Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 15 August 17 >

August 16 edit

Template:BenignoAquinoIIISegmentsInfoBox edit

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:BenignoAquinoIIISegmentsInfoBox (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2016 (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:Bethany Curve 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only no parent article, but doesn't link any articles whatsoever. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2016 (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:Border War (Kansas-Missouri) Post Big 12 entry 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, G7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the creator of this template, I support the deletion, due to the fact that it's use has been replaced by a simple wikitable (which I did not know about at the time). Should include Template:Border War (Kansas-Missouri) Post Big 12 end & the respective documentation. Elisfkc (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2016 (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:Boston Celtics Depth Chart edit

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Boston_Celtics_Depth_Chart (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2016 (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:Boy Scouts of America Membership edit

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Boy_Scouts_of_America_Membership (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2016 (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:Brgys.Taytay edit

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Brgys.Taytay (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2016 (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:Britten operas 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates navigation found in Template:Benjamin Britten. Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2016 (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:Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Sci-Fi/Horror Movie 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused duplicate of Template:Critics' Choice Movie Award for Best Sci-Fi/Horror Movie. Frietjes (talk)

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:Brubeck space edit

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Brubeck_space (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The successor to the Brubeck site is the "𝜋-Base" at http://topology.jdabbs.com/. Let's assume there's some demand for a successor template, {{pi-Base}}, that points to the new site. If so, it may be better to start the new template as a Move of this old template with a redirect, rather than deleting this template and creating a new one. However, the URLs in the new site look different, so even if that was done, pages like Old revision of Knaster–Kuratowski_fan would still be broken. So the redirect would mostly serve as documentation.

    All that said, this template was never popular, so it's not a big deal. Melchoir (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2016 (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:Bruckner chamber music 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates navigation found in Template:Anton Bruckner. Frietjes (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2016 (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:Nigeria-hist-stub 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 wrong venue Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This stub sorting template barely has the required number of member pages for it to remain a stub per the Stub Sorting WikiProject's criteria. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 20:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close Not a WP:TFD matter - stub templates are handled at WP:CFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: The nomination was made with WP:TWINKLE. Do we need to ask for that tool to be modified accordingly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We probably should. Twinkle should be driven by agreed practice, not the other way around. But I never use Twinkle, just like I never use AWB: I prefer to make my own mistakes. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2016 (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:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie poster edit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2016 August 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:32, 31 August 2016 (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:Amicus edit

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 30#Template:Amicus (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use external link template. No other article-space links to the Amicus site. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's a single-source citation template with a high possibility for reuse. I have it on my extended to-do list to work out a way to make these all (we have hundreds of them, an entire category tree for them) all subst-able into standard CS1 templates without leaving behind template detritus, but this is going to take time. These templates are harmless and "cheap" for now, and despite all kinds of handwringing and hairpulling about them over the years, they have not, in fact, exploded into zillions and zillions of templates. Meanwhile they actually do encourage additional citations; most of them are for citations that are quite tedious to keep re-entering by hand, and editors create them for a reason – they intend to use them (and for others to use them) to increase our content's verifiability. For over 5 years there have been continued attempts to delete them all en masse or to pick them off one by one. The answer, every time someone notices and opposes, has been to leave them be, even if we know we need to replace them with code that will cleanly subst (which is quite a pain in the butt and will require significant effort). Since I'm the only one working on it and no one else is stepping up, it's just going to take as long as it takes. The free software (and hacking) community's exhortation to "write code!" applies here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This supposed "high possibility for reuse" (my emphasis) has not been realised in the seven years of the template's existence, and it is clear that it has done nothing "to increase our content's verifiability", and it fails utterly to "encourage additional citations". Furthermore, there are no bare links to the target site that could be converted to use it. Citation templates that do find use (and there are many good and well-used examples) should most definitely not be substituted, since their benefits include i) ease of update when the URL structure of the target website changes, ii) fetching IDs from Wikidata. This is certainly not an attempt "to delete them all en masse or to pick them off one by one", indeed I have created many such templates and am in the process of upgrading and improving them, which is how I came across this and few others that are variously unused, defunct, or redundant. Finally, no, "the answer" to past TfDs for such templates has not been "been to leave them be" - many have rightly been deleted, for the reasons I list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Library and Archives Canada catalogue is a good source of information. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is whether the template is needed, not the quality of a source (even if it is one we only use once in over 5 million articles). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 22 August 2016 (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).

