Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 15[edit]

Template:Seed Beni Suef[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The category has already been C1 speedily deleted. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Seed Beni Suef (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Category:General articles stubs (edit|talk|history|logs|delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as redundant to general {{stub}} template (or any specific variety thereof). Furthermore, this seems way too ridiculously specific to deserve its own template (its need for copyediting is irrelevant at this point). LazyBastardGuy 21:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, speedy delete for category, which suffers from the opposite problem - it's way too general to have any good use. LazyBastardGuy 21:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Violence against Hindus[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Violence against Hindus (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Not a useful template, the collection of links are not subtopics of the template topic but rather tangentially related general topics User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I created the template using this Template:Violence against Muslims template as base. So, you mean to say this is also not an useful template?? - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If you note the difference in contents most of the links from the template violence against muslim in fact lead to articles about Violence against Muslim not to random articles about discrimination and violence. Your creation of the template was clearly a POINTy action based on a misgided notion of neutrality requiring equal treatment to different religions. If we had a series of articles on violence against Hindus then the template would be warranted - but we don't and we are not likely to ever get one since there isn't a body of literature about that topic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

*Delete per nominator. Only one link in the template has anything to do with Hindus specifically; the rest link to general topics. A template/navbox is not needed unless more Hindu-specific links can be added. LazyBastardGuy 21:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that is actually a reasonable number of articles for a template. I retract the nomination for deletion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Now, the links related to the template are added. And historically, it is a vast and an extensive topic. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • With that said, I withdraw my vote too and would like to keep the template. Pectore, there is no need to accuse anyone of wasting TFD's time here. If we were in error, simply tell us that. LazyBastardGuy 18:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Shall I go ahead and remove the "nominated for deletion" tag? - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
No, the parent category for the template is category:Violence against Muslims. It is right there in the template. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, just notice you also created a cat for the template. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dtsa[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Dtsa (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Dts (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Dtsa with Template:Dts.
This template's documentation, from May 2011, says " It may be worth integrating this template into {{dts}}, but that template's code is so complex currently that it should probably be cleaned up a little before adding more functionality.". Now we have Lua, I think it's time to do that (but, regrettably, lack the know-how). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Note: I have no-included the TfM notification templates, due the disruption they would cause where the templates occur in every row of a table. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There is also {{date sortable}} which also seems to be redundant to {{dts}}, except that it seems to tolerate year ranges e.g. can specify 2006-2008 in {{date sortable}}, whereas that bombs out in {{dts}}. Due to the different parameter concept, it may be better to treat as a separate merge. Dl2000 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

