Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 7

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

February 7 edit

Template:Sri Lankan provinces lists 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 moved to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sri Lankan provinces lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly all redlinks, only 2 blue links other than the title. Page could be userfied pending creation of the necessary list articles. NSH002 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (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:Val2 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 Move to Template:Val/sandbox2. The numbers for keeping versus deleting or moving were quite even. However, I found the arguments against keeping to be stronger, particularly the argument that val2 was a substantial duplication of {{val}}. As has been pointed out in the discussion, this makes val2 eligible for speedy deletion under CSD T3. Val2 does not seem to be introducing any major new features, so I cannot see any reason why T3 would not apply.

It is, of course, desirable that all our templates are compatible with the manual of style, and this is a strong argument to use in discussions about improving the template. However, this does not mean that we can ignore our normal criteria for keeping templates; T3 takes precedence here.

Similarly, I did not accord much weight to the arguments about protection level of {{val}}; the fact that a template is a fork of a protected template does not make it exempt from T3. Having said this, I am sympathetic to the desire to restore {{val}} to semi-protected status. Val has just over 1,700 transclusions, which is below the usual threshold for template protection in my experience. My usual benchmark for template-protection is 10,000 transclusions, in this case perhaps a little less due to the fact that it is mostly transcluded in mainspace, so I believe that the current number of transclusions do not really warrant template protection. Also, just before it was protected the template was subject to edit warring, which raises a red flag for me. Template protection should not be used to prevent edit warring; full protection should be used instead. For this reason, I am going to reduce {{val}} back to semi-protection after I make this close. (Note: technically, this will be a separate administrative action from closing this discussion.) I will also keep an eye on the template; if there is more edit warring, I will either fully protect the template or block the edit warriors, whichever I think to be more appropriate.

Finally, as val2 is actively under discussion as an alternative to val, I won't delete it outright, but instead move it to Template:Val/sandbox2, as suggested in some of the comments below. Hopefully this should allow the discussion to continue towards making val compatible with the manual of style at the same time as avoiding template duplication. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Val2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary fork of {{val}} created by Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) following the template protection of {{val}}. This template should be deleted, and replaced by {{val}} wherever it is used. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, I plan on replacing it as soon as {{val}} is fixed. I created it because val was not up to snuff, and was inadequate for astronomy articles. The other option would be to replace instances of val with manual formatting. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. More unnecessary tpl protection. Will support when {{val}} goes back to semi. — Lfdder (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this. How is protection-dispute a reason to fork? -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TE-level protection is abuse of power. Forking is a means of resistance. — Lfdder (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped you had a smarter reason, but no. And that you, Lfdder, knew the alternatives (so not say keep): Kwami could have asked to remove protection, could have started a talk, and could have started a sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you don't think my reason is smart. Forking doesn't seem to be particularly harmful or disruptive to me. Do you have to put up with being shunned? What's the big deal? — Lfdder (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant 'smart' as in 'something I did not knew'. As explained below, this forking is the wrong way (for example, its stated aim is to exist next to a non-MOS {val}). The big deal is that kwami is using the forking as a battle arm. Your argument here too being "delete when val is semi-protected". While we all know there is a proper route to reach whatever the goal is. -DePiep (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? What's the proper route? — Lfdder (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
da capo my 08:48 comment. You have entered an endless loop, I leave. -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. It's obviously never getting downgraded from TE. It's how template editors keep us clueless plebs away from their precious little templates. This is the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit' -- so if the powers that be won't let me edit existing templates, I'll make my own (within reason). — Lfdder (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing 'wrong' with val in the sense that there needs to be a separate template, there are corner cases which are currently badly handled, but the new code is being tested and will be rolled out in the next few hours probably, and Val2 is pretty much the current sandbox version of val, with some big brackets around asymmetrical errors (val: 1+2
−3×1010, val2: (1 +2
