Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 25

< February 24	February 26 >

February 25

Template:BCA 2011

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) 22:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BCA 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used only at Stefano Pelinga. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, with no prejudice against later re-creation. This is a routine single-source citation template, intended to be used more broadly, of course, but WP:CUE has few active editors, so that might not be for some time. It does no harm as a template, but isn't seeing much use yet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:AZBilliards

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 relisted on 2015 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Gazette QLD

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) 22:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gazette QLD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All this template does is save on typing "work = Queensland Government Gazette" within a cite news parameter and a somewhat unique use of volume and page for page. It's also problematic as using "T"itle as listed instead of title leaves an error that must be corrected. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that while the documentation doesn't say it, the URL parameter does pass through. This is why creating templates of citations which nevertheless use the citation style 1 templates is problematic. It must be precise to keep from breaking in the various bits and pieces. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(As creator) Not so much about saving work as about standardising the format to ensure one doesn't get wildly inconsistent citation formats, and ensuring the form of the citation complied with the source guidelines from the publisher (the Government of Queensland). All the instances of it worked when coded, but obviously there's been changes to the software since which it hasn't accounted for. I'm happy to look at better ways of doing this if someone with more knowledge in this field has any ideas. There's at present ~~182~~ 176 transclusions of the template. Orderinchaos 03:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Orderinchaos, is there some URL link that's needed? I see some if I search within http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au I think. Then I would understand the need to use a template (in case the website get reorganized or something) but is the template just for the work parameter at the moment? There's also Template:Gazette WA and Template:Gazette VIC but I didn't want to list all three right now until I better understood this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As most of the citations are to actual books (the online ones only appear from 2001 onwards I believe, plus the historic ones Kerry refers to below from pre-1900), then for the most part, no. And WA would have much more than 176 transclusions and would be significantly harder to replace given the variety of uses. Orderinchaos 22:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 176 transclusions, this is a useful and sensible way of marshalling citations to a single source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the "Title" instead of "title" in Shire of Booringa that User:Ricky81682 corrected was just typo on my part when I was adding a lot of citations to articles on former local government areas. I don't think it's a problem with the template itself? Kerry (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is minor I admit but isn't this just the cite news template with the work parameter filled out? Is this required to keep these citations together? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like being able to use AutoWikiBrowser to perform tasks over every article in a category or every article that transcludes a particular template. If they were all just stand-alone citations, I could not do that. Having some "commonality" makes tool use feasible for housekeeping. Finding those 176 articles would be a lot harder without the template transclusion. Also, the Qld Govt Gazette is being digitised. You can find the the pre-1900 ones at [1] so keeping it as a template facilitates adding the URL. There's a lot more benefit from using templates than just the transclusion. And even if the only benefit was still the transclusion, I'd still appreciate any saving in typing when you use lots of those citations as I do. I have a permanently broken arm so, while savings in typing might not be very important to you, such saving are important to others. If you look at my user page, you will see many of my frequently used citations ready for copy-and-paste to reduce my typing effort, as well as my partiality for using tools. Kerry (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts it says "All users, regardless of disability, should be able to read, navigate, and contribute to Wikipedia easily" (my emphasis).Kerry (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, having the parameters within cite news and easily visible to all editors is a better way to allow contributions than to have various articles stored within other templates. I'm not sure how more users can contribute if they see Cite Gazette QLD but that's just me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep using commons sense, single source templates offer consistency, easy of use, and comply with source attribution requirements. Additionally as coincidentally happened recently in Queensland that government changed urls they provide the quickest, simplest, and easiest way to reestablish all the links something vitally important to our readers, our sources and one of our key policies WP:V . Gnan garra 07:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Lynch 1901 Vol 2

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) 22:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lynch 1901 Vol 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template only used on a single archived article talk page. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Thomson 1978

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) 22:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thomson 1978 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template previously used on two articles. With this edit and these edits it's orphaned absent one use on an archived talk page. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Fritsch1945

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) 22:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fritsch1945 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template previously only used at one article. With this edit, it's now orphaned. It's particularly problematic because the citation at Kelp was [6]:226 which I presume referred to page 226 but this template hard-codes page 939 so I don't know which is correct (or if 226 referred to something else). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox medical condition

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 withdrawn by nominator. Alakzi (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Authority control (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox medical condition with Template:Authority control.
An authority control template masquerading as an infobox. The merge would involve (a) incorporating all authority control parameters of the former into the latter template; (b) adding {{Authority control}} to the bottom of all articles containing the infobox; and (c) removing authority control parameters from the infobox itself. The infobox would then develop as a proper infobox, as envisioned. During (b), authority control key–value pairs would be cut-and-pasted into {{Authority control}}.

