Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 17 February 19 >

February 18

[edit]

Module:Str endswith

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Module:String. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Str endswith with Module:String.
Consolidate string-related module functions under Module:String {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (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:Text count

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Module:String. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Text count with Module:String.
Consolidate string-related module functions under Module:String {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (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:String count

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Module:Page and Module:Text count (Version using those modules written in Template:String count/sandbox) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2019 (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:Listify

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 7. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:10, 7 March 2019 (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:Railway line header

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 7. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:10, 7 March 2019 (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:R to AfC namespace

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion - unused redirect template, marked as deprecated ~4 years ago. Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (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:FCC history cards

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion - This template was deprecated last year by its creator and only contributor as the FCC stopped updating the HTML page which this template links to. If a link is needed, it should be replaced with a direct link instead. See User talk:DrChuck68/Archives/2019/February#FCC history cards and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Template:FCC history cards for more details. Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2019 (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:BS-map

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed replacing {{BS-map}} (and its supporting templates) with {{Routemap}} - since 2015 this template has been marked as superseded by {{Routemap}} as the newer template has shorter loading time, smaller template size and displays correctly on mobile. Since there is no point in maintaining two templates which do the same thing AND as mobile usage has grown in those 3 years, current usages should be converted to the newer template. Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 11#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format. Pinging participants at that discussion: @Jc37, Jc86035, Sameboat, SMcCandlish, Redrose64, Useddenim, Epicgenius, Mjroots, and Lamberhurst:. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous consensus that editors are free to use whichever they prefer, and that diagrams should not be convereted from BS to Routemap format without good reason (usually technical). Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't what the previous discussion resulted in so please do not present it as such. Also, as stated in the template itself, there are technical reasons why to convert - this template loads slower and displays incorrectly on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Also, templates using {{Routemap}} are easier to modify, as it is not necessary to change the supporting templates when columns are added/removed. Useddenim (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. @Gonnym: It would be more appropriate to deprecate and replace all of the BS-table templates ({{BS-table}}, {{BS-table1}} and {{Railway line header}}) first, as they have been deprecated since mid-2011 (originally to be replaced by {{BS-map}}). Overall, {{Routemap}} is now used more than the BS-series templates (despite only being introduced in mid-2015), being used directly on 5,127 pages, whereas the older templates are only used directly on 4,418 pages. {{BS-map}} is used directly on 2,642 pages, and the BS-table templates are used directly on 2,079 pages. (All counts are approximate.) While I would personally still prefer the complete replacement of the BS-series templates, there are a small but significant number of editors who are much more familiar with the older templates (as demonstrated by the 2016 RfC, which I initiated). Furthermore, manual replacement would still be required for almost all of the templates (despite the existence of the Lua conversion function) due to changes in diagram style/icon conventions over time and small incompatibilities in function between the templates (e.g. inline text, slight icon overlap differences). The issues with mobile devices would probably remain, though mainly because no one has implemented a fix yet. Jc86035 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The replacement should be done to all sub-templates at the same time as they are all dependent on each other. Regarding the manual operation, no-one said this would be done by a bot if one cannot do it, but by placing it in the holding cell, it would mean more eyes on it and eventually get done. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonnym: The only overall dependency, as far as I'm aware, is that all of the old templates require the {{BS}} series of templates to function. {{BS-map}} only requires those row templates and is otherwise functionally separate from the pre-2011 templates. Jc86035 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be, but that isn't one template. Looking at the first 5 templates - that's {{BS}}, {{BS2}}, {{BS3}}, {{London-railway-routemap}}, {{BS10}}, {{BS5-2}}, {{BS3-2}}, {{BS-2}}, so I wouldn't say there aren't more dependencies. --Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonnym: I don't understand what you're saying in the above comment. {{London-railway-routemap}} is just a documentation template that happens to be on the same page and has nothing to do with the diagram code. Individual diagrams would have to be replaced all at once, of course, but the replacement and deletion of the other subtemplates (assuming the consensus is to replace {{BS-map}}) would have to be dependent on the replacement of the deprecated pre-2011 templates which are used in conjunction with them but which don't use {{BS-map}}. Jc86035 (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - both templates are still in common use. Deletion proposals should only occur once content has been migrated. Neith-Nabu (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neith-Nabu: This is a merger proposal, or at least it appears to me to be one (and the procedure outlined by the nominator would suggest that). I think it would be inappropriate to close the discussion procedurally now just because it doesn't contain the word "merging", considering the number of editors who have participated. Jc86035 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if by not placing the word "merger" there was some confusion. By reading the template documentation I understood that the new template is a complete replacement, meaning that there really is no merger (of code) needed, only of replacing one usage with another. I've also not written the word "delete" in the proposal so not sure why you thought that was what I proposed. --Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Still way too many templates in use right now. Cards84664 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cards84664: As above, this is a merger proposal, and I think it's appropriate for the discussion to occur now. Jc86035 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the goal but not this tactic; deprecate and replace dependent templates first, per Jc86035's detailed explanation. This is a WP:THEREISNODEADLINE matter. Not everyone is 100% happy with everything about the technologically better base template, so let's give the community time to work on it, adjust, hash out more pros and cons, etc. PS: I also agree that some early opposers are misrepresenting the earlier discussion (not out of ill will, but just taking away from it what they want to hear). The actual amount of participation in it was too low to be statistically meaningful anyway. Regardless, a "no consensus" RfC cannot possibly be "previous consensus" against this TfD or the underlying idea. That's like concluding that your neighbor is your best friend simply because he's not tried to kill you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whether to have routemaps generated by Lua and the exact syntax of the input are being falsely equated here by the opposing side. Nothing prevents someone from writing a templates that output {{routemap}} syntax but takes the {{BS-map}} parameter style (exactly like what happens when BS templates are currently substituted, but is transcluded rather than substituted), No arguments have been presented against routemaps using {{RDTr}},and a RDT using that template should satisfy both the support and the opposition. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Updated to take into account the existence of {{RDTr}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: I created {{RDTr}} years ago for this purpose but it doesn't seem to have been used by anyone. However, if a unified format is desired then that template would also eventually have to be deprecated, especially considering how much easier it is to draw complex overlays in Routemap syntax (and given the lack of a conversion function from Routemap to the old format).

