Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 October 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 6
October 8 >

October 7 edit

Template:Settlements in Çiğli District edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these templates. ✗plicit 23:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and contain between one to three links with the rest red or just text. No navigation with these three. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:World Heritage Sites in Germany map edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 23:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If its unused it can be deleted Jgmwiki (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Luhansk People's Republic elections edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contains redirects as there are no individual articles for elections in the LPR as it redirects to general Donbas regional election articles. And all links are in the War in Donbas navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Create a template for the elections in Donbas. Delete the template for the elections in DPR and LPR. PLATEL (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still would have somewhere between three to four links which doesn't the rule of thumb of five links. Thus a navbox wouldn't be needed. The War in Donbas navbox does the job better. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Football squad player2/TemplateData edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as I subst the data directly to Template:Football squad player2/doc. Gonnym (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Traffic volume top/doc/TemplateData edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as I subst the data directly to Template:Traffic volume top/doc. Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Location map+/TemplateData edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as I subst the data directly to Template:Location map+/doc. Gonnym (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Latest preview software release/Instagram edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused latest software release version templates. Gonnym (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the Waze ones. I support deletion as I got tired of constantly updating the template. It seemed pointless compared to the meat of the article. – The Grid (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2011 Rugby World Cup pool stage key edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2023 October 15. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:DP-genealogy edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. It is now used on three pages, but please feel free to renominate the template for discussion if you still feel it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Suggest subst and delete. Izno (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think am missing something here. Is this a new policy that a template should be removed despite it being very useful? How else is the complexity of the political parties splitting and reuniting going to be explained? All in words is not a solution. This is too complicated for that. Any other suggestion is welcome. I'm not an active editor anymore. But it pains to see hardword done by me and a few other editors just put off for deletion. I honestly don't see the reason explained here. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 18:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The template may be deleted but the content inside the template would be substed onto the only page which uses it. Izno (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And so, what happens when a new political party arises, which happens all the time in Dravidian politics? In fact, two major splits are not yet included there. Like most pages on South Indian politics, this is waiting for updates. That does not mean the information there is wrong, but just not complete. This page needs an editable version of a tree/network. Please get a South Indian editor to look into this. Please avoid the Anglo-American bias here. The political systems are not the same. And I cannot stress that more. This is just a futile effort to undo someone else's hard work. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For your references Amma Makkal Munnettra Kazhagam is not mentioned there, as well as the split and remerger of factions [1] in 2016-2017. The options are that we sacrifice comprehension and get rid of the template. Or make the template uneditable and ensure that it always stays outdated. Or the final crazy idea where we leave it as such. What do you think would be the best unbiased option? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the substitute page says "will continue to show the old version of the template". How is this editable? Or is that information wrong? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a different view to consensus when it comes to splitting out long, complicated, and technical content from a single article into its own template, largely because as a mobile editor, it's much more difficult to navigate the source when there's a giant object like this somewhere in the middle (although this one is only three scrolls long). Having said that, User:Wiki San Roze, substing this template into Dravidian politics won't make it so that no new information can be added to this tree, just that it will have to be edited in place (in the article) rather than on a separate page in a different namespace. No one has suggested getting rid of the information or even presenting it differently: just changing where the wikicode lives. Folly Mox (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wikiality123, I mistook your username based on your signature. Fixing notification with apologies. Folly Mox (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the alternate for this information? It doesn't load well on mobile seems like the worst excuse to remove content. Back in the day we carried this vandalism. Looks like this is part of the policy now. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied below in a way I hope is clear, but the thing about "difficult to edit on mobile" is an argument (a weak argument) for keeping the template instead of copying its contents into the one article that uses it. Folly Mox (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind my wiki name being referred to as something else. I wrote a message above but it was meant to be here "FYI the substitute page says "will continue to show the old version of the template". How is this editable? Or is that information wrong?" Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom. The rationale for keeping doesn't make sense to me - further parties being created won't change the fact that this is used only on Dravidian parties * Pppery * it has begun... 00:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. So you think that information can just be removed without thinking about a proper alternate? Honestly people, are y'all trying to make this into a source of information or just deleting things that you "think" is not worthy? You can keep voting to delete it with full knowledge that you are removing content. If that's the ethics of wikipedia now, yeah why not? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have to make this very clear, are you proposing an alternate way to present this information? If not, this should be kept
    It can't be a policy to delete information. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wikiality123, the idea (which, incidentally, I don't support, but the regulars here will) is as follows:
    1. The code producing this tree will be copied from Template:DP-genealogy into Dravidian parties#Factions and reunification genealogy of contemporary Dravidian parties.
