Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 16

< August 15	August 17 >

August 16

Template:Infobox medical person

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox medical person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 289 transclusions; looks like a subset of {{Infobox person}}, into which the few unique fields should be merged, if needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm in favour of fewer templates, but as this is well used, does have some unique fields, and the Infobox person template is already overloaded with fields, I don't see an advantage to merging. I do, however, see an advantage to users in having a medical person infobox pre-loaded with the fields most appropriate for the topic. I suppose the question is - are the fields chosen the most appropriate - but that's a discussion for the main users of the template, and if they need more they can add them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 289 transclusions is hardy well-used for the subject (I'd wager we have far more medical person biographies already using {{Infobox person}}; and {{Infobox person}} has a whole raft of parameters relevant to medical people, but which are not in this template. The generic benefits of merging, in reducing maintenance overheads are already well-rehearsed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see, the specialist fields here are barely used in the existing transclusions, so most of the current uses are in fact strictly redundant to {{infobox person}}. If there is a desire to including medicine-specific material in {{infobox person}} then it would be good to get these bot-corrected in the existing articles and then to turn this template into a module: that would provide all the semantic goodness and flexibility of {{infobox person}} while still allowing for a set group of additional fields. But that is a rainy-day project: for now redirection is the correct option. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh, should have checked the template code first. WOSlinker has already done the heavy lifting here. Okay, I've done the rest of the required work: the core content has been moved to {{infobox medical details}}, and I've recreated {{infobox medical person}} as a temporary wrapper for that. That wrapper can be substituted when this TfD is closed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent, thank you. Should we have a category, "Modules of Infobox person" or "Modules of biographical Infoboxes"? And should we now close this TfD as resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's still the matter of whether editors wish to keep the wrapper around (I wouldn't, but it's not appropriate to take that as a given), and of course the required substitution needs to take place. I'd prefer for this to remain open for further input and then be closed by an uninvolved admin. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2012 (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:Mylo Xyloto singles

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) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mylo Xyloto singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Already in the infobox of the article for Mylo Xyloto. Template is unnecessary here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; this does not appear to be needed. Gongshow ^Talk 03:13, 21 August 2012 (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:Follow the Leader tracks

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) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Follow the Leader tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on only one article. No navigational benefit. Can just link to Follow the Leader (Korn album) for more detailed info on album and its track listing. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this does not seem necessary. Gongshow ^Talk 03:15, 21 August 2012 (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:OTRS failed

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) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OTRS failed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not used and is not needed; OTRS agents correspond via email with people submitting permissions. Even if it were not redundant to existing systems (which actually categorize material for admin review on the necessary dates, while this does nothing), the red X is bitey. See OTRS discussion at the OTRS noticeboard (permanent diff). Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – OTRS agents never decline a good-faith attempt to contribute to Wikipedia or the Commons. The worst outcome for a file is we never receive the information we need to confirm permission (per {{OTRS received}}). If somehow communication did break down so badly there was no chance of confirming permission now or in the future, the file would need to be deleted immediately by the OTRS agent or an administrator. — madman 15:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a template meant for pointing fingers. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's needed, and the people saying it delivers a bad message seem to have a point. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 22:25, 18 August 2012 (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:Redistribution box party AU party

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) 23:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redistribution box party AU party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2012 (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:Place namesake

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) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Place namesake (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (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:Ficha de festival de música

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) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ficha de festival de música (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (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:Manila LRT station

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) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manila LRT station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Manila MRT station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Each only transcluded by their own talk pages. DH85868993 (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Manila LRT articles use the standard Template:Infobox station. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2012 (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:Start Manila LRT box

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) 00:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start Manila LRT box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{s-rail|title=Manila LRT}}. DH85868993 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I decide anything about this, where are the template categories for the Manila Metro Rail and Light Rail systems? ----DanTD 14:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The templates for those systems are located in Category:Philippine rail succession templates. DH85868993 (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant custom template. As noted above, Manila LRT uses standard succession templates. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the templates have already been located, I'm voting to Delete as well. ----DanTD 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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:EagleBotResize

