Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 28

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

September 28 edit

Template:History of Lightroom Releases 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, too little content Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:54, 28 September 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:Historical orders, decorations, and medals of 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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, almost all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:50, 28 September 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:Hindu Practices 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 to Template:Hinduism. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Merge per Steel1943 and huh?. If it is unused, just use it, it's a good template. And by putting on the discussion notice someone totally messed up the coding and has hidden the real template, which can be found by looking at the edit before the discussion notice. Does this stuff happen daily on this page? If so, please take ten minutes and put the template on the pages. As I say in another comment below, I'm confused about this type of nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Template:Hinduism. Otherwise, weak keep. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for drawing my attention to the Hinduism template, which is an extremely good side-template. The merge should be easy and effective. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 30 September 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:Helpdesk 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 October 8. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:45, 8 October 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:HawaiiStateOfficers 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no proof that " Statewide Officers of the State of Hawaii" is a thing Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:18, 28 September 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:Harbin administrative divisions 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 28 September 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:Hangon-warn 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and overly terse warning Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, a text search shows it has been used 7 times, mostly back in 2007, and most recently in 2008. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 1 October 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:HPO 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; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused EL template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As the original creator of this template, I support deletion. I must have had some grand plan for this long ago, but that plan has since escaped me. Best, Andrew Su (talk) 18:15, 28 September 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:Gulf Coast League Reds 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. I will histmerge the two for attribution purposes Primefac (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, has no links anyway Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:06, 28 September 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 clan 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 no consensus. Skew towards keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox clan with Template:Infobox family.
Much overlapping subject, and thus parametres. From a mere global perspective, the nomenclature is even less distinguished. Any paramentres that need to be kept separated could be moduled conveniently in analogy with Template:Infobox office holder. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The clan info box is specifically for Scottish "clans" who are recognized as such under Scottish law. That is completely different to what the "family" info box is used for. There are all sorts of parameters of content that the former needs and the latter does not have. Any merged info box I would have to make sure had all the existing parameters that are in the clan info box.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a reason why there should be a separare infobox specifically for Scottish clans, when clans are indeed an international phenomonen. Yet another reason, I would say, to merge this as a group of module parametres into Template:Infobox family. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no logical reason to merge these templates at all. They do not overlap in any way. They are merely somewhat similar subjects. Per Quintus, the scope of this infobox is entirely unique. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in theory. I'm the WP:TemplateEditor doing most of the merge work (slowly) of various redundant/variant templates, to {{Infobox family}}. There's a tremendous amount of overlap, and some of the concepts in the clan box would also be useful (in more general terms) in the family box. A few of the parameters may be problematic (e.g. "Rival clans" has PoV and historicity problems, since such rivalries are not necessarily binary affairs or permanent or of modern relevance; just to pick one example). There's nothing wrong with implementing generalized versions of the definitely-keep-them parameters in the family infobox, and a switch for family type that changes some wording (family, clan, dynasty, house, etc.), but leave the clan template as-in in the interim, until we're sure it all works right. That said, I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have to work on this sort of stuff in October, and am skeptical anyone else will step up to do the work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is almost no overlap. The majority of the fields in the Clan infobox have no place in the Family infobox. The point of merging templates is to eliminate redundant ones, not to merge just for the sake of merging. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Again Chicbyaccident has failed to inform the template creator - pinging @Adraeus:. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. I agree with QuintusPentillus. The Scottish "clan" is indeed a unique thing (save maybe in Ireland, where the system was very similar). But the "family" infobox has absolutely nothing capable of properly representing the information connected to a Scottish clan. I fear whoever brought up such a change doesn't understand the Clan system at all. If but a small amount of reading was done on any clan, and compared against an English family (for example) the difference would be apparent. For example, there is an undeniable difference in how the Hankin family is structured and how the Clan Donald is structured. The Clan has a chief, (the Macdonald), and branches and septs which are still very much relevant today. The Hankin family doesn't have a chief, doesn't have any septs nor branches nor slogans nor plant badges, nor Gaelic names nor Scottish regions nor tartans. The difference is great, and a clan infobox has been of great use, so why would anyone want to get rid of it? MacMorrow Mór. —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 2 October 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:Grasshopper Manufacture 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 October 8. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:59, 8 October 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:Glock pistols 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The table on Glock is getting huge, perhaps move content from Glock#Model_comparison_chart to this template and re-use? — xaosflux Talk 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want to transclude some huge table? This sounds, rather, like an argument for creating a stand-alone list article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I looked at the one in the article, and it's not huge.