    2. All the information will still be available.
    3. The tree can still be edited to include new splits, joins, etc., but this will have to be done at the article Dravidian parties instead of a separate Template page.
    4. The Template page will go away.
    The Help:Subst page says will continue to show the old version of the template, but the old version of the template can still be edited on the page it is substed into.
    Basically, no content will be removed, and the content can still be edited. The only thing that changes is the title you have to edit to update the content. I hope that's more clear. Folly Mox (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see "the old version of the template can still be edited on the page it is substed into". Is this something that should be added in the help page, if it is true? Because the current wording makes it seem like it will freeze the old content. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Help:Subst does need an update.
    When we subst a template, we make a copy of its output on another page. If the template is later updated, the copy of the output stays the same. If the template is later deleted, the copy of the output stays the same. If the copy of the output is edited, it works just like any other content. Folly Mox (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going ahead and adding the template to relevant party pages that this template covers. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are now multiple transclusions. Folly Mox (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to Meh, for ease of closure. The output of this template does not particularly assist in encyclopaedic understanding of the topics newly transcluding it, per WikiCleanerMan below. Folly Mox (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is typical of the issues why almost all of the South Indian editors on this site have left after a few years. The term "encyclopedic understanding" really drives the point where the American understanding of things matters. But not whether it is necessary for the actual audience, id est, the Indian/South Indian readers. Can you explain, if you can, how do you explain the multiple mergers and fractions without this template? Earlier you agreed that this is important but can be edited in place. Now you are moving the goal post. When I say that this is a long running bias, take a look at this nomination made within 4 minutes of the article being created, because it sounded like an essay for the person who read this. I can give you several examples where in the past we had to keep fighting to keep South Indian history articles from getting deleted, because Americans refused to see the point. Same here. And y'all wonder why prolific editors from South India just leave. Let me make this clear. If you do delete this, I will create another one and get the community backing. This is necessary. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wikiality123, I agree 💯 that this template is useful, and does a great job visualising the history of splits and mergers of Dravidian parties, and is important for the encyclopaedic understanding of that topic.
    When I said does not particularly assist in encyclopaedic understanding of the topics newly transcluding it, I referred to the template's presence at Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam#Splits and offshoots (where the prose states two major parties have formed as splits from Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, but the tree shows five child nodes for the party, including the Tamil National Party), and the template's presence at Justice Party (India)#Political legacy. I don't think a full visualisation of the splits and mergers of the different Dravidian parties over the past century is really necessary for those two articles about one party each.
    I feel pretty sad that my comment about the transclusions on the two new pages has you bringing up American biases. I'm not sure how to explain better that if this template were substed and deleted, the Dravidian parties article would still have all the same information, including this tree, which could still be updated. Since you're so upset about bias, I'm feeling emotionally invested to switch back to keep to help you feel heard and validated, and as such I don't think my !vote should carry any weight in the close. I feel under duress and don't think I can help here any more than I've already tried to. Folly Mox (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very unfortunate that you feel under duress for pointing out the fact that the system in Southern India, especially Tamil Nadu works very different and is unique to itself. The lineage of each of the party in relationship to the other is important for their own survival. For instance, if you ever visit Tamil Nadu you will easily notice gigantic hoardings that will look something like this. Essentially, posters like these are used by every single Dravidian party to show that they are the only true descendent of Periyar's ideology. Something like the use of the term "One Holy Catholic and Apostalic Church" that many denominations seem to use.
    When it came to explaining the complexity of split and mergers, the initial idea that we had was to make an image something like this, but soon we concluded that this requires the image to be changed everytime there is a fraction or a merger. A genealogy tree was found to be a better alternate.