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) 00:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created in 2007. Contains the text "Template to be used in conjunction with User:EagleImageResizeBot. Please do not delete this, as I'm currently using this for testing. —— Eagle101 11:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)." Template creator User:Eagle 101 (now User:Nixeagle) has not edited since September 2011. User:EagleImageResizeBot made 1 edit (creating their own userpage), in 2007. DH85868993 (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2012 (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:Teargarden by Kaleidyscope

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) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Teargarden by Kaleidyscope (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not necessary for navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2012 (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:Toyota vehicle

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) 01:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toyota vehicle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Toyota engine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vehicle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - created as a result of/during the course of this discussion

{{Toyota vehicle}} and {{Toyota engine}} are each only used in 1 article (Toyota Celica). These templates allow you to write "{{Toyota vehicle|Celica|A20}}" instead of "[[Toyota Celica#A20|Celica]]" or "{{Toyota engine|18|R|GE}}" instead of "[[Toyota R engine#18R-GE|18R-GE]]". The pre-nomination discussion at WP:CARS suggests the templates should either be deleted (due to offering insufficient advantage over standard links) or generalised to support other makes. DH85868993 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per my rationale explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Template:Toyota vehicle. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

The 'Toyota vehicle' template was only used in one article because I was being polite in trying these templates out in only a few articles. Should I have been aggressive and put an untried template in hundreds of articles?
As requested, I have just made {{vehicle}} as a generalised form of 'Toyota vehicle'. It can be used as '{{vehicle|Toyota|Celica|A20}}' to give Celica. The saving of the old format is small but the new form is less error prone and easier to understand.
The engine links in particular seem to cause editors trouble using the old format. The new form is much simpler and less prone to mistakes because the format is more intuitive and matches what is shown in the preview. It also removes redundancy - in the old format in the example, 18R-GE is typed twice (hopefully matching) and R is typed 3 times (hopefully matching). I have had to fix non-matching parts of the link from careless editors using cut and paste and not making both sides match. Of the two templates, the engine template is much more useful to me because the new syntax is so much simpler than the old syntax.
I created these templates because when I was making large scale changes to a given article (usually to make it consistent), I found myself making mistakes with the old format (eg cut and paste errors of left and right side not matching or '|' instead of '#'). I caught most of these mistakes in preview but I know that they can be easy to miss and it took a lot of my time double checking. The templates had the explicit aims of making linking easier to understand (simple syntax), making mistakes less likely (simple syntax, no repetition) and making mistakes more obvious (so they will be corrected immediately). Stepho talk 03:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a simple text substitution template which is frequently as much effort to type as the underlying text would be and which would appear to encourage fairly incestuous overlinking between articles. Anchored links should not be overused precisely because of their tendency to break. I would agree with the consensus at WT:CARS that this is a solution in need of a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second someone has said it was a solution looking for a problem. Quite the reverse. I earn my living as a computer programmer and 25 years of professional experience has taught me that simpler usage is always better than complication usage and that hand duplication of information is both extra, unnecessary work and the two copies often don't agree when they should agree (usually due to typos or cut/paste errors). Over the past few years I have found it irksome to have to enter the same engine information twice in a mildly complication format. It's even more irksome to have to double check that every instance both looks correct and links to the correct article - especially irksome when many engine links are being added. So my natural instinct (as a programmer) is to have the computer do the work for me. I'll grant that the two vehicle templates only save a small amount of work but they do absolutely no harm. And the engine template is simple to understand, simple to use, shorter to type and the rendered text in the article is guaranteed to match what it links to. This template is not going to change the world but it does its own bit of good and does no harm whatsoever. All based on sound engineering principles.

As for incestuous over-linking: the template is merely providing a simpler form of what is already being linked. Editors always have the option to used the linked form (usually on the first occurrence, hopefully using my engine template) or to leave it as simple unadorned text (for the further occurrences). And if you check, I have placed anchored links (using {{anchor}}) in each Toyota engine articles so that links to them do not break. Perhaps you are thinking of linking to section titles. Linking to section titles does indeed tend to break but linking to true anchors like I have set up tends to be very robust.

