Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

September 19 edit

Template:Professional Fraternities edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus for merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Professional Fraternities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fraternities and Sororities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Professional Fraternities with Template:Fraternities and Sororities.
A Professional Fraternity is still a Fraternity, albeit one of several different types as Template:Fraternities and Sororities already shows. In terms of Articles on different organizations, it would be more user-friendly just to have 1 NavBox for all Greek Organizations that already have their own Articles. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No reason to split this off. ~ Rob^Talk 21:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline: There is a gap separating several classes of fraternities: Professional, Honorary, and Social/traditional/multicultural groups. Further separated, there are the adult groups, such as the Freemasons and Oddfellows. Thus it becomes a subjective matter as to where to draw the line. I don't think this merge is necessary. Jax MN (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some of the listed "Professional" Fraternities have more standard trappings of Social Fraternities than they do of Honorary Fraternities. Alpha Phi Omega, for example, is if anything more similar to Phi Delta Theta (or Lambda Lambda Lambda seeing how it's coed) than it is to Mu Phi Epsilon or Psi Omega (both of which are specific to a respective Major). As for non-collegiate groups (a term now preferable since almost all college students are in fact adults, the Age of Majority having been 18 in the USA since 1971 and being 18 in most though not all other countries), or more specifically the ones you mentioned, they draw their origins (of the type or general structure of the organization, specific groups being another matter) from early veteran's organizations that were set up for the Knights of the First Crusade. The Greek movement draws its origins (in that same sense) from Philosopher's Societies that existed in Ancient Greece. We are talking about 2 distinct movements from 2 origins. The merged NavBox would definitely apply to the Greek movement rather than the Masonic movement. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge - The social fraternity/sorority navbox is already too large and poorly organized. Layering in the professional fraternities will only make a bigger mash of it. Frankly, it would be better to split the existing navbox into its constituent parts rather than creating an even larger superbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is a good point. Would it be better if subsections of the existing Template were made collapsible? Collapsible subsections do make large Templates easier to wade through, as seen at Template:Scoutorg BSA, Template:Ancient Greece topics, and Template:List of writing systems among many others. Would you feel better if the merge took place in a collapsible subsection like that? If so, let's make all the other subsections in the existing Template collapsible as well, for that would make it neater and (albeit still at least the same size) more clearly organized. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:All-Europeans Player of the Year edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All-Europeans Player of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." All-Europeans Player of the Year has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Europeans Player of the Year. —Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Graham Chapman edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was No consensus. The original concerns of the nominator appears to have been addressed, and they have not returned when asked if they had any outstanding issues. ~ Rob^Talk 04:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graham Chapman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Why are we not including more films under his filmography section? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and expanded the template, it is notable that he went and wrote several different films. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 20:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: Have your concerns been addressed? ~ Rob^Talk 20:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Thrown out edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thrown out (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Smallrejected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Thrown out with Template:Smallrejected.
I originally intended to nominate this template for deletion, but since both templates have a considerable number of transclusions, I propose merging them instead. These are redundant to each other anyways. TL22 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 10:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to high number of transclutions. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2015 (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).

Orphaned ISBN templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC) I'm listing the remaining orphaned ISBN templates at User:Ricky81682/cite based on this listing. The prior listing had passed seven days and it seemed wrong to list it there. The rest need to be orphaned but that's not that many. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding remainder from User:Ricky81682/cite. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a proposal to substitute, then delete? Otherwise we're losing relevant information. Sandstein 10:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all orphaned. There is nowhere to substitute them. - Ricky81682 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after double-checking that they're currently orphaned, in case anyone added them back after they were orphaned the first time around. As a side note, I believe this qualifies as uncontroversial maintenance given the consensus to deprecate. ~ Rob^Talk 19:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a database of ISBNs -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, orphaned, so not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2015 (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).