Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 28

< June 27	June 29 >

June 28

Template:Casey Darnell

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) 01:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Casey Darnell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN for not having five relevant links The Banner talk 21:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NENAN is neither a policy or a guideline it is just an essay.HotHat (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But is a common ground for deletion, as templates have to be useful and relevant. The Banner talk 02:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the three articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not useful enough. --Netoholic @ 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:R from subtopic without possibilities

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) 04:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from subtopic without possibilities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used on roughly 300 redirects, but is heavily misused, probably due to the confusing intent of it. In my survey of its use, it's highly redundant with {{R to section}}, {{R from alternative name}}, and other much better ones from Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. The whole "without possibilities" angle is also pretty questionable and misleading (we have {{R with possibilities}}, but that is to encourage/inspire rather than discourage). --Netoholic @ 18:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~ Comment - although the {{rcat}} was poorly defined, and no documentation had ever been in place, these are correctable shortfalls; through normal, collaborative editing. It doesn't constitute a valid reason for deletion. I've begun correcting the discrepancies and intend to further improve this {{rcat}}'s condition. I agree that there currently is a high incidence of "misapplication" of this template, possibly even abuse, as alledged. I will be correcting that very soon as well. Describing this {{rcat}} as "highly redundant" to {{R to section}} and {{R from alternative name}} is a mis-characterization. These templates are complementary of each other, and that is by design. This template should always coexist with either {{R to section}} or {{R to list entry}} with {{R to anchor}} being often included as well. Because it is a title "without possibilities", it will never be target-able to an article and will depend on aligning with some specific content within an article to be clearly understood. These concise topics that lack enough depth to become an article should not be discounted as unimportant. For example, we couldn't write an entire article about a golf course "green", or a duelers "second", but we can link to its meaning with Greens (golf), or Second (duel); improving overall understanding. Give me a few days and I'll have the category cleaned up, and you will see a few hundred solid examples.—John Cline (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the "without possibilities" usage because its subjective, often incorrect, and very arrogant. If there is someone out there that can put together enough materials to make a stand-alone article, then they will. There is no such thing on Wikipedia as a list of articles that should never exist. But, even if people disagree and think this function has a legitimate use, there is no purpose in making a separate template, when a "without possibilities" parameter could be added directly to {{R to section}} or {{R to list entry}} (just as "printworthy" is a parameter). Also, what about other redirect templates? Should we have a "{{R from alternative name without possibilities}}" or "{{R from misspelling without possibilities}}"? Seems like ridiculous bloat. P.S. Never say "we couldn't write an entire article about a golf course 'green', or a duelers 'second'", because I might be forced to prove you wrong on that. There is no topic in the cosmos that couldn't be made into an article, given enough time and research. --Netoholic @ 18:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in practically every regard. Would you endorse tracking these with something like {{R with limited possibilities}}. I would support moving every category that uses "without possibilities" into its similar form using "limited possibilities" instead.—John Cline (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's a precedent or general desire to discourage future editors on a wide scale here on Wikipedia, and I don't personally think anything is "without possibilities", so my preference is to remove that notion from all Rcats.-- Netoholic @ 03:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of impossible things, and wouldn't have supported the "without possibilities" characterization. I do think there is merit however, in segregating titles with "limited possibilities" from titles that are clearly a missing article, like U.S. Synthetic Rubber Program for example. Are you also "strongly against" using "limited possibilities" to accomplish this category segregation? Incidentally, only one rcat is needed to accomplish this for all rcats; it can be combined with any of the others when appropriate. Therefor I am also against the creation of separate templates like you mentioned above.—John Cline (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction, I was not advocating creation of extra templates, I was pointing out that the one nominated here doesn't cover other types of rcats and it would be bad to create them. Having a single "limited possibilities" template is clearly better than "without possibilities", but I don't really like the implications of either. Maybe others will join in and comment. If people jump on board, then we'll move the {{R from subtopic without possibilities}} to the new name. --Netoholic @ 05:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that you were not advocating for "template bloat", and I meant to agreed with you. I've stricken my initial !vote, converting it to a comment. I am nearly ambivalent regarding this template. All redirects from a subtopic can effectively be managed using {{R from subtopic}} and ultimately this rcat's members should probably be merged into it. Nevertheless, I also agree that other opinions are worth waiting to see. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Netoholic, I'll concede that I've been mistaken. My mistake was in defending this rcat after being fooled by its purpose. A page that doesn't have an article; that is, at best, a subtopic of some other article or a list entry at worse – barley supporting a WP:DABMENTION somewhere else; is the very kind of redirect that does have possibilities. For the most part, I think deleting the category altogether is best. My only apprehension is that I wouldn't want to merge the lot of its members into any one category because, as you have said, the membership of this category is a convoluted mess. Maybe a holding cell is better to manually dismantle the category and properly target its members.