Lastly, please decide about each of the templates separately. The vehicle templates do only a small amount of help but I feel the engine template is worth keeping even if the vehicle templates get deleted. Stepho talk 14:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{vehicle}} is a horrid name for a section link template -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for a new name are welcome. It needs to be short and intuitive. Stepho talk 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose template:§2 (with template:§1 being [[{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}| ({{{2}}})}}#{{{3}}}|{{{3}}}]])) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete this just obfuscates links without a real need for it. if you want short/stable anchors, use {{anchor}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it backwards. These templates are one end of the link. {{anchor}} provides the other end of the link. These templates will happily link to any anchor or section title. Stepho talk 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, I don't have it backwards. if you want a short link to a section, then add a short anchor to said section. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the templates already use anchors as targets. The point of the engine template is to avoid repetition - the old format repeats the engine family name (eg VZ) 3 times and the rest of the engine code is repeated twice more (once in the anchor/section and once more in the visible text). Under both the old and new formats, using anchors gives the same advantages and drawbacks over section titles because both the old and new formats can use anchors or section titles equally well. Stepho talk 15:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless obsfucation Bulwersator (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above in response to a couple of editors, it is not pointless. The point is to avoid error prone repetition. Of course, you may value the point less than me but that doesn't make it pointless. Also, it doesn't obfuscate, it makes linking to engines simpler. If it helps, I can rewrite the engine template so that it is used as {{Toyota engine|18R-GE}} - ie remove the need for pipe characters around the 'R'. I can make the template extract what it needs from a single parameter, still link to the correct article and section ('Toyota R engine#18R-GE') and still display as a simple '18R-GE' (you can see the repeated green bits). Stepho talk 15:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - I honestly fail to see how this makes linking to engines easier, and I agree with other editors that this obfuscates links. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2012 (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:Improvement

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) 00:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk page message template, created in 2009. Appears to have been substed into one user talk page (User talk:92.8.10.225) in 2009. Is linked from another user talk page (User talk:Vetocapstone), but I'm not sure if that was a deliberate usage. Subst and delete? Or maybe userfy if the creator would still find the template useful? DH85868993 (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is standard practice but I don't see "unused" as a reason for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Hyacinth (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as a suitable reason for deletion for templates - see point 3 of WP:TFD#REASONS. As indicated above, if you still find this template useful, I'd be quite happy for it to be moved to your userspace. DH85868993 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2012 (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:DMRC lines

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) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DMRC lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Doesn't appear to be part of a rail transport template series - there are no matching "stations" or "colors" templates. DH85868993 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The template appears to be for the Delhi Metro line stations. but from what I've seen they all seem to contain their own S-line templates so far. If no use can be found for them, I'll vote to Delete them too. ----DanTD 02:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional Comments - If no matching station or color templates exist, I vote to suspend delteing them until any color and station templaces can be transferred from the one that's tagged for deletion. ----DanTD 14:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE Actually, there are matching station and color templates in Category:Templates for Delhi Metro. So now my support for deletion is a little stronger. ----DanTD 20:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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:Switched

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN. Why not linking? The Banner _talk 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Without the navbox:

B.C. Kochmit does not link to Corey Lowery, Chad Szeliga, Subject to Change nor Ghosts in the Machine
Corey Lowery does not link to Chad Szeliga nor Subject to Change
Chad Szeliga does not link to Subject to Change, Ghosts in the Machine, B.C. Kochmit nor Corey Lowery
Subject to Change does not link to B.C. Kochmit, Corey Lowery nor Chad Szeliga
Ghosts in the Machine does not link to B.C. Kochmit, Corey Lowery nor Chad Szeliga

There are now 6 links in the navbox, one more than WP:NENAN requires, plus 2-3 additional albums that can be expanded into articles.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not about Switched, so needs to be renamed, if it is kept -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The template does not need to be renamed until such time that another entity named "Switched" gets a template. If it does need to be renamed, it should be renamed "Sw1tched" with a "1" in place of the "i".--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does not match the main article, so is misleadingly named, since another article exists at the complementary name in articlespace. Template names should be selfdocumenting, as several templates have been renamed for that reason. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - While this is commonly asserted by this IP at TfD, you're correct that it's not supported by anything in our naming guidelines. The template doesn't need moved, assuming that it survives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Templates are being renamed, by others, using that rationale, so that's why I'm asserting it. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2012 (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) 02:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is anyone else going to reply to this?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that more links have been added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - The AfD for B.C. Kochmit was dispositioned as Keep. Any other points of debate requiring discussion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2012 (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.