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant with the much more complete chart at Glock#Model comparison chart. Even if the data were merged into the template, there doesn't seem to be a reason to put this in a template, since there's not a good use case for transclusion elsewhere. To the extent an article on particular Glock pistol should provide comparisons to other models, they should be similar pistols in the same class, not every pistol with a Glock brand name, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:01, 29 September 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:Gira Angola seasons 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 Redirect to Template:Girabola seasons. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:28, 28 September 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:Paraphyletic group 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure if this should be merged or deleted. The template has a bare 50-some-odd transclusions in its nearly 10 year existence. Given that it is modeled on taxobox (taxobox as of 10 years ago), is there a reason Template:Taxobox could not now be used? If we can't use taxobox instead, should this template be updated to be more taxobox like? Izno (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep has a very useful "excluded groups" parameter for paraphyletic groups. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is – This is a useful and entirely appropriate template for significant paraphyletic groups such as fish. While there might be only 50 current transclusions, they include a number of large and prominent paraphyletic groupings. Even though the template has essentially the same structure as Template:Taxobox, it should retain a separate identity and not be merged. This is because paraphyletic groups are not taxonomic groups at all, and conflating one with the other will result in time-wasting talk page bickering on articles using the transclusion from users complaining about the mismatch. However, the template could perhaps be edited to include an explicit indication in its heading that it is a paraphyletic group. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template could certainly use some updates (perhaps converted to use Module:Autotaxobox? I'm not sure whether that would appropriate). But there certainly many more articles that are currently using taxoboxes where a paraphyletic group template would be more appropriate, e.g. Cobra, Rattlesnake, Jay, Stilt (these examples taken from User:Od Mishehu/taxobox exclude). Plantdrew (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update, better identify as paraphyletic, and better propagate, per all of the above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Just add a traditionally excluded option to taxobox. You end up with impossible discussions when discussing extinct taxa anyway. (-- unsigned comment by Jmv2009 (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2017‎)
What makes you think paraphyletic groups are confined to extinct taxa? And why would you want to encourage "impossible discussions"? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are numerous well-known groups that definitely need some taxonomic information but which modern phylogenetic analysis has demonstrated to be paraphyletic. The template is perfect for the job and we (and more importantly, readers) need it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I found this discussion while adding the template to Jellyfish. I agree with Epipelagic that improvement ("revitalization"?) of this template is more appropriate than its removal. Maybe an addition to the heading of the box to denote that it isn't representing a taxonomic group (with an option for paraphyletic/polyphyletic), or a change of color, clarification of the text "Scientific classification", something… – Rhinopias (talk) 19:19, 4 October 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:Glasgow Tigers 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both unused, neither has any links in it Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:48, 28 September 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:GeoWhen 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 October 8. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:45, 8 October 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:Genderspivak 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 October 8. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:45, 8 October 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:Game episode list 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, completely untouched since 2008 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:14, 28 September 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:GRA 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 move to User:Sandstein/GRA. No opposition to the move or from the intended recipient. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and overly terse notification Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userspace it to User:Sandstein/GRA. This is actually in use, just substituted [1]   It doesn't seem all that terse to me and it provides as useful link. I've said similar things myself in response to impenetrable requests. However, it is only in use by Sandstein, despite having been created by someone else. PS: This template is mentioned at the bottom of Wikipedia:Guide to requesting assistance. The same template name was previously used for a citation template now at Template:DGRA, and for an image-related template. It's probably better to leave behind no redirect to avoid confusion and just let Template:GRA be red.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:44, 29 September 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:GA2ndoptalk 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused GAN template fork Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:44, 28 September 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:FurtherU 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unclear use Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:34, 28 September 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:Functional Group Portal 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unclear use Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 28 September 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:French chess grandmasters 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep?, I guess I don't understand, is this a deletion discussion (as implied by the template on the page) or just a notice that it's an unused template. It's a good template, so does 'unused' mean it's not placed on the pages as yet? If that's the case, well, let's put it on. But if this is a deletion discussion, yikes - does this happen often, good templates being deleted instead of taking the time to put them on the page? Thanks, I seldom comes by these pages because of the sadness of seeing good things deleted on a daily basis. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Okay, it's used now, I've put in on a few and will do more. I still don't understand the reasoning for such a discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely delete unused templates for which there's not a good use case (not useful at all, or use better served by some other template). For ones like this (and the glossaries one below) there's obviously a good use case, so they should be used instead of deleted. It is a little problematic that so many templates that have utility get deleted this way, but restoring and actually using them isn't that hard if someone actually cares, and an argument can be made that we delete more trash that should be deleted than accidentally delete things we shouldn't (that's surely true, but it's a "the means justify the ends" argument that some aren't apt to agree with).