We might also want to consider adding a switch between broad thematic categories (e.g. medicine, history, etc.) to {{Authority control}}. At present, it only caters to biographical resources. Alakzi (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose firstly, the two medical condition templates were to be merged, per a previous TfD. This has yet to be done (the merge was reverted; and a deletion review is still ongoing), but one has been deleted, with no TfD, and the other renamed to this name. That merged template should have regular infobox parameters, as discussed in This infobox is incomprehensible; and that should be done first. We have similar identifiers in the templates {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}}; if this is to be changed, there should be a centralised RfC. Secondly, the current {{Authority control}} is for people, and should stay that way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This has yet to be done (the merge was reverted; and a deletion review is still ongoing), but one has been deleted, with no TfD, and the other renamed to this name. Yes, I commented on that at the DRV. I thought it might just be better to, uh, let it all slide. It would seem that (some) people are adamant not to accept the previous TfD outcome. There's consensus for an infobox that'll basically duplicate the old {{Infobox medical condition}} in the talk section I linked to above. What I believe should've been done is to reverse the merge, and convert {{Infobox disease}} into an {{Authority control}}-derivative, but I chose the path of least resistance (or so I thought). Secondly, the current {{Authority control}} is for people, and should stay that way. Would it then be preferable to fork {{Authority control}}? Alakzi (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose Why merge? What is the benefit / purpose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Infobox medical condition}} is a collection of authority control identifiers, which is what {{Authority control}} is for, though restricted to biographical catalogues. Infoboxes are meant for presenting articles' key facts; and external links shouldn't sport so prominently. Alakzi (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of those authority controls apply to medicine. So this is not an improvement. Template infobox disease has existed since 2005. It contains what it contains through years of discussion and consensus. To change it further requires significant discussion. We as the community who work on medical content decide what "infoboxes are meant for presenting" Remember WP:IAR Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of those authority controls apply to medicine. Yes, none do and hence the merge proposal. Do note, the contents of it will not change; its appearance and placement will. This is what {{tl|Authority control}}, which is customarily placed below navboxes, looks like: {{Authority control |VIAF=59263727 |LCCN=n/79/113947 |ISNI=0000 0000 8138 6064 |GND=119408643 |SUDOC=066924146 |BNF=13746617f |MBA=9dd93d09-24b4-41f1-a48b-ef48b07499c3 |NDL=00620343 }}

It contains what it contains through years of discussion and consensus. ... I've not suggested to steamroller any change through without the infobox's maintainers' consent. In addition, there's been plenty of discussion about changing it in some way or another on the template talk page (see Template talk:Infobox disease#Perhaps this infobox should not be the primary medical condition infobox, Template talk:Infobox disease#Adding further parameters and Template talk:Infobox disease#This infobox is incomprehensible). Alakzi (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so you are proposing eliminating the medical infobox and instead having a template at the bottom with the control identifiers? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except for eliminating the infobox. That'll depend on if there's consensus to add any new parameters to it. If not, then yeah, it'll have to go. The picture will be placed in the article the usual way. Alakzi (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We as the community who work on medical content decide what "infoboxes are meant for presenting"" That is not the case. We do not subdivide our community in that manner; and policy is that the community at large makes such decisions, by consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a) The content of the recently re-named {{Infobox medical condition}} is in no way related to the content of {{Authority control}}. The whole point of the Medical Condition infobox is that it contains only information that relates to the domain of human medicine. i.e. it is specific to a particular subset of articles. b) The information in the infobox is instantly understandable to me without clicking any of the links, whereas I doubt that anyone has the ability to do this with the Authority control set of data items. c) Authority control has a specific bibliographic purpose. Merging it with the Infobox would create an unwieldy conglomeration of disparate fields from different domains. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge of the identifiers only. I thank the nominator for his/her bold proposal. I agree that for the majority of users ICD and other disease codes do not have a benefit other than as authority control. I don't support merging any other parts of the infobox though. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Yes I am fine with adding the identifiers to the authority template. But it should not involve merging the template in question.~~ Per Blue Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nether of the templates is tagged for merging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I can't edit the templates. Will some kind soul do it for me? Alakzi (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this proposal. The two templates to be merged are mentioned (but not tagged, ouch), but the nom also introduces strong suggestions and requirements for other templates. Clearly ideas have not been fleshed out, and other ideas have been left out. As we experienced just last week with an earlier imposed merge-because-of-TfD in this, TfD can not make an infeasible situation feasible. I note that the topic is huge, also for the 'receiving' template (new parameters are shoved into that one, the first non-person's at that). Best to nullify this TfD, and build consensus at the involved talkpages first. -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This procedural oppose has no basis on any policy, guideline, norm, or practice. TfD isn't Atlantis; I'm sure that interested parties will be able to find their way here. Alakzi (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Building consensus on a talkpage first is common and preferred practice. -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support idea oppose this proposal There should be no merge into the authority control template. This template is already serving a purpose and the medical information proposed for a merge is not the same kind of authority control as the library authority control links that this template currently hosts. However, I would support the creation of a different template to capture the medical equivalent of "authority control". Right now, Infobox disease is already serving that purpose mostly, but the future of that template is still being discussed in other places. I think the idea of collecting medical links is good. My intuition is that the best way to do that is with some clarification on the use of Infobox disease. Infobox disease is imagined to be a typical Wikipedia infobox, but it is not serving that purpose right now, and instead doing something more like this authority control template. There should be a plan to cover several related interests before anything is moved, merged, or changed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquent. -DePiep (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is a desire to change the infobox disease, massive amounts of work will be required. While many feel that the current one is not perfect, something better is needed before I would support getting rid of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Housecroft&Sharpe