Canada portal selected article 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 merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Canada selected article and Template:Canada selected biography with Template:WikiProject Canada.
To help clean up the often lengthy series of banners on talk pages, I'm proposing that the selected article and selected portal templates for Portal:Canada be merged into {{WikiProject Canada}}. Proposed code is as follows and is available for testing at User:Graham11/Sandbox 11: Graham (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2016 (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:RSPlease 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 resolved, by way of renaming to {{Reliable sources please}}. The old name remains available, as a short-cut. Debates about alternative names should take place on the template's talk page, per WP:RM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: RSPlease is a bit generic for this very specific template. "Reliable Source(s) Please" doesn't indicate anything about the medical world. Perhaps it should be renamed as RSmed? 98.122.20.56 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name is fine; there is no conflict with existing templates. CWOT. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. No need to tag it. The medical project uses this extensively. Snow close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for the response. Unfortunately, you haven't addressed the point of the name being a generic "reliable source" template, when the description and function of the template specifically refers to the field of medicine. I also have no idea what CWOT is! :) Or "snow close". --98.122.20.56 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up CWOT. If you mean "Classic Waste Of Time", I take offence. If you consider it a waste of time, do not take part in the discussion about it, and do not give your opinion. That will save your valuable time, which is obviously much more important than my time. :/ --98.122.20.56 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep – the nom has only given a justification for renaming, not deletion. Boghog (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2016 (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:HKPublicHousing 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 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:HKPublicHousing with Template:Infobox housing project.
{{HKPublicHousing}} (an infobox) is used on only two pages; since there is already another, more widely-used, infobox for housing estates, the latter should be expanded to include the parameters of the HKPublicHousing infobox. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:25, 16 August 2016 (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:WikiProject Stub improvement 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, namespace restriction was added mid-discussion. Please feel free to re-nominate if you still feel it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems excessive to tag every stub (which should each already have a stub template) with a temporary WikiProject banner, especially when this is in addition to the quality assessment function of most other WikiProject banners. Graham (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have narrowed the project's scope to only include stubs that have the potential to be more than stubs. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That still includes, at the very least, >95% of stubs that meet notability guidelines. Graham (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternative to deletion would be prevention, with a namespace test, of the template appearing visibly in the "Talk:" namespace (i.e., the talk namespace that applies to mainspace pages). This would permit the template to appear on projectpages, essays, etc., relating to the project, and to be used invisibly on article's talk pages for categorization purposes. Failing such a fix, then delete per nom (including nom's reply to objection, above). Wikipedia processes like stub sorting and improvement do not need to temporarily tag article talk pages with visible project banners, and it's correct that this would pointlessly appear on the vast majority of stubs' talk pages, and be redundant with the stub tags already in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Clarified. 03:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest approach would be to wrap the entire thing in the namespace test, then move the category out of the default template code and out of the namespace test, and put it immediately after the end of the "if" of the namespace test. If it's later desired to use more subtle categorization (see below) this could be done at the same spot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could withdraw the nomination if such a change were made. Graham (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I just reread Stanton's (SMcCandlish) comment and I don't know that I agree about the use of the template invisibly on article talk pages (in contrast to project talk pages, etc.). I fail to see what the purpose of having the template there (visibly or invisibly) would be. I am, however, still okay with the visible use of the template in the project talk namespace. Graham (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Graham11: The purpose of having it appear in the page code would be adding one or more categorizations used by the wikiproject for maintenance purposes. Presently, it is only adding Category:WikiProject Stub improvement articles (i.e., stub articles a member of the project has cared enough about to flag as something the project should work on). With some additional coding smarts, this can be subcategorized, e.g. by whether they are BLPs, by |importance=, by date tagged, by age of article, by whether it has severe problems or needs only minimal work, or whatever it is the project decides it wants to do. The primary function of wikiproject banners is adding these categories, and the second is "advertising" the project's scope assertion, as a centralized resource of topical editors that can be asked for advice or direct editing help for that topic. This an internal project focused on stub improvement doesn't really have scope that can be asserted, so a displayed template box is pointless, while the maintenace categorization remains useful, as long as the project has active participants. There are lots of cleanup projects, and I generally think it's best to not interfere with their use of maintenance categorization, as long as it neither a) uses non-hidden categories on the article itself, or b) sticks template cruft in people's faces when they get to the talk page. And it is always better (maybe even required, at this point, by the CfD/TfD crowd) for wikiproject-related categories to adhere to the article's talk page, not the article itself. So, either participants in this wikiproject can add one or more of their maint categories directly near the top of the talk page, or continue to add {{WikiProject Stub improvement}}l; the latter would be cleaner wikicode for users of the talk page, especially if more than one category were involved. Even with just one, the tag code is shorter than the category code, and easier to enter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: I've implemented the change. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:32, 23 August 2016 (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:Automotive industry in Kazakhstan 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2016 (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:Automakers Motorsport Divisions and Variants 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2016 (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:Autocol long edit

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 30#Template:Autocol_long (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this serves a technical function, merge it into the main template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by author. I developed {autocol_long} to auto-number columns of names in long lists, but which runs 3x times slower than numbered lists of 60 items. Also, the maximum capacity of {autocol_long} could be expanded without affecting the shorter-list template. It seems "unused" because people keep removing it from pages, and there is no history of where it is used in prior revisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, introduces a list gap while this is a far better solution. In particular, the use of {{div col}}/{{div col end}} removes the WP:LISTGAP and allows for the number of columns to adjust based on the browser width. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:27, 27 August 2016 (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:Auckland City FC squad 2014 FIFA Club World Cup 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, third place squad. Frietjes (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't need nav templates for marginally notable topics  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:53, 20 August 2016 (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:ACTC 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and probably won't be used since (1) there is already a list in the parent article, and (2) this isn't something you would add to the foot of every institution article. Frietjes (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete navboxes are for defining things, not trivial intersections like memberships in organizations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_16&oldid=1142562489"