−3)×1010). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that val is not being corrected very well, and is edit protected so that we can't improve it. The formatting of uncertainties is mucked up, so it's not a good substitute for the {{±}} and manual formatting that editors are familiar with. The diff in parentheses is mostly an aesthetic matter (val2 is closer to SI standards, but we don't follow that very closely); the val2 version has been requested but can be changed back if people don't like it. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was edit-protected after you kept breaking it with sloppy untested code. Sure, (1±2)×103 had the proper brackets, but it broke the output in many more cases (e.g. it rendered 1(2)×103 as (1(2))×103). This is why you test things in the sandbox first. If the code has been demonstrated to fix issues without introducing new ones, it can be rolled out. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
bra-vo. Now you've made your point and the muscle-flexing's hopefully over, you can unprotect it. — Lfdder (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Correction: Far from breaking the output in "many more cases", it broke only in one situation so uncommon that no-one noticed it until I pointed it out, and which wasn't included in the test page until I added it. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Protection is no reason to fork the code. Kwami or anyone could just have made code in a /sandbox, and ask through {{editprotect}}. Worrying is that {{val2}} is still not proposed as a code change for {{val}}. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC) (signed late)[reply]
Protection is very much a reason to fork the code, as done for years, rather than introduce experimental new features into a heavily used, protected template. -Wikid77 10:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re Wikid77 1. Then "protection" is not the reason, but something else. 2. The "experimental" part is still for the sandbox; but after that, I agree, it could go live -- with the intention to merge. 3. This template Val2 was not set up to merge (see its history), but more to prove a point in battle. 4. Another indicator of bad forking is when the documentation has to split too. That is not just "new" features any more. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate documentation is excellent: New features should not be viewed as a "point in battle" but rather, new. Also, it is vital to have "forked" documentation, to show examples of new features with the other template name, and allow for broad rewrites of old documentation pages. In fact for 4 years, almost all wp:wrapper templates of {{convert}} have had separate /doc pages to show examples and compare. -Wikid77 11:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see that kwami has acted constructively by spending time on the talkpage and setting up an RfC. Recommendable. -DePiep (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You probably mean commendable, but I can see recommendable also working. ;P — Lfdder (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 :-) yes. I better use the compliment more often. (Just want to prevent association with "to command"). -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete duplication of an existing template. If protection is the problem, the solution is asking for edits at WP:AN -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They have been requested. It's just taking a while. Meanwhile the articles should be presentable. — kwami (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb keeps closing the request. It looks like we'll need this temp solution for a while yet. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a speedy delete T3 situation. Also your new template is a WP:POVFORK because you don't like the refusal of your edit requests. Instead make a case for your edits at WP:AN or on the talk page of {{val}}. Imagine if everyone just created new versions because a template is protected. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone creating new versions is exactly how major features have been added, then merge later. -Wikid77 10:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By making a mass replacement fork? Or are you talking about a specialized use fork with added features for specialized uses (limited article sets)? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's a template, not content. I hope they do. — Lfdder (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Why bother having {{db-t3}} then? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{db-t3}} says it's for templates "not being employed in any useful fashion". This template is apparently being employed to provide proper number formatting, which is a useful thing to do. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't being employed in a useful fashion It is a substantial duplication of the template and being used as a drop-in replacement with no additional usefulness. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep until {{val}} is MOS-compliant. Headbomb promised it would be fixed within a few hours, and that was three days ago. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Val2 is much worse than Val in terms of MOS-compliance. The MOS-related concerns you raised at the time I said those comments were addressed three days ago, a few hours after I made those comments [2], just like I said. Stop lying. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And stop pushing your fork as if it were the legit template. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop formatting the MOS with your template and then claiming that the MOS supports your template. — kwami (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First deprecate and treat as sandbox (=rename into {{val/sandbox2}} or so). Template improvement is not done through forks, and some discussion here should simply be at Template talk:Val. Then after due process merge with val (=editprotect request). Nothing new for us. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template improvement is very much done through forks, including the Lua script forks of markup-based templates, which were accepted because non-forked Lua is almost impossible as duplicating the precise features. Hence, the Lua versions are often forks, though close. -Wikid77 10:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles followed the MOS. With val2 they still do. Val does not conform to the MOS, though Headbomb is now edit-warring to change the MOS to conform to his template. That is entirely inappropriate. We should not be making articles worse just to keep down the number of templates. If we can't get the template to be MOS-compliant, then we'll need a fork permanently. Either that or go back to manual formatting. Though if transclusions of sandboxes are acceptable in mainspace, I wouldn't mind moving the template there. