Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 26

< August 25	August 27 >

August 26 edit

Template:Countries bordering the Caspian Sea 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, redundant to the list in Caspian Sea. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Caspian Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another utterly useless navbox. Just read the article if you want to know what countries border the Caspian Sea. — Lfdder (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have an actual rationale? WP:CLN -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's a useless navbox. I daresay some editors might like creating templates like this, but it's difficult to understand how it serves readers better than one sentence of prose. bobrayner (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, redundant to the list of countries in Caspian Sea#Geography. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful geographic template. Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very unuseful geographic template. Utterly pointless, in fact.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I needed to know what countries bordered the Caspian Sea for any reason, how would I know? alexanderao (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd know if you read the lead of Caspian Sea. Navboxes are NOT for content; they are for navigation. — Lfdder (talk) 12:18, 2 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.

Organisation language navboxes 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:African Union languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Official UN languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Official EU languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:International organization language templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Latin Union 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) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latin Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

More country article infobox clutter. — Lfdder (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have a rationale, or is it just rhetoric? This is a navigation template to navigate between members of the Latin Union, and is like tonnes of other membership navigation templates. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing about the Latin Union in country articles. Navboxes ought to take you to pages where you can read more about the topic or sub-topics, etc. Should we make a navbox for fig tree to navigate between all the countries where it grows? — Lfdder (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why didn't you write that into your rationale, instead of not having an actual rationale? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - So that you'd get to ramble on about my "rhetoric". — Lfdder (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you don't provide an actual rationale, it's just rhetoric, you're more likely to be rejected without rationales as process violations. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, master. — Lfdder (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or just unlink it until we actually have several pages discussing the Latin Union in some way, at which time the navbox would actually be useful and could be transcluded again. Right now it's just a waste of space on readers' screens. bobrayner (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, navbox cruft. Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for navigating between articles. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this template has no utility whatsoever, despite claims of the contrary.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:03, 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:Move and semi protected 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) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move and semi protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Move and semi protected/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Move and semi protected/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst and delete: The original purpose of this template was to make the locks not overlap when both were needed at once, but this can now be done with the regular templates, obsoleting this one. (This is the second nomination, the first is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Template:Move and semi protected). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:05, 26 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:Syrian civil war infobox 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 Keep. NW (Talk) 05:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syrian civil war infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has just one transclusion. Subst and delete. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I was notified of this. I honestly don't care. The person who deletes the template should carefully put the content in the Syrian civil war article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, your reason is hypocritical to the reason why WW2InfoBox exists, which has two mainspace transclusions. Anyway, this template has more than 20,000 bytes and uses a number of references, it is only right to keep this template. JC · History · Talk · Contributions 06:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF, and please don't make accusations of hypocrisy so rashly.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with JCRules. The template is just too large to substitute.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPass a Method talk 16:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others.EkoGraf (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the article, it currently has only one transclusion. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, there are clear precedents against keeping infobox templates for only one article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, a template with only one transclusion is about as useful as a disambiguation page with only one link. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JCRules. Coltsfan (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge Syrian civil war page can't fit that many bytes without overkill. Sopher99 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the total number of bytes is the same (or actually less with the two merged), and the time it takes to save the page is the same, and the size of the rendered HTML is the same. the rendering speed depends on the post-expand include size, which is after all the templates have been expanded. Frietjes (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huge, useful template. Merge would put a burden on the article. --JaGa^talk 01:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely has no value to the article and further adds more disputes/agendas. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 05:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an objection to conflict infoboxes in general, better go TfD Template:Infobox military conflict instead. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves the purpose of keeping a huge slab of wikitext out of the lead section of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With such a complex war, this infobox is the most streamlined way to present it, and modifying the basic template to match it would be quite the effort. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 03:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This infobox is too big; it should be merged, but all that stuff should be presented tabularly in text and only a summary kept in the infobox. — Lfdder (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very useful infobox and cuts down on the lead section. I don't know why anybody would even consider deleting this. alexanderao (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal is to subst and delete, i.e. first place it in the article and then delete it. — Lfdder (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to a subpage under the article. The second option should alleviate pedantic objections to a single-use template being in Template space, even though there's really no practical reason to do anything. It's not like this is occupying a Template space name that could be used for something else. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:19, 6 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Mindless and pedantic nomination. Serves to keep a large block of text out of the article and makes editing both easier. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Infobox issues belong on the talkpage not here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 9 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.