Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 8 August 10 >

August 9 edit

Template:Infobox think tank 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, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox think tank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox organization}}. Orphaned, after I replaced the only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. — Lfdder (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Vanquisher (talk) 07:43, 16 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 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 relisted on WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:44, 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:Infobox journal 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, feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox journal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox magazine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox journal with Template:Infobox magazine.

In the minds of most people, journals and magazines are the same. Even if there is an academic distinction, there is a grey area in the middle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible oppose No. Bad idea. For the same reasons as before. And these too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reasons given in the first link other than look at template talk. — Lfdder (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They have usefully different attributes. Journals are usually associated with an academic field and are peer-reviewed, whereas magazines are not. Let's identify the grey areas and figure out what to do. Here's a case: L'Aérophile. It was always called a journal at the time, in various languages, but was not academic nor peer-reviewed. I struggled with how to classify it. -- Econterms (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That they have different attributes is a good reason to merge; then all the attributes will be available, as and when needed, for any publication using the merged template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Journals are scholarly while Magazines are commercial in nature, and both templates should reflect that in their scope and reach.HotHat (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They are distinct publication types, they both need the ability to focus on their own specific needs, rather than be forced in to an homogenised one size fits all template. Big multi-purpose templates confuse editors. - X201 (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our own article, Journal suggest that the distinction is not as clear-cut as you seem to wish it to be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{Infobox journal}} appears to be tailored to and used almost exclusively for academic journals. — Lfdder (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • A quick scan of the first fifty articles found by "what links here" for that template finds at least eight which do not meet that criterion, and others which may not do, since the word "peer" does not appear in the article. A maximum of 84% is not "almost exclusive". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:SOFIXIT. If someone uses a TFD template to nominate an article for deletion, the solution is not to merge the TFD and AFD templates, but to replace the TFD with an AFD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your comment, though indented underneath mine, appears to bear no relation to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your example seems to prove my point that the templates are interchangeable, but that each is deficient in missing parameters found in the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please, Andy, don't be conceited. Headbomb was being completely clear. And I followed your lead and looked through a number of articles transcluding the journal infobox when they should properly have used a magazine infobox. Look at this example that I found: The Amazing Pudding. Looking through the edit history, I'm amazed that you want to bring improper use up as an argument here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which need cannot be met by a combined template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose. As Headbomb says, bad idea. Yes, people sometimes put journal infobox on a magazine or the other way around, despite the clear infobox instructions and the journal article and magazine article writing guides. However, that's not a reason to merge infoboxes for two very different subjects. And many articles on academic journals don't mention the word "peer", so that doesn't mean much. Anyway, given the above !votes cast up till now, I'm forecasting heavy snow. --Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think snowball was conceived for exaggerated knee-jerk pile-on !votes. Or maybe.... — Lfdder (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you explain what you mean by "knee-jerk !votes"? Are you somehow suggesting that the people who !voted here did so without thinking about it? I'm off now to prepare some anijsmelk. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems that several of the people commenting here have rushed to do so without thinking about about the relative merits of a combined vs. separate templates; and are talking about their perceptions of a theoretical binary difference between magazines and journals, rather then the proposal at hand, and how the templates are actually being used by editors in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note also that our own {{Cite magazine}} redirects to {{Cite journal}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG! WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Really? Now I have to rethink my !vote I guess... --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this is not an "other stiff exists" argument; rather, it serves to illustrate that the distingction between a "magazine" and "journal" are not as clear-cut as some of those !voting here seem to believe; and that merging templates dealing with them leads to no harm. You should read that page in order to reacquaint yourself with what it does and does not actually say. When you do, you might usefully pay particular attention to the copy of the "Graham's Hierarchy" diagram thoughtfully included there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes it is. Journal and magazines are cited the same way. Author, Year/Date, Title, Journal/Magazine, volume, issue, pages. A {{cite magazine}} would be exactly the same as {{cite journal}}. However, in an article about magazines and journals, the information we need to talk about in magazines is very different than what we want to talk about with journals, even if there is some overlap. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • But, as I have shown, a significant proportion of instances of the current 'journal' infobox are not "very different" to uses of the 'magazine' box. The overlap, as Someone not... notes below, is significant· No reason why the infoboxes need to be different has been advanced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Strong oppose - I think it would be perverse to have so many people spending so much time working out the notability of sources on the one hand, whilst devaluing journals, such as Feminist Theory, by lumping them in with populist magazines, such as Loaded on the other. The comparison with the {{Cite magazine}} redirecting to {{Cite journal}} doesn't really hold for me as a citation is just that, a citation. An info box, by its very nature, carries category-specific information about publications, "discipline" is a journal-specific category, whilst "circulation" is a magazine-specific category. The new info-box that would be generated by a merging the two would be an unnecessarily cumbersome affair that would prove daunting to new users (which categories to fill in, which to leave out). Finally, I would like to add that arguments such as, "the distinction between a "magazine" and "journal" are not as clear-cut as some of those voting here seem to believe", is an unfortunate turn of phrase and it does tend to smack of, "well of course if you all just listened to me...." - it's not really designed to win anyone over. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • What about "lumping" Feminist Theory with Spare Rib? Your attempt to skew the discussion by cherry-picking your examples is transparent and, funnily enough, is not really designed to win anyone over. Nonethelss, the templates we use whose names are not seen by ordinary readers, do not "lump" anything with anything else. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • "What about "lumping" Feminist Theory with Spare Rib?" - What about it? I wouldn't lump them together either. Feel free to take any other two examples that you want, one an academic journal and the other a magazine, it will still be a ('transparently' obvious) case of trying to combine chalk and cheese . Someone not agreeing with you is not "skewing the discussion". (I'm not even sure where I'm being accused of skewing it to.) I think it was pretty clear when I said, "which categories to fill in, which to leave out". In case it wasn't, let me be clear, the templates are seen - and used - by experienced editors and inexperienced editors alike, why would you want novice editors to have to pick their way through so many categories? The change would be a case of trying to fix something that isn't broken.--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - two very different types of publications - different audiences - different standards of publication - different parameters for the two respective infoboxes. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create {{infobox periodical}} as a master template that can cover all journals, magazines and newspapers -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, whether the venue is peer-reviewed or not, while it may be an important argument in a discussion at WP:RS/N, is hardly a deal breaker for unifying a couple of templates about periodicals (at the most it would be one field). In fact the journal template does not assume that they are all peer-reviewed, but has a field called "peer-reviewed". Further inspection of the two templates shows a number of other differences. Some are minor and/questionable like one template has "cover", while the other has "image_file" and "logo" as photo fields. The journal one has openaccess, impact, impact-year, "abbreviation" and JSTOR which are specific to academic journals, while the magazine one instead has "circulation" (and sub-fields paid_circulation, unpaid_circulation, total_circulation, circulation_year), staff_writer and photographer. Whether creating a master "infobox periodical" and deriving some sub-templates from this is a good idea or not, I cannot really say because I lack the deep expertise in wiki template inheritance (or whatever the correct term is). Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Names don't matter as much as the templates themselves. That's what redirects are for. Combining periodical templates seems reasonable, considering they are well-defined. Lowering the number of templates on the site without substantially reducing effectiveness is considered a benefit. It should be weighed against template complexity, but this merge seems ok to me. I am open-minded, though. -PC-XT+ 09:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Journals and magazines are different. Really, the only thing up for debate is how different they are. Although, if I were to speculate, I'd say having fields like "peer-reviewed," "discipline," or "impact" in the magazine infobox would be confusing (or just plain odd) to "most people." ALH (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Academic journals are very different from magazines. The template for academic journals is appropriate for academic journal articles. Merging this with the template for magazines would be misleading and confusing. My suggestions are: just add more parameters to the magazine template if more information is desired. If the academic journal template is easier to use, then make the magazine template just as easy. If a color scheme is desired for the magazine template, then just create a color scheme. Finally, this discussion pertains to only two different templates. Merging these would not signifigantly reduce the number of templates on Wikipedia, if anyone feels there are too many. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that journals and magazines have pretty obvious differences, but I don't really think that should have entered into this discussion. We should only be considering how the templates themselves are different in structure, usage, completeness, conformity to guidelines, etc. If they are similar enough in these areas, they can be merged with a redirect. They don't even need to describe related subjects. Later, if they should go in different directions, they would be split/forked, again, but it's better to keep them separate, now. So, I'm looking for some evidence that the templates are used in substantially different (or separate) ways for practical purposes. As an example, does someone use Special:WhatLinksHere with one of these templates for something important? Merging would fill this list with all articles from both templates. To allow for this usage as a merge, we may need to use modules, categories or something depending on which parameters are used, complicating the logic. I, personally, don't mind similar templates, if they are organized. I even prefer customized templates as subpages, sometimes. However, consensus currently seems to be in favor of fewer templates using logic like this. The Visual Editor, and other things, seem to generally prefer simpler templates, and there are other arguments for some customization, but will general consensus really change by only excepting specific templates due to preference? If excepted, these templates will just be nominated again, later, unless a strong reason is found or consensus changes. Those are just my observations. I like to hear yours. -PC-XT+ 06:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't see what problem is going to get solved by merging these two infoboxes. In contrast, I do foresee a host of problems that will emerge if this merge goes ahead. As others have already pointed out above, magazines and academic journals are very different beasts. Yes, both are periodicals, but that's about where the similarity ends. Magazines often have a specific person assigned to them as publisher within the publishing company and that person may have a significant influence on their contents, hence the "publisher" field in the magazine infobox is intended for that person's name. Academic journals are organized very differently with an independent editor and editorial board. The publisher field in the journal infobox is accordingly intended for the publishing company, something that most everybody dealing with academic journals calls "the publisher". Magazines are still mainly print publications and their circulation numbers are an important gauge of their reach. The vast majority of academic journals are online nowadays, with an increasing number not having a print edition any more. Access is generally not by personal subscription, but through library subscriptions or through content aggregators. Hence, circulation figures are almost impossible to get and even if available are not even a close measure of the factual reach of a journal. These are just two of the fields in the infoboxes that would create innumerable problems if a merge was to find place. As the nom already noted, some people don't know the difference between academic journals and magazines. (And is'nt it the task of an encyclopedia then to show people the difference?) We all know that many people don't even bother to read the documentation that comes with an infobox. Just imagine the confusion that would ensue if we would merge the two. The fights that people favoring some journal or another would put up to include, say, Internet access data in the "circulation" field. Merging these two infoboxes is asking for hundreds of badly-filled infoboxes on magazine and journal articles, dozens of edit wars, and whatnot. --Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That they both use the same physical format, as compared to books and newspapers, is irrelevant. They are different mediums. This is like proposing to merge all periodical templates because they share qualities. Just because journals, magazines, books and newspapers all share a significant amount of parameters does not mean they should be merged. They are different enough classes of things and so should have different templates. Its is not as if one is a subclass of the other. Int21h (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This comparison as food for thought...