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami, you know: you should have asked un-protection, write on the talkpage about changes, and work in a sandbox. Even today you could start promoting a merge. Actually, your behaviour & plan would leave {{Val}} outside of MOS (as you say yourself) so is counter-productive. I won't go into content remarks here. You know very well these do not belong in a TfD. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More recently there has been constructive action at Template talk:Val by editors who commented here. That is Good and commendable behaviour. For now I guess this TfD took the heat off, and deprecation (into a /sandbox) still could be the outcome here. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that successful templates eventually become protected. Because User:Kwamikagami and others want {{val2}} to be merged into {{val}}, I think the next step would be to move per DePiep. —PC-XT+ 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting resistance from the editor who wrote that part of the template (and the one who opened this deletion request), who keeps closing the request to change it. Would moving mean that the articles which use val2 would remain MOS-compliant until this is resolved? — kwami (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should try to replace them with {{val}}, noting any problems, or maybe {{+-}}, which currently has consistent fonts, as that is apparently the main issue, even though both options may appear backward. While I do usually prefer consistent fonts, this font change is intended to solve other problems, so I expect a solution will take a while, and while that happens, things should stay the way they were in the last stable version. Forks should rarely be anything other than sandboxes. —PC-XT+ 06:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already converted all those w/o the monowidth problem to val. The others were at ±, and I converted to val2 for easier handling. I could AWB them back, but it seems a waste. And there is no problem that is solved by monowidth in any article in all of Wikipedia. There's the possibility there *could* be one, which is why I added the option for monowidth as you suggested, but so far none in practice. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami, as PC-XT says: it takes some time get improvements into {val}. That's all there is to. Changing article pages into using {val2}} is disruptive, you know the right procedure. Protection or not: you should sandbox. Protection or not: you should Talk (looks good now -- DP). -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: Talk & test happens, looks good. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you comment on the request, then? Although people keep saying that we should follow MOS formatting, Headbomb keeps objecting that it's not enough and shutting down discussion. — kwami (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I am commenting on this TfD as a TfD. This TfD shows a energy-consuming battle process, while the productive route is at hand -- somewhere else. As I read the talkpage, the issues are in sight already and you people are working on it. As far as I can see, there is no obstruction to the MOS-goal; it just takes some time & thinking & testing. I'll read the talkpage again per your suggestion, and I'll add when I have something useful. I note that {{convert}} is related & connected too (good thing Johnuniq is present). -DePiep (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for quick new features: Absolutely, of course, keep {val2} as the source of better performance, and new features, both now and in the future. As proven by years of similar co-templates in the {{convert}} family of measurement conversions, the fastest path to progress is some diversity with co-templates (and wp:wrapper templates) which share most of the same parameter names and syntax. Almost all current features of {convert} were easily developed in rapid co-templates since 2008, which allowed flexibility to add new features into a few articles without risking changes to the major sections of template {convert}, nor triggering the reformat of 500,000 pages every time a new feature is added. The fear of divergent fork templates can be controlled by maintaining similarity, limited as co-templates like {val2} with shared parameter names, but {val2} has avoided the severe technological stagnation caused by template funnels which try to perform numerous options as a single complified template which grows into a gargantuan monstrosity, where a simple, minimal co-template is swallowed into a one-size-fits-all Templasaurus gigantus. When co-templates are deleted, then improvements will be delayed or cease, such as precision problems in the Lua-based {convert} which gives nonsense ranges showing 2 different amounts converting to the same number "41" result:
         • {{convert |105 |-|106 |F|C}} → 105–106 °F (41–41 °C)
         • {{convert/old|105|-|106|F|C}} → 105–106 °F (40.6–41.1 °C)
    Because {{convert/old}} still exists as a co-template of {convert}, the nonsense range "41–41" has been bypassed during the 5 months when {convert} has not been improved to avoid nonsense ranges. Unless people imagine the possible new features which a template will have, then the stagnation caused by deleting a co-template can be difficult to see. Do not "Kill the Golden Goose" of {val2}, which has led to the better features retro-added into {val}, months or years sooner than if {val2} did not exist. Obviously, {val2} is the way of the future, for other rapid easy improvements. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world are you talking about? Val2 contains no 'new features' and does not have any 'performance improvement' over Val [and the opposite situation is the case here, Val2 always lags behind Val in terms of features and code, because Val is the template that's actively maintained, while Val2 is simply Kwamikagami copy-pasting the part of Val's code he likes]. It's done nothing but suck up time and create grief. By all reasoning, it should probably be deleted under T3. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re Wikid: no reason to skip the sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever used {val2}, to see the differences? As for "always lags behind", well it has only been 2 weeks, so what part of "always" did you imagine? Read what others have said above, even if {val2} is not yet perfect in providing new features. -Wikid77 05:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I need to use it? I know what it does. Right now, the main difference is that it doesn't align asymetrical uncertainties properly (e.g. 12.89+1.11