—John Cline (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to policy. We cannot predict when there might be information for a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the thought that there are no uses for such a template. This is not about having a subtopic that will never become an article, nor is it about discouraging article writers. The rcat would better read {{R from subtopic title without possibilities}}, which is probably the type of redirect it was meant to tag. Say there is an article about several prominent Jain monks, and within that article are several headers, each with details about a specific monk. Someone might create redirects that lead to those sections and title the redirects with a common honorific such as Acharya. As you know, honorifics should rarely if ever be a part of an article title, so these redirects would be appropriately tagged with {{R from subtopic without possibilities}}. It is not the subtopic itself that may never become an article, it is the format of the title of the redirect, and except for those common names like Mother Teresa, U Thant, etc., honorifics should be left out of article titles. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Used in that way, its a redirect to a section, not from as the template name suggests. In that sort of rare occasion, you can use {{Redr|R from alternate name|R to section}} instead. This template is just too unclear and narrow (and to editors its highly misleading with the "without possibilities" bit when used wrong). -- Netoholic @ 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is used inappropriately, then that is something that can be fixed. It appears that John Cline is willing to jump right in and perform such a task. If it is misleading, then the template documentation can be used to squelch any misleading aspect. Since it should be used on titles that have no liklihood of ever being suitable as article titles, then it is rightly called "R from...". This is especially so for a redirect titled, say, Acharya Baldev Upadhyaya that targets a section titled only with the Acharya's name sans honorific. The monk might someday be the subject of a full article (and indeed, is), but the redirect is still titled improperly – hence "R from..." (Let me add, Netoholic, that I appreciate your usage of the {{Redr}} template, one that I've promoted for use on redirects for a long time, now.) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paine, I'm glad seeing your comment here. I felt this template was strongly worth keeping, but considering the strong arguments against this template, I did relent that it missed its mark, and believe it would be better to develop an entirely new template. For example, just as we would have to combine two rcats; {{Redr|from subtopic|with possibilities}} to create this notion we would be consistent using {{Redr|from subtopic|without possibilities}} instead of what we now have; and as it turns out, "without possibilities" is a bit too confusing, almost inviting subjectivity which I don't think is conducive to the category segregation being sought. I agree that some titles are precluded from being developed into an article's live title but I think this is a restriction of some form or another and would think {{R with restrictions}} might be more clear. Also as pointed out, other rcats could otherwise be as restricted, or as possible, so separating them is simply better all around, in my opinion. Then you can have {{Redr|from subtopic|to section|with possibilities}}, {{Redr|from subtopic|to anchor|with restrictions}}, or a plethora of other appropriate combinations.—John Cline (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Without possibilities" goes against the Wikipedia spirit. We should not discourage future editors. A redirect is discouragement enough. -- Netoholic @ 05:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't even seem to find a legitimate case that fits with how you think this should be used. Its a solution in search of a problem, and its not even a very good solution since we already have established ones that can work for this rare case. --Netoholic @ 05:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Paine gave a perfectly fine example. Also consider these redirects to Barack Obama. Clearly they are restricted from becoming the article's live title per WP:COMMONNAME, and of course restricted does not mean impossible; only perhaps unlikely.—John Cline (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His example doesn't actually exist. RE "without possibilities": You can't logically debate about future uses - you can only deal with what is presently true. It can be true that some redirects have possibilities (because we could point to something that exists now) and we can mark them such. We can't cite an unknown future. A "without possibilities" template will certainly result in a lot of pointless arguments that just don't need to happen ("I say this redirect could have possibilities in the future" vs "I think it will never have possibilities"). Even with your Obama examples: can you say for sure no one with a variation of that name will ever exist and be notable? -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many ways I can agree with you that "without possibilities" is problematic verbiage. I merely offered as a possible alternative; "with restrictions". All of that is extraneous to this discussion however, and you might notice that I !voted delete, which I maintain. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only real question here is whether we want {{R to section}} to impart semantic value or not. If we don, then it should be renamed to the nominated title. If not, then this is an uncontroversial deletion of identically-scoped templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see its purpose and more importantly, anything that separates subtopics with a possibility of an article with one without a possibility (other than pure navel-gazing by editors here). I see no rhyme or reason what I could do if I were to glance at Category:Redirects from subtopics without possibilities other than, based on a different opinion, move a redirect to Category:Redirects with possibilities and vice versa. Even articles are never truly banned or discouraged as anyone can recreate (almost) anything and try again if they have sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Ricky81682 and others. Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Geography of Macedonia