    I called this bias and not prejudice. I don't see a reason why this should cause distress. The problem here is that you and the other Anglo-American editors are trying to force your understanding of political system into a topic that you scarcely understand. There is nothing wrong when someone points an implicit bias. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subst on the original article this was using and remove from the two later uses. This is a very obtrusive chart that takes up a large part of the articles added since this nomination and does so on the original. We don't need a genealogy chart for political parties. Relevant information about the history of political parties, offshoots, etc, should be in the history section in the articles of these political parties. We have a navbox and sidebar about the political ideology, Template:Dravidian Politics and Template:Dravidian politics sidebar. In terms of navigation, whatever links are in this chart template should be added to these templates because of their relevancy to the core subject. This chart does not aid well in navigating to articles and what necessary information could just be on the articles for this subject. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even a single Indian editor has called this template unnecessary. This is a clear angle American bias. Tamil Nadu does not have a two party system. The governments always have have coalitions. It is very important and informative to have this chart. This is very strange that a bunch of Americans who are unwilling to take this discussion to the actual Dravidian party's page is wanting to delete this template. This doesn't get worse than this. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Autocorrect "angle American bias" = Anglo-American bias
    Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, can you be kind enough on how does the sidebar explain the multiple splits and mergers? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template has been nominated for deletion three times by American editors and every time we have to explain that Indian politics has multiparty system. This is getting too much of a hassle. Get some South Indian editors who are active now to comment on this. Same thing happened last time too. Let me say this again - this is not a two party system.
    I have also started a discussion on Dravidian Parties page for Indian editors to give their opinion on whether this template is useful or has to go. I would encourage the American editors to keep the bias out and wait for Indian editors to give their opinions. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nationality of editors is entirely irrelevant here, and in any case your claim is incorrect - of the three nominators one says they're British and the other two give no information about their nationality. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why it's called Anglo-American bias. I asked you how did one comprehend the multiple mergers and fractions with just the sidebar that you mentioned. I see that you are not actually answering that question. You are wanting to remove an information without presenting an alternative to communicate that. If this isn't bias, then what is? Removing information because you personally don't see a point is vandalism. I've if One of y'all is British and not American is all that you got to explain so far. Isn't that just brilliant?
    Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 20:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Refer to the last time this was nominated and the editor who accidentally removed it (a South Indian editor) clearly mentions that this "it definitely seems to be a good summary of the chronology of the origins of all the Dravidian parties". Again, this template seems to only bother Americans. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know I wasn't going to say anything until I noticed Wikiality123 is the creator of the template. You are the only one bringing up an "Anglo-American" bias and makes it seem you're WP:BLUDGEONING, especially when this was deleted previously. – The Grid (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Wikiality123 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
    A very inaccurate observation. I did not make it any secret that I was the one who created this template, and in fact mentioned that I was not active and only got here because I received an email when someone left a message on my talk page.
    This template was never deleted. This is untrue. It was nominated for deleting for a very different reason, because it was accidentally removed during a good faith edit by another user, which that user himself mentioned that he accidentally removed it. And please also read the exact comment by that user (who btw is a Indian) that definitely seems to be a good summary of the chronology of the origins of all the Dravidian parties.
