / C 08:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Delete as per questions raised by Soetermans. I have not seen the "classical" vs. "non-classical" distinction made before, and I doubt that it could be a useful categorization, even if further explicated? Seems arbitrary. * Ben 02:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as before. The template is redundant to the list article and the category, which can be easily located same place at the bottom of the articles. Genres are by default incomplete lists and are well suited for categories, but not navboxes, in my opinion. We would really need it if the articles didn't fit nicely in a category, which they do. Finally, the games are only related by their genre, which is a very broad property, so reading other articles would very marginally increase one's understanding of other games. Hence, again I argue that category is a better fit. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When this template was first created, I cautioned about the ambiguous necessity of such a box, considering that there is already a multiplayer online battle arena category. That being said, however, I will not push in either direction, as I have edited the template myself and would like to leave this judgment to a more neutral crowd. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, redundant to the list article and category, and split into OR/arbitrarily defined "types" that aren't even mentioned in the parent genre article. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better covered by a category. Frietjes (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2013 (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 UK ward 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 into Template:infobox UK place, then Delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK ward (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • See previous deletion discussion here.

Redundant to {{infobox UK place}} (into which the three councillor parameters should be merged) as its own documentation acknowledges. Only 198 transclusions; a small fraction of the number of wards in the UK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to {{infobox UK place}} - I'm usually at odds with Pigsonthewing's nominations but this one seems to have merit. The last TfD was closed as no consensus due to a lack of interest but participants seem to generally favour upgrading infobox UK place so it's based on {{Infobox}}. As Pigsonthewing quite correctly stated in that TfD, that can be done as part of the merge process. Hopefully we can get rid of those silly horizontal lines in the box while doing so. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per AussieLegend -PC-XT+ 05:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge per nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge per nom. Will there be any bot activity to move information from transclusions into existing {{infobox UK place}} transclusions? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2013 (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 Northern Ireland district 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 into Template:infobox UK place, then Delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Northern Ireland district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 26 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to {{Infobox UK place}} - For consistency, it would be better to merge with Infobox UK place, which already includes coding for Northern Ireland. Any missing parameters can be added, hopefully while converting Infobox UK place to use {{Infobox}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Infobox UK place}} per AussieLegend -PC-XT+ 05:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC) or Convert to wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}} per Underlying lk, below -PC-XT+ 02:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging to {{Infobox UK place}} would be fine by me; but may upset some political sensibilities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, merge it to UK place, otherwise leave it as a wrapper for IS.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 19 August 2013 (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 French commune 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 convert to a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox French commune (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to, or should be a wrapper of, {{Infobox settlement}}. Note that {{Infobox French arrondissement}} is already such a wrapper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question does it have special functions, like automatically adding population figures or maps, or something like that?--Nero the second (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: {{French municipal arrondissement}} was also just deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)i[reply]
  • ? What are you asking for here? To delete it (why?) To replace it with a simpler implementation, using a custom wrapper around {{Infobox settlement}}? In which case, why not simply do this? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The transclusion count is a scary 36,811! Any proposed replacement will have to be thoroughly tested before the old version can be supplanted/deleted. Until there is a wrapper version up and running in the sandbox, I can't support this proposal.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some work in the template's sandbox, and 50 edits later we have a IS wrapper version that seems to work with all pages (the result can be seen here). I also fixed a few things that do not work in the current version, such as the links to the INSEE website.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to wrapper I endorse the conversion of the template to a wrapper for consistency's sake, but there are some issues. First of all as Underlying says, 36,000 odd articles, at some point somebody will need to override and replace with infobox settlement. And the template is skinnier and arguably slightly more attractive than standard.. Can the alternative map feature be moved up from the bottom to under the first map in infobox settlement? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once a template is converted to a wrapper, there are two options: leave it like that in perpetuity, or Subst: it. If the community decide on the second option, sooner or later, then a bot can be set up to carry out the task; so the number of transclusions is immaterial. If the template being replaced has stylistic advantages over its generic replacement, then they should be proposed for inclusion in the generic template, on its talk page, in order that our articles abut all paces, and not just those about places in one country, may benefit from them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembering the Indian place infobox thing that's all which to my knowledge still hasn't been sorted in years, despite manual attempts to plough through them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the second pushpin map: because of the collapsible drawer, I can only place it either in the footnotes or between the skyline image and the flag/coat of arms. It can be put below the French location map only in a non-collapsible format, but maybe a more experienced editor can find a way to make it work. Edit: actually I found some wikicode from Template:Infobox Town AT that does the trick, it's in the right place now. About the potential substitution: I would definitely substitute it for all the 200 or so overseas municipalities, so that new features specific to the territory can be added (such as the UTC offset, or a pushpin map, or an automatic ref link to the local statistical office), but I would keep it indefinitely for the rest of France.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use this template probably more than anyone else. Please leave it like it is and removed the consider for deletion tag.Ksnow (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]
Since the functions and the names of parameters will remain the same, the way editors use the template should not change, either.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the template does affect the other elements on the page. For example, the deletion tag makes some pages appear with a big blank spot because the sections after the the top one appear below the infobox. Ksnow (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]