As can be seen, the requirements for a summary view are quite different for magazines and for journals. Please feel free to insert Notes in the empty column! Hippo99 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hippo99. This is an excellent summation. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can anyone say, with any reason, why the infobox about a "journal" should not have, say, |editor_title=, |previous_editor=, |founder=, |founded=, |company= or |based=? Or why that for a "magazine" not have, say |former_names=, |license= or |eISSN=? And given that all of these parameters are optional, what harm would be done by having them in a combined template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the title of the editor is irrelevant? And previous editors, if they are meaningful, should instead be detailed in the article rather than in a tiny field, especially since for most journals, they will have been a plethora of editors during it's history. And that "company" is what we call the publisher. And that "based" is the country of the publisher, when relevant, as most journals aren't edited and published from one location, but rather all over the world in different universities. And so on. So please Andy, drop the stick. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This horse is far from dead. Why is the editor's title less important for a "journal" than for "magazine"? Why is "Publisher" in the "magazine" infobox, if it means the same as "publisher"? Is *every* "journal" edited from more than one location; do none have a central office? You don't address why |previous_editor= is suitable for a "magazine" , if not for a "journal". There are several other parameters in my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you read any of my comments above? Please Andy, stop wasting everybody's time (including your own). This horse is dead. Don't you see that all editors who regularly use these infoboxes have all !voted against the proposal and that there is a clear majority of people here very much opposed to a merge? The closest you can get at this point is a "no consensus" (although I personally would be amazed if it even would come to that). Let it go, it's not going to happen. I'm abandoning this discussion, everything worthwhile has been said. --Randykitty (talk) 08:23, 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:Infobox YMCA Camp edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox YMCA Camp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox campground}}. Orphaned, after I replaced the only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 9 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 Grand Lodge 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, perhaps try rewriting it as a frontend first? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Grand Lodge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox organisation}}. Only 21 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • demonstration of redundancy? Frietjes (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jurisdiction is kind of critical for Grand Lodges, which does not have any generic counterpart Truther2012 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be |region_served=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • that's the thing, they dont "serve regions", but rather "govern over jurisdictions." Truther2012 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's splitting hairs. Most people would understand that to be the same thing. We don't need a separate template to account for every kind of organisations' own peculiar terminology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 12 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:3 Ghanaians 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) 03:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3 Ghanaians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

overkill for a photo montage. Frietjes (talk) 20:12, 9 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:Majipoor 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) 03:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

A navbox dedicated to articles that do not and very likely should not exist.  Sandstein  19:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know much about this fictional universe, but until more sub-articles are created, the navbox template appears premature, having only three blue links (and two of these are in the title bar). Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:40, 11 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:Central Bureau of Investigation 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) 03:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Central Bureau of Investigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template, should be merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 9 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:Amapá topic 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) 03:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amapá topic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pernambuco topic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 9 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:Georgia Bulldogs Under Mark Richt 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) 03:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgia Bulldogs Under Mark Richt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not needed after being merged with the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 9 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:African American ethnicity 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) 04:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:African American ethnicity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Afro-Irish ethnicity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Arabs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Iraqis infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Iranian Arabs infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kosovars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Polish American (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Scottish ethnicity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Siamese infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Turks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not needed after being merged with the parent articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete all and maybe copy over discussion on Turks and African American ethnicity to article talk? — Lfdder (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as these templates were intended to be used in only one article. They should be part of mainspace.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:47, 11 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:Eoghan Quigg 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) 04:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eoghan Quigg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template with only three solid links; the artist, one album and one single. The other links are one to a song he covered and two to the TV show he appeared on. McGeddon (talk) 13:48, 9 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_9&oldid=1078574831"