    I stand my ground that this discussion should include Indian editors. It does not preclude me from pointing the Anglo-American bias in this process. This is not a two party system. The current Indian government is run by an alliance between 38 parties. Almost all of them have been formed by fractures and mergers. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really missing the point of why this is nominated. It has nothing to do about the subject material. It's used in one article. If it's substituted, the template's syntax is copied to the page. The template is deleted but the material is saved to the page. – The Grid (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned, this was lost in edits. It belongs to more than one page. The bias comes in because I keep getting the question of why it belongs to other Dravidian Party pages. I also don't see you apologizing for misinterpreting the deletion nomination as an article that was deleted. Do you want to specifically quote the places where this happened in the above discussion? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dangerverse edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need at least a dozen links for a category or template to be useful. Especially when you consider episode and character lists don't belong on here, this template is useless. It's useless, regardless.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The widely cited essay WP:NENAN uses five as the lower bound of links to establish usefulness. Discussions at and near the contentious WP:SMALLCAT have repeatedly brought up other lower bounds for categories, but a dozen is a relatively extreme position (my own position is also outside of consensus for navboxes, but in the other direction). No vote; just sayin. Folly Mox (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a valid deletion rationale. No main article, but it has eight links to full articles that fit within the purview of this navbox. This is what navboxes are for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would caution the OP against copying other editors' comments word-for-word. In this case, my statement from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 13#Template:Girl Meets World was copied and pasted word-for-word. However, putting that aside, I support this and agree it should be deleted for the reasons that, well, I stated in the aforementioned template deletion discussion and have been echoed here, as well as the reason I also recently nominated Category:Henry Danger for deletion. WP:SMALLCAT is only a guideline and not a hard top-down rule that must always be absolutely to the letter. Is it important to follow guidelines using a common sense approach, and (common sense) exceptions will sometimes apply. Requirements for this template may technically be met, but with so little links and virtually no possibility of expansion, there is nothing useful about this template and no point in having it. Also note WP:UNDUE, a policy. It's the reason why just because something passes WP:VERIFY or WP:RELIABLE doesn't automatically mean it merits inclusion. Amaury • 19:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right I shouldn't have copied and pasted. I liked what was said for that one, but should have done it in my own words. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only is there no valid deletion rationale in the nomination, but this has enough links to navigate meeting the rule of thumb of five links. The only issue is that in the related section, there are two redirects. Despite no mainspace page and the link to Dangerverse redirects to the Henry Danger page, perhaps the template name should be changed to Henry Danger instead. The Adventures of Kid Danger and Danger Force are spinoffs of Henry Danger which is the original show in these series of shows. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. I have fixed the title link. The word "Dangerverse" does not appear in article prose anywhere in Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • if kept rename to {{Henry Danger}} per the main article -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pharmacokinetic metrics edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 after substitution in Pharmacokinetics#Metrics Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is really only worthwhile to use this table in Pharmacokinetics. It occurs in 3 other pages Volume of distribution, Biological half-life, and Loading dose under a "Sample values and equations" heading but I think such use is redundant. Subst into Pharmacokinetics and delete. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathnerd314159: Could you please elaborate why you think "such use is redundant" with valid reasons? — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 03:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not clear to me, after skimming the three "other" articles, why this table in this form is present. Especially unclear is the last column, "Worked example". All the values are hardcoded, and don't relate to specific examples in the articles where the template is transcluded.
    I think this template would make more sense if it came in a shorter format, like a navbox for pharmacokinetics topics, maybe with their units and equations to show interrelationship at a glance, but I don't think the short description in the second column, nor the worked example values in the final column, are parts that need to be transcluded outside the main article.
    That said, I have an opinion opposite consensus on the value of "single-use templates" that sequester off a complicated bit of wikicode well away from article prose, so I won't !vote to delete this. Scare quotes because this template has four transclusions. Folly Mox (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the table doesn't have any connection with the 3 other articles. For example volume of distribution, how does including a table row "infusion rate: Rate of infusion required to balance elimination" improve the article? Infusion rate is mentioned nowhere in the article. In fact many parameters in that table have nothing to do with volume of distribution. Similarly the majority of the table is irrelevant for half life and loading dose. Overall, about the only relevance of the table for these articles is that these metrics appear in the table. But the metrics also appear in the Template:Pharmacology navigation template, which is a much more compact way of listing all the relevant metrics. So that's why it's redundant - the table's main function is a navigation aid, but that duplicates the already-existing navigation template.
Now in the pharmacokinetics article, providing an overview of all of the commonly used parameters makes sense, so that's why I would say to keep it there. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete per nom. Izno (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Summary style section edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Summary style section with Template:Split section.
Semi-procedural re-nomination following a previous discussion; an emerging trend was to merge these two templates, but there was not enough discussion and input for a solid consensus. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 07:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I use split section template sometimes when I want to indicate that some content needs to be split into its own article. I don't think the merge would preserve the correct wording. Ping me if I am wrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The two banners don't have exactly the same use cases, as splitting and summarizing are different things, though there might be a significant overlap. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Deprecated IPA templates edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2023 October 15. Izno (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nations at 2011 Arab Games edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. Only one blue link, which is insufficient to facilitate navigation. ✗plicit 07:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Algeria at the Arab Games edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. Only two blue links, which is insufficient to facilitate navigation. ✗plicit 07:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module'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/2023_October_7&oldid=1182475407"