Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 9

< August 8	August 10 >

August 9

Template:Coi-stern

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

The result of the discussion was Redirect {{Coi-stern}} to {{Uw-coi}} (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coi-stern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-coi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Coi-stern with Template:Uw-coi.
The message in {{Coi-stern}} is weaker and less comprehensive than {{Uw-coi}}, even though the former template is supposed to be "stern". Adding a background and border to {{Uw-coi}} would strengthen the impact of the template and eliminate the need for {{Coi-stern}} entirely. Alternatively, just delete or redirect {{Coi-stern}}. — Newslinger talk 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think that {{Coi-stern}} could simply become a redirect to the more comphrehensive {{Uw-coi}}. —Paleo Neonate – 20:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no merge: I see no need for background and border. They reduce contrast, especially for the blue links, and makes me personally less likely to read the message. Redirecting Coi-stern to uw-coi sounds good; let's do so without modifying the very good uw-coi template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect or just delete I didn't even know this "stern" one existed. The main one is better. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect the stern one seems fine (in the event anyone is using it). Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:People and slavery

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:People and slavery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unclear inclusion criteria. Unlikely to perform a useful navigational function if expanded. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --wooden superman 09:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Both vague and overbroad; this wouldn't do even as a category, since any connection to slavery at all (whether as an abolitionist, a slaveholder, or a slave) would be encompassed. Currently holds 3 "X and slavery" articles split from a U.S. president's bio, plus a 4th (Hamilton) that was the template author's WP:POVFORK that didn't survive AfD and now redirects to a section. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The inclusion criterion could not be more clear: if an article exists titled "[person's name] and slavery," it gets included. In contrast to the claim that it is 'overbroad,' it is actually extremely specific. Nor is there anything vague about this. If you were to create an Aristotle and slavery article or a Thomas Carlyle and slavery article, they would merit inclusion; conversely, if you were to create a History of slavery in Russia article, it would not merit inclusion. (That said, since the Alexander Hamilton and slavery article no longer exists, if you wish to remove it from the present template, I would certainly not object. My only objection would be to the (probably-unintentional) insinuation that its deletion bears any relevance to whether this template merits existing.) This template is of value to those Wikipedia readers looking for articles that deal directly with individual historical figures' relationships with slavery, and that is what matters here. (In fact, I sincerely hope that more "[person's name] and slavery" articles get written and, subsequently, added to this template, so that such individuals can find what they're looking for.) allixpeeke (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: allixpeeke (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this TfD.