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) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geography of Macedonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Seems to have been replaced with Template:Macedonia topics linking to the various lists. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Netoholic @ 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Neutrality^talk 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:GT deletion

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) 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GT deletion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template that hasn't been used to list AfDs for years it seems. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic. But if you think it should be deleted, I'm okay with that. Disavian (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Netoholic @ 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Gunstoneng

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) 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

With this, now an orphaned specific source template. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - breaks 2 guidelines (single-use, and contains article content). --Netoholic @ 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Gunstonman

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) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned specific-source template Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - breaks 2 guidelines (single-use, and contains article content). --Netoholic @ 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox hydrogen

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) 04:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox hydrogen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Last discussed in 2012 but looking only at hydrogen, I think it's time for this infoboxes to be returned to the articles. While there are still concerns about the complexity of the markup due to the infoboxes, there are more complex ones I'm certain already in the articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion: 2012 -DePiep (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More prior discussions: 10/2010, 9/2010, 1/2010, 6/2009, 8/2008, 11/2006, 5/2005, 2/2005, 12/2004, 9/2004 (some more relevant than others) YBG (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Since you have seen (must have seen/should have seen), why did you limit this to {{infobox hydrogen}} only? -DePiep (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other discussion suggested picking one rather than TfDing the whole set. Would you have preferred that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were right to only nominate Template:Infobox hydrogen. But broadly you were probably not right to nominate the template(s) for discussion again without presenting (compelling and) novel arguments. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating one is OK, but the nom explicitly did not even look at the others. Now it is left to others to guess what is meant, and whether the arguments fits these others. Bad discussion base. And replying "would you have preferred that" is not an answer at all. Another 'go find it out yourself' approach. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the others. I don't see a particular difference to each one. The discussion last time suggested listing one since the principles are essentially the same. I could have requested a bot list every one so that we have one discussion. If you want that, I'll withdraw this one and list the whole group but I doubt we'll have 'keep all but XX, delete all but YY' discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "looking only at hydrogen". Now you write the opposite. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reduces clutter for editing the main article, and reduces chances of things going wrong with the infobox content They are technically difficult to edit. see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 10#Template:Infobox <element> - why do these exist? for an even earlier discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really any less clutter than at Earth, United States, or with any other infoboxes? It is larger but are just the elements infobox so uniquely complicated that they don't belong directly on any pages? If the concern is the content, then the solution is protection on the article, not creating a template and protecting that. Couldn't the same arguments be made for every article that has an infobox? Absent some general principle for why this infobox doesn't belong on the article pages directly, the discussions all seem to boil down to 'I like it' to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Que? Each and every template with content has V-T-E links. Please explain exactly which TfD reason (for you) are we talking about? -DePiep (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (ec). nom's only argument "there are more complex ones [...] already in the articles" is a plain WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Earlier outcome stands. Also, I do not get which improvement the nom aims at. (WP:WIKILAWYERING?)-DePiep (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous consensus and DePiep. What are the specific benefits to readers and/or editors that would result from merging it? DMacks (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to edit and see it in the main article? Consistency in references rather than cross-checking this template with the main article? The ability to add more sources and reference links without editors having to learn that various subsections of a small set of pages using a particular template are in a walled garden. The template guildeines show a general consensus that templates are not to be used to store article text. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reply with questions. That is not a clarification. Anyway, see my Keep arguments below. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous consensus and DePiep and DMacks. Sandbh (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all reasons above, especially the fact that {{subst}} would hopelessly clutter the article page and make it subject to unintentional (and intentional) corruption. But there is an alternative that might be acceptable -- and incidentally keep this TfD discussion from rising zombie-like every couple of years. That would be to move the the text from [[template:Infobox hydrogen]] to [[Hydrogen/infobox]]. Then instead of transcluding the infobox with {{infobox hydrogen}} it can be transcluded by {{:hydrogen/infobox}}. If the element infoboxes are only (or primarily) used in on the element articles themselves, this seems like it might be appropriate. An example is shown in Help:Table#Row template which transcludes {{Help:Table/example row template}}. For more information, see WP:Transclusion. YBG (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the time since the most recent previous TfD, Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 10#Move all infoboxes to a "PAGENAME/infobox" subpage (or a template or new namespace) was a discussion of the general issue of offloading infoboxes. It includes notes about usability-studies and some technical aspects of the subpage approach. DMacks (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was the one to split out some of these infoboxes, I believe. Even to the type of editor who might be interested in editing chemical element articles, these infoboxen were/are terrifying to see. If there are reasons to consider changing the current approach, they'd be interesting to read. As it is, I think this discussion lacks any of these reasons and I'm inclined to stick with the working and functional status quo. The current approach has clear benefits such as reduced article clutter, making it easier to watch(list) only the infoboxes for subtle changes, etc., in my opinion.
I'll also note that at this point, I don't believe these template infoboxen can/should ever be deleted. At most, I think we'd redirect Template:Infobox hydrogen back to Hydrogen and make a clear note of the template history when merging the infobox content back into the main article. Deleting the attribution doesn't really make much sense in this case as it's needlessly harmful, so any template discussion should probably focus on keep v. redirect/merge, with delete not being an option. (Though, to be fair, nobody has voted delete here so I'm really addressing a non-issue. Oh well.) --MZMcBride (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment (forgot I already !voted). I guess after MZMcBride, I have done most maintenance on these boxes [1], [2]. And as an editor in this, I explicitly would not be "helped" by a merge-into-article change (even stronger: I am chased away). Nom is not speaking for me. I can promise that doing a check over the ~125 infoboxes is not easier in any way thinkable when they are in article text (AWB more complex, REGEX more complex, overview in is editscreen gone, ...). Also, each and every editor benefits from documentation being at hand (an option that will be gone when editing article).