−0.99 vs 12.89+1.11
−0.99, which is the thing being debated on the talk page now and the reason why kwamikagami created val2), and that it lacks a bit of defensive coding to place brackets around g/mol in cases like {{val|12|u=L|up=g/mol}} (i.e. val: 12 L/(g/mol), val2:12 L/g/mol). I suspect that the last bit will make its way into val2 whenever kwamikagami realize val evolved. Which is typically how val2 is 'developed'. Take val's code, copy-paste it, remove fixed-width. It's a POV fork, and has no other purpose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Val2 has better per-unit format: The complaints about {val2} format are completely backwards, where {val2} is actually better; compare:
         • {{val/sandbox2|12|u=ft|up=sec/sec}}: {{val/sandbox2|12|u=ft|up=sec/sec}}
         • {{val |12|u=ft|up=sec/sec}}: 12 ft/(s/s)
    The preferred format there is "ft/sec/sec" but to get "(_)" then specify "up=(g/mol)" or linked "up=(g/[[Mole (unit)|mol]])". In some cases, less is more, where the new feature is simplicity of operation. -Wikid77 11:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the best way to format that would be {{val|12|u=ft|up=s2}} → 12 ft/s2. The brackets were a result of this discussion, and are there to prevent issues in cases like {{val|12|u=g/mol|up=m/s}} → 12 (g/mol)/(m/s). The exact logic is still being refined as it's a relatively new feature. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy move to {{val/sandbox2}}. TFD is not the venue for an edit war, forking is not a way to resolve it. Improvement to templates should be discussed on the talk page and for high use templates first tested in the sandbox and testcase subpages. Speedy because time is better spent improving the template.--Salix alba (talk): 23:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best way to debate is forking or co-templates: (comparing templates with same parameters) is the best way to debate the different features, rather than edit-war over the current template, and re-force thousands of pages to reformat with one style and then reformat again with the reverted style. Protecting the template, against user edits, is just a way to "win" the edit-war by a power play against opponents. Then deleting the alternative {val2} is just another power play, to suppress debate, by censoring the opponent's ability to demonstrate actual usability in live articles. A similar power play was used to destroy Template:Cite_quick, which had greater capacity than Lua-based cites, to allow thousands of citations in a list article, which of course now cannot be demonstrated because {cite_quick} is gone (except to admin view), and the prior page revisions (which use it) now show template-missing errors, rather than reformat as smaller wp:post-expand include size. Likewise, moving {val2} to a sandbox would just unfairly prejudice the comparison by no usage in live articles. That is why there is no consensus to delete {val2}, and thwart the new features. -Wikid77 11:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is utter nonsense, sandboxes exist exactly for that kind of stuff and won't go away anytime soon. As for 'thwarting new features', you can't thwart what doesn't exist. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I wrote? No, sandboxes should never be used in live articles, due to the risk of users thinking they are "sandboxes" for experimental, random changes, while instead a co-template like {val2} can be used to show a new (or old) feature in actual live use. Plus, "thwarting" is the reason the new features do not exist.... -Wikid77 17:20, 18 February 2014 (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:Judo Kata 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) 00:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judo Kata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used - already part of the main Judo template Peter Rehse (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class length 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) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class length (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boilerplate text that can be substituted and deleted. Very user-unfriendly. The Banner talk 19:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and delete per previous precedent of the three other templates previously deleted -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the prior discussions before relisting this, Jax? I don't think so... The Banner talk 01:14, 7 February 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class draft II 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) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class draft II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boilerplate text that can be substituted and deleted. Very user-unfriendly. The Banner talk 19:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and delete per previous precedent of the three other templates previously deleted -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the prior discussions before relisting this, Jax? I don't think so... The Banner talk 01:14, 7 February 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class draft I 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) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class draft I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boilerplate text that can be substituted and deleted. Very user-unfriendly. The Banner talk 19:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and delete per previous precedent of the three other templates previously deleted -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the