Delete overbroad and unclear; fails WP:NAVBOX. SportingFlyer talk 09:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete too vague of an inclusion criteria. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question — Saying that the template is "vague" or "unclear" and simply leaving it at that is, ironically enough, itself both vague and unclear. I hope this does not sound snarky, as I am asking this in all sincerity: Can someone please explain to me in what sense the template is vague or unclear? I honestly do not understand and, perhaps if I did understand, I could improve it so that it would cease being vague, cease being unclear. For example, if I should change the header from People and slavery to Individual historical figures and their relationships to the slave question, would that suffice in rendering the template's inclusion criterion clear and specific? Or, would that still be too vague in the eyes of my fellow Wikipedians? Would more be required in order to make this template salvageable?
Actually, having thought about it, I am going to go ahead and make that change to the header now. Hopefully, that action will be sufficient to render the template's inclusion criterion clear- and specific-enough to merit retaining. But, in the event that you, my fellow Wikipedians, do not believe that that action suffices, I humbly request that you tell me what else about this template renders it vague, overbroad, or unclear; that you tell me what other changes would need to be made in order for you to regard this template as salvageable. (In addition to changing the heading, I am also removing Alexander Hamilton and slavery from the template, as that article no longer exists, and am adding John Quincy Adams and abolitionism to the template, since that one does.)
allixpeeke (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not to be snarky, but you've reviewed WP:NAVBOX, yes? This navbox by my estimation currently fails 1, 3, 4, and 5. SportingFlyer talk 06:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to question — Thank you for asking, SportingFlyer. Yes, you are correct: I have reviewed that text.
First, technically those items that are listed are not requirements for every template, but rather broad guidelines for what generally constitutes a good template. Of course, that's probably beside the point, because…
Second, the only one I concede to you is number four. It is true that there is not a single article titled either People and slavery or Individual historical figures and their relationships to the slave question. I do not think the lack of such an article, however, is sufficient to render the template unworthy of existing.
Third, with regard to number five, clearly editors would be inclined to link to different articles currently contained in the template. Thus, if you go to (A) Abraham Lincoln and slavery#See also, (B) George Washington and slavery#See also, or (C) John Quincy Adams and abolitionism#See also, you will find that editors were already inclined to link between these various articles before I created the template. (Thomas Jefferson and slavery used to also link to the other articles in question, but User:Brad101 decided that the entire 'See also' section was "useless.")
Finally, and I ask this earnestly, how is the relationship of individual historical figures to the question of slavery not a single, coherent topic? It's certainly coherent in meaning, so I can only guess that you feel that it's not a single topic. Yet, the only thing that differs between the four articles currently contained in the template is the individual historical figure under analysis. (If one claims that that is enough to render the the subject something other than "a single, coherent subject," then one would have to say the same thing about my Religion and slavery template; after all, the difference between Christian, Islamic, and Jewish views on slavery (e.g.) is the individual religion under analysis. Yet, for all of its merits or defects, I honestly do not believe that anyone is going to go so far as to make the claim that that template does not cover "a single, coherent subject"; so, why, then, would one make such a claim about this one?) Or, perhaps more practically, what changes can possibly be made to this template in order to make it even more singular or coherent in focus than it already is?
Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relationship between the parties other than they are random "historical figures" where the criteria for inclusion is arbitrary and as noted, overbroad - any historical figure with any notable relationship to slavery would be able to be included. SportingFlyer talk 11:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response — With the exception of the words "arbitrary" and "overbroad," you are absolutely correct. Provided that the historical figure has a notable-enough relationship to the question of slavery that it merits the existence of a Wikipedia article about said relationship, said article would be included. That is neither overbroad, nor underbroad, but rather exactly the right amount of broadness. Anything more specific than that would be too specific. (Now, maybe, someday, there will come a time when we have hundreds and hundreds are articles on various historical figures' relationships to slavery, and at that time, we may need to revisit the question of specificity, but even if that point does someday come, it's not coming for a very, very long time.) allixpeeke (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the WP:NAVBOX criteria, and the WP:BOLD new title doesn't make sense. What is "the slave question", and why does it just link to slavery? Natureium (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response — Which criterion do you believe it fails, and why?
As for the new title, it makes perfect sense. You will frequently find, especially in nineteenth-century literature, reference to such things as "the slave question" and "the woman question." More or less, the slave question refers to the question of (A) whether slavery is a justifiable or unjustifiable institution, (B) why (or under what conditions) it is either justifiable or unjustifiable, (C) to the extent that it is justifiable, whether slaves possess any rights whatsoever upon which not even masters may infringe (and, if so, what rights those are, and why), and (D) to the extent that it is unjustifiable, (i) what practical solutions may be employed to eradicate it and (ii) whether we should aim for gradual repeal of the institution on the one hand or immediate abolition on the other. In a nutshell, that is what is referred to as "the slave question." The term appeared not only in small abolitionist papers with small circulations (although you will certainly find it there, as well), but even in papers as renowned as The New York Times. And, although the term is not as common in 21st-century literature as it was back when it was a burning question, its meaning is still clear enough to your average reader that even CliffsNotes has no problem casually employing it.
Finally, why does it simply link to "slavery"? Because, unlike the woman question, no one has, as of yet, written a Wikipedia article about the term the slave question (although someone certainly ought to).
Yours truly,
allixpeeke (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, although the scope has been improved, we now only have entries which appear to be covered by Template:Slavery. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Major English-language current affairs magazines

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major English-language current affairs magazines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subjective inclusion. Who decides what is "major"? Fails WP:NAVBOX --wooden superman 09:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems clear and inclusive. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better covered by categories and/or list articles. and, a few of the entries that I checked aren't really current affairs magazines, which is problematic. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague subjective criteria (both "major", and "current affairs", are vague terms, and there is no article on current affairs magazines to even have a criteria), many of them fail 3 out of the 4 criteria - being "major", covering "current affairs", or being a "magazine" - some are journals that publish fiction apparently... No indication this is a particular grouping either - articles don't have much relation to each other Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very vaguely defined and no referenced article on the topic that why they are major? Störm (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:@GERMANY