{{BS-map|legend=0|collapsible=0|map= {{BS2|c|O1=STRq lime|O12=uvSTRq|dSTR|O2=lHST blue}} }}

Furthermore, there are some small incompatibilities which would prevent a transition based around replacing {{BS-map}} through this method (it would be impossible to replace the pre-2011 templates like this). For example, overlays in {{Routemap}} work slightly differently: in the old templates, all icons to the right are placed over any icons to the left, but in {{Routemap}}, this is not true for icons at the bottom layer (i.e. icons to the left can be placed over some icons to the right). Jc86035 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose when constructing an RDT, the format of the {{BS}} row templates is easy to deduce but the syntax of {{routemap}} is weird and non-intuitive. This is the sort of conversion that is proposed. Then there are the problems encountered when I am doing something out of the ordinary: with {{BS}} etc. which are written in Wiki markup, I can trace through the code step by step and resolve the issue. However, Lua is way beyond me: I simply cannot trace the code through to find out why something that I wish to achieve is not behaving as I would wish. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but reserve - I am with SMcCandlish that if the issue be brought to the wider community, we are likely reaching the consensus to completely deprecate the BS templates in favor of Routemap. But not until the usage of the legacy BS templates are down to a very small number, perhaps transcluded in fewer than 100 articles. -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Deleting it would break pages. Either replace all instances of BS-map, or have Routemap read BS-map syntax. Ythlev (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ythlev: As usual, no one is suggesting that the template should be deleted without replacement. Jc86035 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What Jc86035 said. --Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep, because it is useful for importing diagrams from the German Wikipedia. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NearEMPTiness: The Routemap conversion works without BS-map, so it wouldn't necessarily prevent importing diagrams. Jc86035 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am with RedRose64. The BS-map is easier to use. The other template is quite difficult, and I owuld hope that we would have better tutorial materials to assist with map creation under the latter. Furthermore, with having well over 4,000 maps under the older system that is a lot of work at risk of being lost, or a lot of work needing re-doing.Dogru144 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dogru144: No individual diagrams are directly at risk of being lost through this nomination, because they're... not going to be deleted. (In any case, because of the large number of icon renames over the years, a lot of old revisions are already broken.) Most of the manual "re-doing" needed should be done regardless of the template format (the actual format conversion itself can usually be done in under a minute), but I think if the nomination succeeds it would be preferable to ask those converting the templates to also edit the diagrams so that they don't look idiosyncratic and don't have any text size issues and so on. Jc86035 (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Added considerations: the Routemap is better suited to modern route maps, as it accounts for overpasses, transfers to high speed rail, numbers of platforms, rails at stations, and distances from bus terminals. In nearly every case for historical maps, such information is far too difficult to find: position of overpassing/underpassing roads, positions of additional tracks and locations of bus terminals (these are known to be relocated often, even in the modern era). Routemap may be appropriate for the modern era, where this information is available, but too much conjecture would be used to apply this map to the past itineraries.Dogru144 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't make sense. If not enough data exists to fill in a {{routemap}} map, then by the same argument not enough data exists to fill in a {{BS-map}} map. The two kinds of RDT produce the same kind of output when rendered. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a valid argument. The elements to render all the features you mention are provided by the pictogram files on Commons. BS-map and Routemap merely provide the way to stack them and format them meaningfully. BS-map can give the same result as Routemap if not for the template size limit and other new features introduced to Routemap exclusively. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet : there are three issues to solve first
    1. This template is used for waterways not just railways- I remember tweeking the code to within an inch of its life to render the effect I needed (sorry no example but it was back 2007/2008 ish) We need to see the testing schedule and results for waterways. (incidently collapsible sections appears broken in Firefox Template:Bridgewater Canal map)
    2. Training and support material- a technical change like this needs to be exceedingly well internally documented in terms the user will understand, not terms that the lua-coder understands, there needs to be transition documentation available and tutorial material. Existing training material held by individual trainers needs to be evaluated and in most cases rewritten.