prior discussions before relisting this, Jax? I don't think so... The Banner talk 01:14, 7 February 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class displacement 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) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class displacement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boilerplate text that can be substituted and deleted. Very user-unfriendly. The Banner talk 19:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and delete per previous precedent of the three other templates previously deleted -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the prior discussions before relisting this, Jax? I don't think so... The Banner talk 01:14, 7 February 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class complement 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) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class complement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boilerplate text that can be substituted and deleted. Very user-unfriendly. The Banner talk 19:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and delete per previous precedent of the three other templates previously deleted -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the prior discussions before relisting this, Jax? I don't think so... The Banner talk 01:14, 7 February 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class beam 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) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class beam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boilerplate text that can be substituted and deleted. Very user-unfriendly. The Banner talk 19:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and delete per previous precedent of the three other templates previously deleted -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the prior discussions before relisting this, Jax? I don't think so... The Banner talk 01:14, 7 February 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class armament II 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) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class armament II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boilerplate text that can be substituted and deleted. Very user-unfriendly. The Banner talk 19:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and delete per previous precedent of the three other templates previously deleted -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the prior discussions before relisting this, Jax? I don't think so... The Banner talk 01:14, 7 February 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class armament I 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) 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General G. O. Squier class armament I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boilerplate text that can be substituted and deleted. Very user-unfriendly. The Banner talk 19:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst and delete per previous precedent of the three other templates previously deleted -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the prior discussions before relisting this, Jax? I don't think so... The Banner talk 01:14, 7 February 2014 (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:S-elc 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 deleted. Per closing instructions, if there are no objections after the normal time period, then the template "can simply be deleted".

Template:S-elc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; superceded by Template:S-inc. DrKiernan (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Useless relisting The Banner talk 01:18, 7 February 2014 (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:S-eco 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 deleted. Per closing instructions, if there are no objections after the normal time period, then the template "can simply be deleted".

Template:S-eco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; duplicate of S-mil. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Useless relisting The Banner talk 01:18, 7 February 2014 (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:Biathlete-II 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) 19:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biathlete-II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used template, there is Template:Infobox biathlete Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2014 (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:On the Last Day 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:On the Last Day (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN due to linking to less then five articles outside of the Related articles section. Navigation between the four links is easily attainable by the subject's main article. Also the band has been disbanded for five years, so it is unlikely that any additional articles will be added to this template. STATic message me! 00:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough relevant links The Banner talk 01:11, 7 February 2014 (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:Eatmewhileimhot 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) 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:NENAN due to linking to less then five articles outside of the Related section. Navigation between the three links is easily attainable by the subject's main article. STATic message me! 00:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough relevant links The Banner talk 01:11, 7 February 2014 (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:Hopes Die Last 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) 21:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hopes Die Last (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN due to linking to less then five articles outside of the Related Articles section. Navigation between the three links is easily attainable by the subject's main article. STATic message me! 00:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough relevant links The Banner talk 01:11, 7 February 2014 (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/2014_February_7&oldid=1138534256"