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

The result of the discussion was keep. "unclear name" is not a rationale for deletion, other deleting reasons rebutted. There does seem enough a consensus that the current name is problematic that I'll move it to {{@WPGERMANY}} (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:@GERMANY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unfinished, potentially problematic name. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as template "author." While it is unused, it's a finished template because I copied all the code and set up for this from WP:MILHIST. I'm going to need an explanation for the problematic name part, though. –Vami_IV✠ 05:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I copied and integrated this template for WP:G in case someone needed to reach the WikiProject Germany Coordinators - at this time, currently me - for a question or what have you. –Vami _IV✠ 05:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think a prospect of a rename is far better, than an outright deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 09:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like {{@WPGERMANY}}. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unclear name. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to a better title. As pages can be moved, "potentially problematic name" and "unclear name" are not reasons for deletion. Creator explained that it is finished. If a time comes when those active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany do not want it anymore, then it can be deleted. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At first glance its usage is unclear, so if it is kept the documentation needs to be updated. Looking at {{@MILHIST}}, I can see how it has the potential to be useful. However, is it really necessary for a project with one co-ordinator? Maybe they both should be renamed, perhaps including {{Ping}}? --wooden superman 10:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that {{@ArbComClerks}}, {{@FAC}}, {{@FAR}}, {{@TFA}}, {{@TANKC}} and {{@FLC}} exist. Not sure if there are others as they are difficult to search for. --wooden superman 10:54, 15 August 2018 (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).

TV series ratings graphs

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

The result of the discussion was substitute and delete. In other words, keep the graphs, but there were no substantial arguments to keep these in a separate template for reuse between multiple articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z Nation ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pretty Little Liars ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fargo (TV series) ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Leftovers ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Shameless ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Legends of Tomorrow ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Orphan Black ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Luther ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tyrant ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Psych ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bates Motel ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Friends ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Broad City ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Crazy Ex-Girlfriend ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Jane the Virgin ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Last Man on Earth ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Good Place ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ray Donovan ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Fosters (2013 TV series) ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Barry ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Code Black ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Young & Hungry ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Melissa & Joey ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Baby Daddy ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Younger ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nashville ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hell on Wheels ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Westworld ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The 100 ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Better Call Saul ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fear the Walking Dead ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Under the Dome ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:True Detective ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Walking Dead ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Legend of Korra ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Game of Thrones ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Riverdale ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Parks and Recreation ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Excessive per precedent at prior discussions here and here. --wooden superman 15:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've already had two major discussions about {{Television ratings graph}} in July 2017 and just recently July 2018, where no consensus to delete could be reached. Why don't you instead join the discussion here to try to form guidelines for its use. - Brojam (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last two discussions I note above in June and July this year both resulted in deletion of the templates. That is consensus. I wasn't aware of the other discussion, so thanks for pointing that out. --wooden superman 08:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly were aware since you voted on the one that closed July 15, 2018. - Brojam (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this discussion. The other discussion was for getting rid of the base template, not the individual templates. The recent discussions for getting rid of the individual templates have all resulted in deletion. --wooden superman 15:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, the two discussion to delete the base template have resulted in no consensus. What's the point of deleting the individual ones if you are not going to delete the base? - Brojam (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The base template is available in case there is a need for it. My personal view is that there is no need for any of them, and these should not be in template space, but, as someone has suggested below, if they are all substituted then we get them out of template space, and each can be judged at the relevant articles. --wooden superman 09:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I side with Brojam on this one. My perspective is that they add a visual summary to a show's ratings performance and illustrate a rise or decline. They're easy to digest and provide valid sources. - MyNameIsASDF (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How many times are we going to have the same discussion? Is this what "reaching consensus" means for some people? - Radiphus 16:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated in my nom, these templates nearly always get deleted by consensus, so I'm assuming that you're talking about the discussion regarding {{Television ratings graph}}, which is a different matter. See my responses to Brojam above. --wooden superman 15:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that {{Television ratings graph}} is visually and aesthetically useful in television series' articles for a better understanding on their ratings performance. I agree with MyNameIsASDF and Radiphus. --Mrs. Hastings 18:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnecessary duplication. "It looks pretty" isn't a reason, and we've already got viewership information in multiple locations. -- Alex^TW 00:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These templates are useful in that they visually illustrate the development of a show's rating, and they are therefore not duplicative of rating information given as text. Sandstein 06:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete single-use templates, no reason for these to be in template space; content can be merged with the article instead. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They offer nothing that a ratings table doesn't already provide. If you understand ratings you can easily spot declines, especially on list of episodes pages with multiple ratings tables. Ratings graphs are also heavily abused by people who seem intent on placing them absolutely everywhere. I had to remove one on the Preacher list of episodes page which was placed above three ratings tables. Esuka323 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute per Frietjes. Jc86035 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a good solution to break the impasse. That way, their merit can be judged on a page by page basis, and any completely useless and unused ones, such as {{Barry ratings}} will automatically disappear. --wooden superman 09:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should first form guidelines on how {{Television ratings graph}} should be used, after the ongoing discussion has concluded and a project-wide consensus has been reached. For example, if consensus is that the graph can be used in more than one page (main article, season articles, list of episodes), then these templates should not be deleted. Furthermore, we wouldn't know which templates should be merged with the articles, as we haven't decided on the minimum number of seasons and episodes a series should have or any other criteria guiding the template's use. These things are currently being discussed at WP TV and no action should be taken prematurely, as that would disrupt both the articles and the process of editorial decision making. - Radiphus 08:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sharing content between pages can be accomplished using LST. there is no reason to have these in separate templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit confused as to why people are putting graphs that source the entire shows ratings on season pages when said pages have ratings tables for the shows ratings. It seems pointless and unnecessary. Why do we need so much duplication as on those pages the viewers will be on the episodes table, ratings table and on the ratings graph. That's three lots of the same information. It's too much.