    3. Syntax: This inherits most of the weird coding of the BS-icons and adds a further layer of obfuscation. Take separators BS uses a backslash but wiki templates everywhere else use pipe- it I am attempting to teach a new editor to write a route template- I have to teach both. This needs to be resolved- and the two systems rum in parallel. Maintenance (adding HS2 or bypassed to existing diagrams)is done by experienced editors- not necessarily technophiles. I think I am justified in saying that this is too soon but I applaud the intention. ClemRutter (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ClemRutter:
    1. I don't think diagrams for waterways would experience any additional technical issues that diagrams for railways wouldn't; they're constructed using the same templates. {{Bridgewater Canal map}} appears fine to me (Firefox 65.0.1) in Vector, Monobook and Timeless. What exactly appears to be broken for you?
    2. Most of the relevant material, if not already covered by {{Routemap}}, is located at WP:RDT. I don't think there is any other relevant material that would need to be updated, particularly since over 40 helper templates would be obsoleted. (The current WP:RDT tutorial is also somewhat lacking; it completely ignores the existence of icons that aren't square, for instance.)
    3. I agree that the syntax is perhaps too abstract (I'm not going to discuss it at length here because I've already done so above as well as in the 2016 RfC), but I had no part in its original development, and the module is now used on about 40 different WMF wikis. Even if a new row template is successfully implemented so that users wouldn't have to remember the separators, I doubt that most current {{Routemap}} users would deliberately choose to switch to using it (and no one has yet written a back-conversion function).
    Jc86035 (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc86035:
    1. Firefox 57.0 Firefox for Linux Mint- The collapsed icons are indented by 1/5th of an icon (100 px nominally) This is a Firefox issue as when tested on Chromium it was perfect. The problem as a trainer is that your students will be bringing all sorts of laptops- and you lose credibility if you say one thing and their browser says another.
    2. Genau! Exactly. Trainers have their own material to make up for the deficiency. This is esoteric as I have never been asked to instruct on BS-Icons- but we always have the grey hair guy who will say- I only have come this afternoon to find out about ------. The approach is- well just look at this tutorial page I have here. I am worried that we are using the argument- well the existing documentation is lacking, and we assume that the new documentation will be almost as good!
    3. Having watched in horror the detail that editors go to producing a GA- where the source code is beautiful too, we need to aim for some consistency.ClemRutter (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ClemRutter:
    1. The issue (as usual) is that Helvetica and Arial have narrower characters than the usual default Linux font (I forget which font it is), so the collapsed sections are too wide. I think it would be fixable by increasing the |tw=.
    2. If you have any relevant documentation for route diagrams it would be helpful to add it to the page.
    3. If you're referring to consistency in diagram code, as I noted above in the Template:Railway line header discussion, there's no solution to this that would satisfy all parties involved while also making all diagrams use consistent code, because either you annoy all of the happy {{Routemap}} users who like the flexibility of \ and !~ by making them switch back to using a middle layer that would arguably make it more difficult for them to edit and wouldn't actually have any technical function, or you annoy the users who have used {{BS-map}} since 2011 and would prefer to have such a middle layer. However, as a practical matter, the number of old-style diagrams is actually falling at a consistent rate (the number has fallen by 17 to 19 diagrams since I posted the numbers above), and most new diagrams are created with {{Routemap}} (the number has increased by 32). Assuming a rate of −18 per week, the old-style diagrams will be naturally phased out in four years and nine months' time.
    Jc86035 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The backslash separator is a compromise to avoid the default role of the vertical bar in a template. Routemap does not stack row templates because this is what makes the legacy BS template slow in the first place. The backslash is just a magicword like double vertical bars to wiki table for the sake of code neatness. If you can write wiki table without visual editor, pardon me to say that there is no excuse to complain about Routemap syntax. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at this from the POV of a trainer- it is not a matter of whether something is possible, but making it consistently explainable. Programmer to programmer I am understanding your objectives but want to be able to explain to a group of trainees the {{Routemap}} syntax, and then the {{OSM Location map }} syntax. I want to explain to them how to line up the source code in a consistent way, and that is done on the pipes ususally. As I said above 'Not yet'. With complications admittedly- giving a default, and an option of a user supplied named parameter to set a separator is not hard. It just requires a change of programming paradigm- from Developer-orientated to User-orientated. This conversation would be better continue over a coffee somewhere- but please don't say I complaining, I am just advising and happy to help the team further if asked. ClemRutter (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further to what I said above- but out of scope- I have looked at the parameter set, and suggest this one parameter addition.