  • Convert to wrapper. My compliments to User:Underlying lk for creating the wrapper in the sandbox, it looks nice! The only thing I would like to add is a filter for bad coordinates, populations etc. that puts articles in a maintenance category, like the present template does. Very useful for fighting vandalism. Markussep Talk 14:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the error-tracking categories to the sandbox version. I haven't tested them extensively yet, but they seem to work.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Markussep Talk 13:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with IS for Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Mayotte, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Réunion (for a total of some 220 communes); but convert to wrapper for France and Corsica (the remaining 36,000 or so), for the reasons I explained above.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to wrapper/subst overseas articles per Underlying lk -PC-XT+ 04:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC) -PC-XT+ 01:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting a couple of things, Pigsonthewing says {{French municipal arrondissement}} was deleted, but that template was deleted because it was unused,[4]. By contrast, this template is used by 36,810 articles.[5] Dr. Blofeld raised the issue of {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} which, more than 2 years after a TfD decided it should be deleted,[6] still has 6,494 transclusions. Can we be sure that this template will not suffer the same fate? It's rather pointless to "delete" a template if it's not actually going to be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, User:Underlying lk has already created a wrapper version of this template, in the sandbox, so that can be implemented as soon as we have a decision; the lamentable delays in the Indian case should not arise. That also means that the number of transclusions is immaterial. And as I said in my rationale, {{Infobox French arrondissement}} is already such a wrapper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the lamentable delays in the Indian case should not arise" - Can you guarantee that they won't happen? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't guarantee anything, ever, on Wikipedia, but I can't imagine any circumstance where the outcome of this discussion is to replace the template with its working sandbox version, and then that is not done. Can you outline one? Of course, if that remarkably unlikely situation does come to pass, you could always open a deletion review: that process seems to work well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: if the template is converted to wrapper, should it be substituted for overseas communes (as per my proposal above)?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm ambivalent. What do you, and other people, see as the pros/ cons of so doing? Does anyone see this as a blocking issue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current (and replacement) version doesn't support pushpin maps for overseas territories, has little support for different time zones, and provides automatic links that don't work for all overseas communes.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer substitution of the wrapper in the overseas articles because even though this template tries to provide some support outside of France/Corsica, IS does it better, as Underlying lk explained. To me, it would just seem more confusing to keep the template's peculiarities rather than to substitute the wrapper in these overseas areas. -PC-XT+ 08:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to wrapper. The number of communes with problems such as pushpin maps and time zones is small enough that we could simply remove the infobox entirely and replace it with an Infobox settlement for those pages. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the test cases of the version for substitution can be found here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to wrapper TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to keep it, but regardless of whether it goes or stays can someone do something about the total mess that notification of this discussion is making to article pages!? Emeraude (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2013 (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 Falkland island 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. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Falkland island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox island}}, or possibly {{Infobox settlement}}. Just 52 transclusions, which is at or near the likely maximum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 17 August 2013 (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:Islamism in South Asia 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) 05:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islamism in South Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is POV creation including many non-related article links. While the main article of Islamism is drastically different from what this template is. Benfold (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, no actual evidence of POV pushing, non-related wikilinks or drastic differences from the main Islamism article have been provided. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- No POV shown at all. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 19:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The template lists several NGOs and Muslim scholars labeling as Islamist which are WP:OR. There is no article about Islamism in South Asia also there is already another {{Template:Islamism}} hence no need of this template.--Benfold (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2013 (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:Hindu Nationalism 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) 05:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hindu Nationalism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is POV creation including many non-related article links. Some of those are included in it because the creator thinks they fall under "Hindu Nationalism" while the main article of Hindu nationalism is drastically different from what this template is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a similar template like: {{Islamism in South Asia}}. The template linked articles about events and controversies occurred as a result of Hindu nationalism.--Benfold (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You added this template on P.P. Pandey along with other categories. The subject article doesn't even say if he is Hindu or Nationalist; forget both. Are all entries similarly wrongly stuffed? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, P.P. Pandey is not a Hindu not belong to the Hindu nationalist Govt. in Gujarat?--Benfold (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to prove that he is a "Hindu" to call him a Hindu. You will have to prove that he is a "Hindu nationalist" to call him a Hindu nationalist. And do you mean Irfan Pathan is Hindu nationalist because he is from Gujarat? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:46, 17 August 2013 (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:The Lodger 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, but make sure the links are listed in the article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Lodger (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:CSD#T3. Template is redundant due to recent creation of Template:Jack the Ripper media. All the links here are included therein. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they were likely to diverge in some way, I could see your point, but as {{The Lodger}} is unlikely to expand any further, and all the links are included at {{Jack the Ripper media}}, we're not talking about overlap, but the duplication of links every time {{The Lodger}} is used. This is the reason we have WP:CSD#T3. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as redundant navigation, or merge in list-form with Marie Adelaide Belloc Lowndes. if someone is interested only in "The Lodger", he/she should read an article on the subject. the fact that the parent article is a redirect is some indication that this is not a strong enough of a grouping to require a separate navigation box. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2013 (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) 03:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to article per Frietjes -PC-XT+ 05:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC) -PC-XT+ 07:48, 20 August 2013 (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/2013_August_17&oldid=1140258950"