For example look at the Game of Thrones Season 7 page. The ratings graph for the entire shows numbers looks garish and out of place. There needs to be some kind of guidelines that prevent such excessive use of the graph because its clearly being abused. The entire shows numbers are irrelevant in season pages, what matters are the numbers for that season. Esuka323 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Substitute only if all of the information is kept exactly as it is now, i.e. both graphs and tables. Also implement lengthy moratorium on TfD noms for this series of templates – this is getting beyond ridiculous, as several other commenters have already pointed out. Modernponderer (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to prohibit these sorts of discussions won't solve the issue of the graphs being abused on Wikipedia TV pages. No one seems to want to talk about guidelines about when and how they should be used and I think that's a very valid concern that needs addressing. Look at how the same graph is used NINE times accross the Game of Thrones associated pages(Main page, season articles, list of episodes) with the SAME information. That's ridiculous and something no one could possibly justify. Esuka323 (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TfD is not the appropriate venue to discuss if a template is being used too much. And in this case, there is already a separate discussion about that. If, and only if, consensus is for these templates to be used in a single article each (article transclusion notwithstanding) then they should be merged on purely technical grounds – but such a consensus must be established first! Modernponderer (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thankyou for explaining. And apologies, I thought this was the place to get some kind of discussion going about graph usage but as its not I'll refrain from commenting further. It's just an issue that has become a huge problem in recent months due to certain editors abusing the template and not knowing when and where they belong on pages. Esuka323 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing more to say, I find it very aesthetic and easy to understand. --DownFame 18:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion is going nowhere. Different person a understanding different things because the premise is not clear. I propose we archive this discussion and start a new one with the 3 following option.
- Kept the templates as is.
- Inline the Television ratings graph‎, that would kept the pages as is, but will remove the template specific to a page.
- Delete the graph from the pages. --192.189.128.13 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support alternative proposal (though my previous !vote remains in case this discussion is not moved). Modernponderer (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think this is "going nowhere" at all. We seem to be building a consensus to subst and delete. However they should only be substituted on an overview/list of episodes article, and not on each and every season article. Then the merits of each table/graph can then be discussed individually on each page. --wooden superman 08:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (? as to the deletion attempt), interesting and the templates work well with the subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I remain unconvinced by arguments that these should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Graphs and visuals like this are perfect for displaying this type of information. Within seconds, you can easily digest a ratings trend for a series that you simply cannot do by scrolling and scrolling from episode table to episode table reading numbers. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:SZSECI

