Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6 edit

Template:UK-short-film-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 delete. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template; duplicates the same functionality of existing templates, and does not meet the threshold for creation of a separate category. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you say "duplicates the same functionality of existing templates", which templates would those be? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have the templates in Category:British film stubs and Category:Short film stubs, which can be used to indicate both genre and country of origin. A quick category scan shows that there are hardly any articles that fall into both categories, and certainly not enough to warrant a separate stub tag and category. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou; it's always best to explicitly present your evidence (two template names) rather than make us guess what it is. Delete as stub template with little potential for use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be procedurally closed as it's already being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 6. – Uanfala 16:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2017 (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:UK-horror-film-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 delete. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template; duplicates the same functionality of existing templates, and does not meet the threshold for creation of a separate category. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you say "duplicates the same functionality of existing templates", which templates would those be? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have the templates in Category:British film stubs and Category:Horror film stubs, which can be used to indicate both genre and country of origin. A quick category scan shows that there are hardly any articles that fall into both categories, and certainly not enough to warrant a separate stub tag and category. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou; it's always best to explicitly present your evidence (two template names) rather than make us guess what it is. Delete as stub template with little potential for use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 6. If the stub category is deleted, then the template would get deleted as well, there's no need to discuss each of the two separately. – Uanfala 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument is a bit of a logical fallacy, on the order of "If he was innocent, why is he on trial?" The whole point of this page is to discuss whether or not a template is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, but anyone can nominate any template for any reason. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE      ) 16:14, 13 September 2017 (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:Italian-short-film-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 delete. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template; uses improper formatting, duplicates the same functionality of existing templates, and does not meet the threshold for creation of a separate category. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by "uses improper formatting"? This template is built around {{asbox}}, as are many thousands of other stub templates. When you say "duplicates the same functionality of existing templates", which templates would those be? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have the templates in Category:Italian film stubs and Category:Short film stubs, which can be used to indicate both genre and country of origin. A quick category scan shows that there are hardly any articles that fall into both categories, and certainly not enough to warrant a separate stub tag and category. And even if the template was necessary, the proper format would be {{Italy-short-film-stub}}. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou; it's always best to explicitly present your evidence (two template names and an explanation of why the current name is inappropriate) rather than make us guess what it is. Delete as stub template with little potential for use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the simple reason that it is unused. What was the T1 criterion? Why are we not allowed to delete for the reason of "unused, redundant template"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @RHaworth: See WP:CSD#T1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2017 (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:Infobox monastery 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 to merge. As several editors pointed out, monastery and religious building are not the same thing, merging would create more confusion than keeping the templates separated. Tone 16:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox monastery with Template:Infobox religious building.
per WP:INFOCOL and MOS:IB. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, to avoid the confusion caused to editors by having two templates with similar parameters and purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.AlfaRocket (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge Monasteries aren't buildings. They contain(ed) buildings, but also yards, pathways, trees, rocks, wells, hills, pits, pens, piles, bylaws, outlaws and gardens. More like a village. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge churches often have many of those features plus cemeteries, parking areas, schools, daycares etc Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are near the church or associated with it, but in the monastery. The Specifications and Architectural description sections of the infobox just don't work for a variety of things like they do for one building. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Giving every building its micro-Infobox is inefficient and without end (e.g. are Priories also Monasteries, or separate?). Avoid arguments, avoid over-complexity. --Vicedomino (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Priories, monasteries and abbeys are similar enough to communities. Temples, mosques and churches are similar enough to buildings. Two boxes should cover them all simply enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge based on the links given in the religious building infobox most of the pages that use the religious building template are actually just monasteries or can reasonably be included simply as monasteries. Unless someone can point out a good example of where religious buildings and monastary should be distinguished I say merge. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge monasteries are more than just buildings. (Schools associated with churches often have their own page and template.) Mannanan51 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge it's apples and oranges !!! Buildings are architectural creations. Purpose of the building might vary - e.g. Religious building. Monasteries are people's religious organizations even so they do have some material possessions, such as walled gardens and buildings too. User:Abune (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge These aren't one in the same. For example, religious buildings can also be Sufi shrines, Sikh temples, or Shia pilgrimage sites. These aren't monasteries, so merging them all together would be a disservice. As User:Abune noted above, apples and oranges! There's probably a better way to avoid confusion between templates than to merge them altogether. Willard84 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2017 (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:New page 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 redirect to Template:Under construction. A reasonable case has been made to keep this as an alternate option for {{under construction}}. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template is basically saying "Don't use your sandbox or the draft process, just post your unfinished article and no one will bother it." I see NO valid use for it within WP guidelines. It is telling people to make test pages, and is the exact opposite of what we tell new users. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I really like this template and use it all the time for this exact reason, its an awesome way of avoiding PROD issues on new pages. I cannot see why anyone would need this template when Template:Under construction would be equally useful. realistically anyone starting a page in mainspace should be able to get it to stub right off, which is when this template should be removed anyway. This template just promotes laziness. go use the sandbox and copy/paste into mainspace when making the page if you hate the draft space. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template isn't necessarily when taking into account the Draft namespace (where users can work on articles not having to worry about deletion), and Articles for Creation (drafts are peer reviewed before being brought into mainspace.) Morphdogwhat did I do now? 03:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally agree. This template gives chance to users to create test pages. SahabAliwadia 12:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, the usefulness of this template has diminished since the introduction of the draft namespace, but it's a venerable old template that suits some editors' legitimate editing styles, whether we regard them as lazy or not. Noting that the previous discussions, from 2010 and from 2012, both resulted in no consensus. If this time consensus is found for deletion, then this template's fate should be considered in conjunction with that of the functionally equivalent {{In creation}} (itself kept at TfD back in 2012), with the possibility being open for redirecting both to {{Under construction}}. – Uanfala 13:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that {{In creation}} and {{New page}} are functionally the same, wouldn't that qualify one of the templates for T3? Morphdogwhat did I do now? 21:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not mentioned in the instructions, but I think it goes without saying that speedy deletion generally isn't for pages with substantial editing history, that have been around for years and that have relevant incoming links or transclusions. That might not apply with equal force to T3 because of the seven-day grace period, but I'd still regard tagging such a template for speedy deletion as bad style. – Uanfala 21:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, and of course, T3 wouldn't apply anyway as this isn't a substantial duplication, but a different template that serves the same ultimate purpose. – Uanfala 21:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd Comment {{In creation}} has, in my opinion, been superseded by {{in use}}, since both are essentially designed to avoid edit conflicts. As I have said already, I use {{New Page}} myself, yet I am of the opinion that {{Under Construction}} is equally usable. Since it appears that new page and in creation are older templates superseded by under construction and in use. it would seem pointless to keep the older templates that promote 'laziness'. Not that people couldn't use the newer templates for exactly the same editing style. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in that case, editors who use the old templates should have a way of finding the new ones that replace them, and so the old ones should be retained as redirects. – Uanfala 14:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, if this template is deleted, it should be a redirect to {{under construction}}. this would stop breakage of pages that have it on anyway. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support redirecting {{In creation}} and {{New page}} (both very similar templates) to {{Under construction}}, since the language of {{Under construction}} assumes that the page which the template is being used on is already a complete page (in that the page has everything a Wikipedia page needs to have), and is undergoing improvements to make the page better. Morphdogwhat did I do now? 21:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use this template often as a way to have editors take a breather before outright deletion. In my opinion it should only be used by editors who know what they are doing, anything can be abused, and there are overzealous deletion editors out there. The notion that "no one will bother it" is incorrect as the template was designed to only stay in place for a limited amount of days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to redirect to {{under construction}}, which carries mostly the same intent, a fact with which many of the above agree. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To think about the redirect options and in-general the use of the template....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:59, 6 September 2017 (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:Infobox U.S. legislation 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 2017 September 17. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2017 (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:Infobox institute 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox institute with Template:Infobox organization.
Institute is a type of Organization, hence we can use parent template for the same. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why only this one out of all of the organization types in Template:Organization infoboxes? Infobox institute is used on 722 pages, more than ten times as many as {{Infobox accounting body}}, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this one, so proposed for this. I have no issues if you propose for some more mergers. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for maintaining separate infoboxes should be the difference in parameters, not the number of transclusions. Accounting bodies may require many specialised parameters; "institutions" (whatever we mean by that - the documentation is silent on the matter) do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox fictional organisation/old seems to be a case for deletion rather than merger. I would be grateful if you can proceed with the required nominaton. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of merging Template:Infobox fictional organisation/old into Template:Infobox fictional organisation. Perhaps there is not enough there to merit "merging". Sadly, I have other things to do and am not looking for your gratefulness at this time. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there should be more development and people willing to maintain this template if Template:Infobox organization is used since it can be applied to many different kinds of organizations, including fictional ones. There is already a "type" field in Template:Infobox organization where "institute" or "fictional organization" could be added. However, depending on the fields that are needed for different kinds of organizations, it could become cluttered very quickly. In my opinion, if this is done, it would be a major change to many articles which use these infoboxes, but it would work if done correctly and in a way where there are active maintainers that can add to it. Micro32 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of what I was talking about. I would be more swayed with a discussion of the technical and social merits of such a change rather than just a bland "it could be done so probably should be" case. This proposal does not make such a case however (there are no details on impact and why the change would be better). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Micro32: Your vote says keep, yet your comments tend to support merger. Kindly clarify. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per all the reasons stated above by the other editors. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the templates have many parameters in common, they are used in similar contexts and it would make sense to merge them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with previous stated reasons for not merging the template as well as this would need someone very committed to this change as it is used on so many pages. If there were a more technical plan in place or solid idea as to why/what parts should be merged it might have my support then. Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because something can be done, it doesn't mean it should be done. The proposed benefits that would be obtained by this change have not been described, nor has any attempt been made to do so. Urselius (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge The distinction between the two types is vague, especially in an international context. The arguments against merging are weak and unpersuasive. The claim that a merge "would be a major change to many articles which use these infoboxes" is utterly false. Merging similar infoboxes has numerous benefits, as explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The mania for template merging needs to have brakes applied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter Proposal/Keep "Institute" can mean many different things to people in different countries. I've created a few new articles on national and international societies for the field of microscopy and I've struggled with finding the correct template, so have often lumped with organisation or charity, as most meet both. How about expanding organisation further but including things from charities and other already existing templates, while keeping institute. While it may seem illogical to have multiple ones which do the same thing, it will be a major logistical task changing infoboxes from everything. (Also, a Learned society infobox would be useful too. Drop me a talk page message if you are interested). UaMaol (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: While the parameters of the two templates are different, many are simply pseudonyms for the same things (|coords= vs. |coor=; |membership= vs |num_members=; |leader_name= vs. |head_label=; for example). Can anyone opposing a merge explain which parameters that are not pseudonyms, are never applicable to the opposite template, and why? For example, the map parameters in the Organisation template could just as easily be used in the Institute template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge Infoboxes should be separate if they have unique parameters. I don't see that here, and the term "institute" is not clearly differentiated from "organization". Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do not, as of now, see any advantages to merging these two templates. Javert2113 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:! I find it good for user of wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though WP:INFOCOL is not official policy, it makes good points that any infobox with both a set of parameters and a purpose that are covered by another should be merged into that infobox. Template maintenance is hard. Having overlapping templates makes it harder. That these particular templates also look similar is an added bonus, since the change is unlikely to be noticed by readers. LinkTiger (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I did a manual review of the parameters that each template has and it looks like a straightforward mapping from the institute template to the organization template. The organization template has decent documentation, too, while the institute template has none. — RockMFR 17:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not understand the necessity of this merge, since organizations cover such a wide variety of topics compared to an institute Garuda28 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's disappointing that no-one has answered the question I asked above - especially not those who have said we should keep to templates, subsequently to me asking t. It makes one wonder whether people are "voting" without reading the preceding discussion. I trust the closing admin will take this issue on board. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- "Institute" and "Organisation" are similar entities and a merge makes sense. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    1. Infobox organization: 22218 transclusions
    2. Infobox institute: 728 transclusions
    78.55.247.189 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - two different types of entities. Institutions are typically associated with academia while organizations are associated more with businesses - each means something different; therefore requiring different parameters. Atsme📞📧 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Andy. There are few, if any, parameters that would apply to an institute that couldn't potentially apply to the other types of organizations covered by {{Infobox organization}}. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 22:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two templates have different use cases. LK (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not strongly in favour of a keep, but I still lean that way. The institute template seems to be intended for use for academic institutes at universities and have some specialised parameters for that, which would be unnecessary for any and all organisations to have. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many parameters relevant to institutes of research and universities are irrelevant to most organizations. Natureium (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2017 (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:Wisely 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) 00:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

single-use template providing no navigation. if the content is useful, it should be merged with the article. but, it looks like most (if not all) of the content is in the article. Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment, Im not sure but I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. Renata (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2017 (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:Infobox Polish coat of arms 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 2017 September 16. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:31, 16 September 2017 (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:Infobox heraldry 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 2017 September 16. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:30, 16 September 2017 (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:Historical coat of arms 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 2017 September 16. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:29, 16 September 2017 (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:Enkaspor branches 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) 01:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't navigate anything and is only used on one page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:38, 6 September 2017 (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:Bowlers who have taken 5 wickets in a ODI innings 5 times 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) 01:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no page on the topic which this template is navigating. No coverage in WP:RS that taking fifer 5 times is a notable achievement. Also, see the discussion. Greenbörg (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Five times is arbitrary. —Vensatry (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your stance here. Greenbörg (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reasons put forward above are sound. The 5 wickets 5 times feels very arbitrary achievement to mark with a template, especially when there is no article (or any evidence that cricketers or commentators see this as a particular landmark for a bowler to reach). Dunarc (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • yet again, AlfaRocket demonstrates that he/she is randomly voting, or doesn't understand what "unused" means. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, an arbitrary grouping. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2017 (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/2017_September_6&oldid=1144235408"