| footnote = | text-width = | map-separator= | map = ClemRutter (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RDT does not make ubiquitous appearance/usage by the scale of Wikipedia, hence this should not be something on the list of topics to newbies. Indeed we often separate the map markups to a template even for a single-purpose map because we don’t want to clutter the article markup. If the Routemap syntax is too complicated for trainee, the codenames for all the RDT pictograms (STR/BHF/ABZ) make far worse offenders. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Christian leader

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

The result of the discussion was Keep (non-admin closure) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Christian leader with Template:Infobox religious biography.
Almost all other religious leader infoboxes have been merged and time has come for this too. Plus WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 03:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see no convincing reason reason to merge these two infoboxes. The Christian leader infobox has lots of unique parameters and seems to do a good job of what it intends, fitting a square peg into the round hole of the major infobox to me has no benefit other than making things harder for readers and editors alike. WP:INFOCOL is an essay only. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would make sense to use the religious biography for Christian leaders, but at the moment they're radically different; you'd have to modify the use of a good number of parameters (e.g. I suppose the "lineage" would represent a bishop's apostolic succession, but I'm unclear), and a good number of other parameters in the Christian leader don't have anything corresponding in the religious biography. The templates have comparable subjects, but the current structure is very unfriendly to a merge. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In theory, theory and practice are the same: and in practice, they're different. The Christian box is very different from the more general box, for good reason (there are masses of Christian-only structures in the world), and there is no good reason for or advantage to be gained by changing it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - way too much that's unique and per yttend and Chiswick Chap. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the two templates are different as elaborated above per Nyttend and Chiswick Chap, and are not similar enough to be merged. One seems to be a broad or general infobox while the other is an elaboration that applies to individuals such as bishops as opposed to religious superiors and the like. The two are just too different to be merged, since there are some parameters in one that cannot be applied to the other template either due to irrelevance or incompatibility. Both templates do a good job of doing what they were created for separately, and I see no credible reason to merge the two since they are far too unique, and work well apart. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so many parameters specialy for christian leaders.... Olivier LPB (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for all the reasons given above. I occasionally come upon the use of a more generic infobox when it is clear that one a bit more specific would be much more informative. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (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:XBIZ Best Actress Couples

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary cross categorisation. The award is minor and lacks a stand-alone article. Compare with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#Template:Pink Grand Prix: 1989. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_18&oldid=1175368813"