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template is now on the pages of all of its linked entries. I'm glad you keep track of these pages. Recognizing a good template which is nommed for being unused is a skill, but a quickly learned skill which any long-term editor should learn early in their editing. It seems obvious that this one was fine, but just needed to be deployed, so the fact that it was nommed instead of being put on pages was what's confusing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's a normal, useful navbox and is now deployed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:47, 29 September 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:Formidable class frigates 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, appears to be a very ancient infobox Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only two of the ships have articles. While the code could be easily patched up to use modern navbox layout, it wouldn't really serve any navigation purpose, and Formidable-class frigate already provides a table with the same information.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:57, 29 September 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:Former Fasterfox 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Fasterfox is long defunct Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:48, 28 September 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:For glossary 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and deploy it. We have hundreds of glossaries. That said, it might be better to convert this from a hatnote into a template used in "See also" sections, like those little boxy things that point to Wiktionary, Commons, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, we have a series of these as hatnotes (e.g. {{For outline}}, {{For timeline}}), and the usage pattern is distinct from what we're doing with "see-also boxes". If we want a see-also box we can create one as a separate template. The ideal solution is probably to combine the hatnote things into a single template ({{See list}}?) with a parameter for list type (glossary, outline, etc.), and do something similar for see-also boxes, so there's a total of two templates for all these things. I can take that on. Merging the hatnote ones would just take a few minutes, though longer to replace all extant calls to the separate ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per good call by SMcCandlish. Unused? Well, use it. This happens every day? I refuse to come daily to save these deletion pages, per WP:ONLYSOMANYHOURSINADAY, and I hope others who use their time to do so are appreciated and properly thanked. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 29 September 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:Flavor of Love 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 October 8. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:46, 8 October 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).

Redundant Iranian 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There already exists standardized templates for both the army and air force, now there are just more to be confused about. Skjoldbro (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to explain about these changes. Iran has a couple of Air Force. 1) Air Force and 2) Air Defense Force that both of them are separate forces and have different rank insignia. This is true about army of Iran. Iran has two kinds of Army. IRI Army and IRGC (Revolutionary Corps) that both of them have different rank insignia. As you know I have completed so many rank insignia of countries and because I'm Iranian, I know our military rank insignia much better than you. Please confirm these changes. Skjoldbro  MrInfo2012  Talk  05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no doubt that you are much more knowable on Iran than I am. However, in order not to make the templates too confusing, the standard army, just use the standard template, and the other part will have a specialized template. Just like how the US navy template is called "Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/United States", while the Marines and Coast Guard are specialized with the additional (USMC) and (USCG) respectively. Therefore I don't see a problem with the new templates for Air Defense Force and IRGC, I however believe that the difference between the standard templates and the Air Defense Force and IRGC templates are enough, with no need for the (Army) and (Air Force) templates. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Skjoldbro; don't make it more complicated than necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:39, 29 September 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:Indianapolis Enforcers seasons 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only navigates three articles--all are interlinked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; there's room to add more articles related to this team, but if there's no other articles that cover this now defunct team in-depth than just these three, I'll change to delete per that rationale. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three articles isn't enough to warrant a navbox. If more are created, get the template back via WP:REFUND and expand it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the articles are already linked through the infobox chronology links. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 1 October 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:Ankh series 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This fails the soft requirement of WP:NENAN; and with the last game releasing a decade ago, there's probably no likelihood that this will be expanded in the foreseeable future. Articles can or should be suitably linked in the mainspace content. Izno (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment , Im not sure but I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As they all have the same name, and are not a long series, an infobox is unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The series has a total of six games. The most recent game was made in 2010. The series was passed on from Deck13 to Legacy Interactive. Deltasim (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only links three articles. ----woodensuperman 15:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three links isn't enough to justify a navbox.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:34, 29 September 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:Cardi B 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only navigates three articles (the top links are all anchors in the main article). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The artist will release a new single next month, and an album this year. It will be restored either way. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cardi B is pretty popular and she will release a new single/album so keep it. --HouseGecko (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Whether someone is popular is irrelevant. Three articles isn't enough material to navigate to justify a navbox. If the future releases happen, then get the template back via WP:REFUND and expand it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; five links. Just leave well enough alone. Jc86035 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 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_September_28&oldid=1079613817"