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) 22:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Housecroft&Sharpe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used in just one article. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have a naming scheme for these? Something like "cite prefilled ...". Editors would then be able to search for citations using prefix:Template:cite prefilled. Alakzi (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a category for them, Category:Specific-source templates. Eventually I assume we'll move like I think it's the French wikipedia or something and possibly have all sources organized through wikidata or something but that's not being done right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I forgot incategory exists. Thanks. Alakzi (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's a keyboard macro that does nothing except save keystrokes. Needlessly complex, as other editors won't recognize it and will have to look it up. Requires a separate template for every edition. Embeds a hard-coded Citation style cite, which may not be compatible with the citation style in other articles. I used to write keyboard macros for boilerplate like this, but gave it up because they are too hard to remember. Let's just write out a normal cite that everybody can understand.– Margin1522 (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per Margin1522 —PC-XT+ 03:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Massa2nd

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) 22:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Massa2nd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used in exactly one article at the moment. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per Margin1522, as it needs to be substituted to make changes such as adding a page number in the template or changing the citation style —PC-XT+ 03:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:29CFR1910.1018

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) 22:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:29CFR1910.1018 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used in one article alone. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, as it needs to be substituted if the citation style doesn't match the article, anyway —PC-XT+ 03:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:RXNO cat

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 relisted on 2015 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:March7th

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) 22:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:March7th (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not used in any articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that .. could be used elsewhere. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete T3 -- Gadget850^talk 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 03:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:March5th

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) 22:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:March5th (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Other than as a potential template, this is used in exactly one article. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:Beetstra Christian75 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as single-use template which requires substitution in order to match the citation style, anyway —PC-XT+ 03:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Loudon4th

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) 22:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Loudon4th (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Excluding sandbox usages and a listing as an template that could be used, it's used in exactly two articles and could be subst and deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as it hardcodes citation style, instead of matching to articles —PC-XT+ 03:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Elschenbroich3rd

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) 22:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elschenbroich3rd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As with second edition, hard-coding of a citation that is used in one article and otherwise listed as part of the templates that could be used for articles Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as single-use template that doesn't take into account citation styling differences in articles —PC-XT+ 03:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Elschenbroich2nd

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) 22:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elschenbroich2nd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard-coding of a citation that is used in one article and otherwise listed as part of the templates that could be used for articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as single-use template that doesn't take into account citation styling differences in articles —PC-XT+ 03:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:BLB11th

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) 21:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLB11th (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BLB11th/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's not used in any articles. The only current usage is a listing at part of the deprecated Chemicals style guidelines and Chemistry list of references. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that .. could be used elsewhere. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not require it to actually be used? By that logic, we could write templates for every book in existence in case they are used. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after substitution or other replacement, if appropriate, as unused template that doesn't take into account citation styling differences —PC-XT+ 03:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Mylo Xyloto track listing

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, per this and prior discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Viva la Vida track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous consensus on templates like this, it should be deleted as well —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to an example of the consensus? That would make it easier to discuss. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment The deletion of those templates, and I believe it's the rationale being applied here, was because of the existence of a songs template for those artists; in this case, {{Coldplay songs}}, making navigation redundant. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: do you know how to find if there are similar templates still existing? If so we can list them all for deletion. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologize for the late response on this. There's also Template:Ghost Stories track listing and others are categorized in Category:Album track list templates. I have a list of about 50 that I'd like to nominate at some point in time but for a few different reasons so an all-in-one bundle wouldn't be appropriate I don't think. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete redundant to other forms of navigation. Frietjes (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's used in many pages, and honestly I don't see any problem with this template... ^{(^_^)FilBenLeafBoy(^_^)}(Let's TALK!) 22:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:SIRIUSChannels

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) 21:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template of defunct radio lineup (Sirius has long become Sirius XM), already replaced suitably by Template:Sirius XM Channels (music) / Template:Sirius XM Channels (music). Moreover, the channel numbers present on the template violate WP:NOTDIR, but that's secondary. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is redundant. Spumuq (talq) 11:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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