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No one wish to update the template to reflect the 500 constituents of the stock market index. This navigation template is dead Matthew_hk t c 09:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 09:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew hk maybe repurpose to instead be the SZSE_100_Index? Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to update Template:SZSE 100 Index more often. For SZSECI, with a max 50 constituents change quarterly, as well as 400 red links, it seem not quite necessary. Matthew_hk t c 14:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't realize there was already a navbox for SZSE 100 index. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now has 500 constituents, mainly red links, so doesn't make sense to have a navbox for it Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:S&P Asia 50

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

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition, reasonable arguments. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S&P Asia 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the constituents are unsourced and they were not listed in the articles S&P Asia 50. The full list can't even found in the index official webpage https://www.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-asia-50 ; the factsheet found in that webpage, only listed the top 10 constituents . Since these navigation template need semi-annually or even quarterly update, lack of such information make this template useless Matthew_hk t c 08:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 09:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V, that not mentioned in most of the articles that they are part of this index also makes it seem rather unimportant navigation Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:American think tanks

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American think tanks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too large to be useful as a navigational aid. Best left for categories and articles. --wooden superman 15:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there are hundreds of notable think tanks in the U.S., and organizing by the geography of their office is one of the least useful ways they could be organized in a template. I raised objections with the original creator on Talk but I don't think s/he "gets it." -- choster (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Keep; choster, I would like to know what your other objections are because I am the original creator of the template, not whomever you spoke to. While I will concede that the template is a long navigation box, could we, rather than deleting it, break the subgroups into separate navigation boxes instead of deleting it outright? I think having navigation boxes for think tanks is useful. -- Jajhill (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - As a pure template user, I'd say I'd like it to remain, but yes it would be of more use in subgroup form. However, not being someone who could effectively do the work it would be somewhat demanding of me to say "yes, that's the way it should be" Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better to use categories and/or list articles for something this large. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep, but subdivide in a manner similar to {{Simon Property Group}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Frietjes. Subdividing by geography of office is obviously not a useful organization. List/category works fine here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Help me-na

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Feel free to recreate it as a redirect. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help me-na (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template currently serves no function but to substitute {{Admin help}} for itself. It used to have a slightly different function, but it was boldly changed to the current one by Primefac, with the summary saying, "there's no point in telling a user that they need an admin and then make *them* add the admin help template", which I agree with, but also renders the template itself redundant in my opinion. Nardog (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-@Primefac:-Any comments? :-)∯WBG^converse 07:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issues with just getting rid of it and/or turning it into a redirect to {{admin help}}. Couldn't rightly tell you why I just didn't do that in the first place; maybe I felt it was a little too BOLD. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2018 (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).

Module:Redirect-distinguish

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. With this being the second time these templates have been listed, and no significant discussion this time around, I am defaulting back to the "no consensus" closes of the previous two discussions. While modules technically fall within the purview of TFD (and WikiProject Templates) the merger of these modules seems to raise questions regarding unnecessary bloat and complication that no one in the template field seems to want to tackle. In particular, the merging to an as-of-yet-uncreated meta template that will be the "final target" of all the mergers seems to be of concern.

As an additional note, we're not yet at the dead horse stage of things quite yet, but "[trying] a different tactic" in the hopes of getting the preferred outcome feels a little like policy shopping. A larger discussion (or a larger forum for discussion such as VPT or WPT) and/or creating a draft version of Module:Sentence list hatnote (to demonstrate its functionality) is the best option at this point. In other words, there is prejudice against a speedy renomination. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Redirect-distinguish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Sentence list hatnote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Redirect hatnote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Redirect-distinguish with Module:Sentence list hatnote and Module:Redirect hatnote.
Another example of a hatnote module that duplicates other hatnote modules. The hatnote content is the same kind of module as the modules merged below, whereas the tracking categories are duplicated with Module:Redirect hatnote and should be extracted into a separate function called by both templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:10, 9 August 2018 (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).

Module:Cat main

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. With this being the second time these templates have been listed, and no significant discussion this time around, I am defaulting back to the "no consensus" closes of the previous two discussions. While modules technically fall within the purview of TFD (and WikiProject Templates) the merger of these modules seems to raise questions regarding unnecessary bloat and complication that no one in the template field seems to want to tackle. In particular, the merging to an as-of-yet-uncreated meta template that will be the "final target" of all the mergers seems to be of concern.