Note that the infobox has the v-t-e links, as all content boxes have (navboxes!). That is where an editor can expect to edit. This is basic template content editing routine. As for the "less clutter than in Earth, United States", I don't know what this is supposed to mean. It could be an other stuff exists argument, to which is the nullifying answer is: then go unclutter these other pages, if you want to help editors.

And I do not get from the nom, in multiple replies here, what exactly is the goal or basic reasoning. The only refinements we got were multiple return-questions, not clarifications. Template guidelines are misquoted by the nom, thereby missing the essence ("templates are not to be used to store article text" really?)

Finally, replying "the discussions all seem to boil down to 'I like it' to me" shows that the nom did not bother to read and digest the earlier elaborated Keep arguments. I find the sloppyness of this proposal tiresome. -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: possibility to sandbox changes. Don't want to miss that. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oops. Struck my second !vote. -DePiep (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw the nomination. Funny how it was fair two years ago to discuss the issue but now you get attacked for it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:White American ancestries bar graph

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) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White American ancestries bar graph (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Out of date with the new 2010 census but this template is used in a single article as a singular graph. I'm not even sure this graphic is needed when a table would be equally as clear and less complicated to deal with. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:List of votes on the Amash/Conyers Amendment

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) 01:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of votes on the Amash/Conyers Amendment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is used only once. Text-block can easily been added to the article Amash-Conyers Amendment. The Banner talk 21:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - breaks 2 guidelines (single-use, and contains article content). --Netoholic @ 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Ripon Society Congressional Advisory Board

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) 02:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ripon Society Congressional Advisory Board (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template without a backlink to a parent article. Is this "Advisory Board" important enough to warrant a navigation template? If so, where is the article about the "Ripon Society Congressional Advisory Board"? The Banner talk 21:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - breaks 3 guidelines (single-use, contains article content, replicates the function of a simple list). --Netoholic @ 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Periodic table (with pictures)

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) 04:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table (with pictures) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Excluding its usage Template:Periodic table templates and the various links from there, I don't see where this template is actually being used in articles. While I can imagine the use of a chart that keeps track of the images for each element, it's only usage remains for editors alone. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you don't understand its usage, then ask. TfD is not a FAQ resource. -DePiep (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator makes a fine statement that it is in-use and has a use for editors. He makes no case that it is redundant, non-useful, non-helpful, abusive, or any other sort of problem or contrary to policy. DMacks (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A helpful summary of content that allows the qualities of the element images currently used in the articles to be compared. This way people can see which are not as good as the others (e.g. N, Ca, Ba, Ra) and work to improve them. In my mind it works quite like the {{Periodic table by article quality}}. Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For all the eloquent reasons already mentioned above. YBG (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is the nominator attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Periodic table templates

