Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 25

< May 24	May 26 >

May 25

Template:Db-f8

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 June 5. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-f8 (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:Uw-bdp

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 Template:Uw-biog2. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-bdp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-biog2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Uw-bdp with Template:Uw-biog2.
Not sure what the point of this as a separate template is. The information can be put to much better use as part of the Uw-biog series of warnings, seeing as they also mention recently deceased people and are part of Twinkle as standard (whereas this isn't). Adam9007 (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - agree with nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:40, 31 May 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:Manchester United W.F.C. managers

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) 07:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manchester United W.F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This does not aid in navigation at all. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until we have more managers for the team, this is a template that shouldn't be created. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 28 May 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:Christian fraternity

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 the Christian templates Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christian fraternity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fraternities and sororities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Christian fraternity with Template:Fraternities and sororities.
Already largely included in destination templates, thus redundant. What is not include better ought to be, so it can all be dealt with in one and the same template Besides "Christian fraternity" for this specific scope is a verbiage that quite arguably fails WP:GLOBAL. PPEMES (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure if the main template should not be the one that is split instead. List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines and Alpha Kappa Alpha have almost nothing in common, other than the fact that they belong to the same top level subject, but a reader would not navigate from one to the other under almost no condition. These super-templates seem to fail at WP:NAVBOX. --Gonnym (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge the two Christian templates. Why? The purpose of navigation templates is to aid navigation. A person reading about a Christian fraternity or sorority is highly likely to want to read about more Christian fraternities and sororities. The general template for fraternities and sororities is too inspecific and will likely "get in the way" more than aid navigation. What I would like to see is {{Christian fraternity}} merged with {{Christian sorority}} to have {{Christian fraternities and sororities}}. They are both short enough and related enough that they don't need to be separated. This would double the probability that information on them is up-to-date because roughly twice as many eyeballs would view them. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge the two Christian templates. per Jason Quinn. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to match relist below; these two discussions should be together
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _survives 14:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge the two Christian templates sounds good.Naraht (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template:Christian fraternity and oppose merge: There is no reason to merge Template:Christian fraternity with Template:Fraternities and sororities. Most Christian fraternities are not a part of the North-American Interfraternity Conference and the Template:Christian fraternity exists so readers can learn more about specific Christian fraternities. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:16, 25 May 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:ICC Cricket World Cup hosts

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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ICC Cricket World Cup hosts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Already covered in Template:ICC Cricket World Cup, no need for such template with flurry of flags. Störm (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the flags make it particularly awful and render the whole thing impossible to use quickly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in another template without the unnecessary flag icons. Ajf773 (talk) 00:28, 27 May 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:Russia armoured forces type

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) 23:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russia armoured forces type (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Russia marine type (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Russia motorized infantry type (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little more than a "cute" icon and a link, should be replaced with just the link per MOS:ICON. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with unadorned linked text. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 4 June 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:Christian sorority

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 the Christian templates Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christian sorority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fraternities and sororities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Christian sorority with Template:Fraternities and sororities.
See above. PPEMES (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge the two Christian templates. per above. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template:Christian sorority and oppose merge: There is no reason to merge Template:Christian sorority with Template:Fraternities and sororities. Most Christian sororities are not a part of the National Panhellenic Conference and the Template:Christian sorority exists so readers can learn more about specific Christian sororities. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:17, 25 May 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).