As an additional note, we're not yet at the dead horse stage of things quite yet, but "[trying] a different tactic" in the hopes of getting the preferred outcome feels a little like policy shopping. A larger discussion (or a larger forum for discussion such as VPT or WPT) and/or creating a draft version of Module:Sentence list hatnote (to demonstrate its functionality) is the best option at this point. In other words, there is prejudice against a speedy renomination. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Cat main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Distinguish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Main list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Cat main, Module:Distinguish and Module:Main list.
Ok, let's try a different tactic on hatnote module merging after my previous attempt suffered from a lack of consensus. This set of three modules have very similar outward-facing functionality, and could easily be consolidated into one module taking parameters, which should be called Module:Sentence list hatnote, or something like that. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral—I think that the approach might have merit, but I'm not sure about the specifics of what you're merging, especially because Module:Sentence list hatnote doesn't exist yet. Among those suggested to be merged, {{distinguish}} doesn't quite match, mostly because of the text functionality that got merged into it a while back. I think TfD is the wrong venue for these discussions: we ought to be having an open-ended discussion about the architecture of hatnote templates rather than immediately drilling down into specific, nominally-binding TfD proposals. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The logical thing to do then would be to implicitly add a |text= parameter to all of the other such templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and we can argue implementation later (I'm not a fan of text parameters because they tend to be abused), but my most important point—that TfD is the wrong venue for these discussions—stands. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I agree that TfD isn't the best place for this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Greentext

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 August 24. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:Syrian opposition topics

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 August 24. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:Husbands of British princesses

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Husbands of British princesses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Being married to a British princess confers no status at all. It is ridiculous to have this template in articles such as Frederick V of Denmark, Ferdinand I of Romania, Haakon VII of Norway, Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden, Paul of Greece, etc, or to even group these men on this basis. We really need to set some boundaries for these royalty templates. They are multiplying like rabbits and every minor distinction is being navboxed. It always starts with British royalty and then spreads everywhere. What's next, Template:Children of British princesses? Surtsicna (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for nominating this template for deletion, Surtsicna, as I was about to do the same thing. Most of the people listed in this template already belong to other royal houses, thus the info presented by this template is repetitive. The other issue is that no such position as "Husband of a British princess" exists. Unlike women, whose husbands' feminine form of titles gets bestowed on them upon marriage, men do not necessarily become a British prince upon marrying a female member of the royal house. Prince Philip is an exception. Keeping this template will also probably lead to the creation of other unnecessary templates such as Template:Husbands of Danish princesses, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 15:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We already have templates for British princes, British princesses by birth and British princesses by marriage. This template simply completes the square. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it does not, because the situations are not comparable. British princes and princesses hold the title Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom, belong to the British royal family, and have roles and duties in British society. Husbands of British princesses hold no special title, rank, or position as such. Even those who are British subjects have no clear or automatic role in the royal family or society, let alone foreign kings. It is ridiculous to group men like Ferdinand I of Romania and Haakon VII of Norway in a template on the basis of their marriages, which do not define them and from which they derive no notability. This is as trivial as Template:British princesses with blond hair would be. Surtsicna (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The template does not even include all men married to British princesses; the scope of the template is impossible to determine because the distinction of being married to a British princess is itself trivial. Prince Harry is now also married to a British princess, but he is not in the template. Indeed, every lawfully wedded British prince (with the possible exception of the Duke of Windsor) is or was husband of a British princess, since every woman married to a British prince is a British princess. Please note that Category:Husbands of British princesses has also been created. In nearly every case it is non-defining (thus against WP:CATDEFINING). In addition to being anglocentric, it is also quite possibly offensive to define kings of Sweden, Norway, Greece, and Romania as husbands of British princesses. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are so not right in your comment. Prince Harry is a prince by birth while his wife is princess in right of her marriage to Harrry only. The template includes husbands of British princesses in their own right, by birth. Kowalmistrz (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The template does not say "Husbands of British princesses by birth". It's "Husbands of British princesses". Meghan is a British princess, and Harry is the husband of a British princess. The template says one thing and means another. Ultimately, it serves no purpose. It connects men across Europe, of various occupations (from a photographer and an equestrian to kings and an emperor), on the basis of a non-defining and trivial distinction of being married to women from the same family. Surtsicna (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F411:792E:DC7F:2644 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am happy to rename it "Husbands of British Suo Jure Princesses" or similar, but I would have thought that the distinction would be fairly obvious to most readers. Surtsicna's criticism is excessively pedantic in this regard. I am also perplexed by the assertion that it is "trivial" or even "offensive" to note that these men, in addition to their own merits, were married to British royal women (without even getting into how you can offend people who, in most cases, are long dead). I know that husbands do not generally take their wives' titles or status - hence I did not call them British princes by marriage - but it is ridiculous to act as if these men did not exist at all. Being the spouse of the British prime minister (whether male or female) does not confer any style or rank, yet we still have a category page and succession box for it. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the spouse of a British prime minister confers a role and rank in the British society. Being married to a British princess does not give a man any role in the United Kingdom. Not having Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden and Ferdinand I of Romania in a template like that does not mean that they did not exist, but that they are not ever defined as such. That makes that distinction trivial. Grouping them as "husbands of British princesses" is not offensive to them but to their nations. It is an extremely anglocentric view of the world. I hope you agree it would be just as ridiculous to have Edward VII in a Template:Husbands of Danish princesses along with Juan Carlos I of Spain, Eric X of Sweden, Frederick II of the Palatinate, Christian I of Saxony, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see nothing wrong with "Husbands of Danish princesses" or husbands of any other country's princesses. I would not find it offensive to Britain in any way and I cannot see how any other country would be offended by a footnote of whom their royal men married. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let us hope it will not come down to that. Wikipedia should strive to maintain some standards. And if you honestly cannot see the absurdity in grouping a 20th century British monarch with a 15th century German lord on the basis of their marital choices (or eye color, or hobbies, or whatever), this discussion is futile. Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should the category Category:Husbands of British princesses be discussed as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:993C:F5E3:4CA0:A3D1 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to add that comparing this template to Template:British princesses by marriage seems like false equivalence, as that category doesn't list all wives of British princes, just those that held the title of princess. For example, Lady Augusta Murray, Cecilia Underwood, 1st Duchess of Inverness, and Sarah Fairbrother were wives of British princes, but did not gain the title of Princess, so they are not included in the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.117.187 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The three women listed were not wives of British princes, for their unions were invalid under the Royal Marriages Act. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuitable topic for a navbox. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --wooden superman 14:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Pre-1911 Chinese Military