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) 04:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see the purpose of a template that only lists other templates. According to the guidelines, a template that only provides information only of service to editors belongs on a talk page or alternatively, all these templates belong at Category:Periodic table maintenance templates but there is no need for a navigational page for editors. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the purpose nom writes. Why then not ask at Template talk:Periodic table templates? -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DePiep. It appears to be an organized navigational aid among templates. Why should we make it harder to navigate among templates by deleting this? DMacks (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep template documentation pages can feature navigation templates to navigate between templates. I fail to see why you'd want to delete those, or why'd you think they should only exist on talk pages, since /doc pages are only for editors anyways. Further, there are a large number of templates that are for use of editors and not readers, and a large number of pages on Wikipedia that are not for content readers, which are not talk pages (such as the entire WP: namespace). -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had occasion to use this just this past week without even realizing that what it was that I was using. Had this not been available, I seriously doubt that I would have been able to do what I was trying to accomplish. And just a week later to find that it is being proposed for deletion!! Using this sort of template-of-templates occurs in other areas of Wikipedia, for example {{Continent-based templates}}. YBG (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably misunderstood by the nom. This is a documentation template, not intended for content (article) space. It gives an overview of periodic table templates, as they are systematically constructed, named, and having themes. A category cannot present all this information.

There are also files (images) incorporated.

The "guidelines" quote is incomplete. It purports to say, like (my words): "if it has information for editors only, it should not be in content space."

"all these templates belong at Category:Periodic table maintenance templates" is nonsens. Just check the first listed template. A maintenance template? And there are some 49 more so in there.

I do not understand what nom means saying "there is no need for a navigational page [sic; DP] for editors" (actually, it is a template so intended for transclusion; not a stand alone page). Editors don't need navigation???

I ask nominator Ricky81682, after reading these notes, to withdraw this TfD for WP:SNOWBALL. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per it is usefull.

comment It could be nice if all pages which transclude this template didnt get the category "Templates for deletion". Christian75 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is the nominator attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair: to me it doesn't look like an intended disruption. Though I still am flabbergasted by the immatureness of Ricky81682's TfDs here in periodic tables. R is editing over 9 years, has 55k edits, and is an admin. Very strange. If we rule out intentional disruption, could there be something else? (btw, I cannot recall ever having met them in the wikiuniverse) -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, based on the ANI arguments, I'll withdraw. this nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Food and Drug Administration Jurisdictions

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) 04:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Food and Drug Administration Jurisdictions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It should be merged with Template:Food and Drug Administration

Template:Food and Drug Administration Jurisdictions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is only used in one article. It should be merged with and replaced by Template:Food and Drug Administration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - breaks 3 guidelines (single-use, contains article content, and replicates the function of lists). --Netoholic @ 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:FDA commissioners

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FDA commissioners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The contents of this template were duplicated into Template:Food and Drug Administration by Remember, who also created this template. It is better to only use the main more comprehensive template about the FDA organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should say - I anticipated this navbox being deleted, and for that reason, I already replaced it with Template:Food and Drug Administration everywhere that it was used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created it. Since the other template has all the commissioners, I am fine with the replacement. Remember (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, and Redirect - preserves link to pre-merged edit history. --Netoholic @ 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:JctCA

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 (G7) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Entirely redundant to Template:Jct. Unused. Reason for the template's creation (slow load times for {{Jct}}) is no longer valid as Jct is now converted to Lua. Rs chen 7754 08:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused; obsoleted by the Lua rewrite of {{jct}}. -happy 5214 08:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from author. Template:JctCA worked as a quick, interim version for 9 months, until Template:Jct could be rewritten in Lua script. As an all-in-one template, {JctCA} proved to be quite fast, at times 25x faster than {Jct}, indicating that multi-level, nested markup templates are often slowed by passing many parameters into the nested sub-templates, while a single template can be much faster, even if written with large #switch functions. The Lua version of {Jct} now runs even faster, and {JctCA} can be deleted as superceded. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Madagascar Squad 2008 COSAFA Cup

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) 02:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Madagascar Squad 2008 COSAFA Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is regional tournament only. Numerous previous discussions confirmed to delete the regional competition navboxes. JackHoang (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other(s):

Template:Kenya squad 2013 CECAFA Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South Africa squad 2013 COSAFA Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South Sudan Squad 2012 CECAFA Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kenya squad 2012 CECAFA Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012 CECAFA Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2013 CECAFA Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

delete all per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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