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pre-1911 Chinese Military (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is way too generic to be useful. There have been thousands of battles and wars throughout China's long history (the template currently only includes a tiny proportion of them). It makes no sense to include them all in one template. Zanhe (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It lacks the necessary specificity to actually be useful, as the the scope is too broad. --Cold Season (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. too broad to be useful. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the creator has moved the template from Template:Chinese Military History to Template:Pre-1911 Chinese Military after my nomination and removed all the battles. It might be useful if the scope is narrowed. Could you explain your intentions here, Qiushufang? -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I was simply trying to create a template for easy access to topics related to aspects of Chinese military history prior to 1911. I see now that I overreached by trying to include each and every individual campaign and battle, which I've realized is completely too large a scope and makes for needless clutter. Still I think it's a good ideal to at least have a hub of links to Chinese armies and some of the aspects which made up Chinese military tradition over the past 2000 years.
Keep and while individual battles and campaigns are too much indeed I think to include wars would be well within a reasonable scope. In general there is lots of Chinese military history with comparably few templates yet; with 1911 being a good point to split modern China from its imperial past. ...GELongstreet (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping--@Zanhe, Frietjes, and Cold Season:--Can you clarify your stands, in light of the recent changes to the scope of the template?∯WBG^converse 09:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- looks like WP:OR to me, and doesn't link to Military history of China before 1911. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is inclusion-worthy from the past millenia (minus the most recent century now)? Are we going to list every single military text for example or is Chinese military texts a more-proper entry (especially for a template with such a large scope)? Since "[the] goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space." Then there's Gunpowder weapons in the Ming dynasty (a more all-encompassing article) as an entry in the template at the same level as Fire lance, so navigation could use improvement. It's better than the earlier form of this template at least, but I remain wary. --Cold Season (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 9 August 2018 (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).