College sports retired numbers[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, or rather redirect to the team navigational boxes in case there is consensus to merge the list of retired numbers with the navbox in the future. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Kansas State Wildcats basketball retired jerseys (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:North Carolina Tar Heels women's basketball retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Ohio State Buckeyes basketball retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Appalachian State Mountaineers football retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Gator Football Ring of Honor (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Florida State Seminoles football retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Kansas State Wildcats football Ring of Honor navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Michigan Wolverines football retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Ohio State Buckeyes football retired numbers navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Pittsburgh Panthers football retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Texas Longhorns football retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:UCLA Bruins football retired number navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Delete all per CRUFT, NENAN and TCREEP. I wholly agree that retired jerseys merit special mention, but they should have their own subsection on that team's main article page; they shouldn't clog up player articles with yet another navbox that is essentially banner-hanging. WikiProjects College Basketball and Football already have bad raps with a lot of editors for overusing navboxes, and the existence of these does not help our cause. They're just too much! Jrcla2 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Note, I'm also nominating the following categories for deletion:
Category:American college sports retired number navigational boxes (edit|talk|history|logs|delete)
Category:American college basketball retired number navigational boxes (edit|talk|history|logs|delete)
Category:American college football retired number navigational boxes (edit|talk|history|logs|delete)
  • Delete all None of the templates have articles about the topic "XXX School retired numbers". Except Florida and UNC. However, on those articles, they only include the larger {{Florida Gators football navbox}} and {{North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball navbox}} navboxes (which include the retired numbers). Those articles don't even transclude the templates in question here. So in those cases, they should be deleted because they are redundant.— X96lee15 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per both above comments. Some of those navboxes, like Michigan's, also include players whose numbers aren't retired as "legends." There's just no need for it. Jhortman (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not a meaningful distinction here, at least in the case of Michigan. All of those numbers, except for Howard's #21, were retired until the 2012 season, when the program created the Michigan Football Legends to have these essentially "retired" numbers worn by active players in an effort to make the history of the program more of a living tradition. This honor is roughly equivalent to classic concept of a retired number. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above - this info can be included on the program templates if it is needed at all. Rikster2 (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • delete, navbox cruft. Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect rather than delete, these should be redirected to the team navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • What purpose could that serve that would be beneficial? Then you'd just have a bunch of team navboxes on player articles, which goes against CFB and CBB consensus. It also allows for a fanboy to come in and undo the redirect. These need to be eliminated altogether. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely, positively no such consensus. Retired numbers and jerseys are common inclusions in all other sports team navboxes (see Template:New York Yankees for an example) as they are an integral part of the culture and history of sports teams and important for the reader for understanding the topic which is the essence of the WP:NAV guideline. This has been repeatedly discussed at the talk page of the CFB Wikiproject as well at some of the individual template talk pages and the insistence that there is a consensus that prevents retired numbers from being added to the main team navboxes, when clearly no such consensus exists, is thoroughly without merit. Likewise, the idea that one Wikiproject has exclusive ownership of the content of 100s of individual navboxes (that also fall under the other Wikiprojects) is a notion that is without precedent in the entirety of Wikipedia and completely without merit. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess what I want is to ensure that the retired numbers are on the team templates and the something remain on the players' pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I have no reason to feel like a navbox HAS to be on a player's article just because their college number was retired. That isn't to say it isn't a notable accomplishment, just that not everything needs a navbox. I personally like the way Andre Miller's article has it in the highlights section of his infobox. The problem with creating a navbox (or adding a program navbox that has retired numbers on it) is that there are often redlinks (or worse IMO, unlinked articles) of people who actually aren't notable (a problem pro teams where everyone is notable don't have). I can live with program articles linking retired numbers, but my preference would be no navbox and just noting the retired/honored number status in the infobox accomplishments. Rikster2 (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Note to editors: Please follow the links to the discussions that I provided above and decide for yourself who is wildly distorting what. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - First, as a fan of a "top tier" basketball program, I would say that (in my opinion) being named ACC POY is more noteworthy historically for a UNC player than having your number honored by the school - and both would be indicated in the infobox anyway. Second, in what universe are Appalachian State football and Kent State basketball "top tier?" That's the problem with these things - it is perfectly reasonable for a fan of a lesser program to see a retired number navbox and try to emulate it for their program. Sure, it's different when you talk about Alabama football vs. Temple football, but this distinction doesn't necessarily lend itself to a clear guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Rikster2, I think we define "top tier" as Division I. We've got POY navboxes for the MAC, the Southern Conference, and all the other little guys in DI, right? As for your POY vs. retired number opinion, I would say that's not very obvious as I think the latter is a more rarefied honor. Finally, what navbox subject wouldn't or shouldn't be indicated in an infobox? 15:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that in college football conference POY awards aren't a big deal at all. I disagree in college basketball. It may be one of those areas that differs between sports. There are about 30-40 honored players in UNC's basketball history in the "ACC era." There have been 13 ACC POYs in that time. You can do the math. Rikster2 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Good points. Different standards for college football and basketball may be in order here. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Our WikiProjects have a lot of overlap, but at the end of the day there will still be differences, and I think this is one of them. Being a Division I conference player of the year, regardless of whether it's the ACC or the Southland, is one of the highest honors as basketball player can get aside from major national awards. Retired and/or honored jersey navboxes, however, is that player's school deciding "hey, this guy was pretty important, let's honor him" rather than a conference-wide media and coaches' voting panel to determine that year's preeminent player. As I stated in my original rationale for deletion, I support inclusion of an article section discussing the honored players, but to template creep more banner-hanging navboxes for a secondary award/honor is not something I can get behind. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the notion that a school just decides this player is "pretty important" and somehow that makes the honor arbitrary or less important. Most of the schools listed above are significant programs in their respective sports and some of these programs have less retired jerseys and numbers than they have players that have made it into their respective pro and/or college hall-of-fames. Having a retired jersey at some of these schools is one of the most significant achievements a player can have and it can also form an informal fraternity among such players. While there are difference between sports, as acknowledge above, there are also significant differences between individual programs within the same sport in regards to the importance and selectivity of such honors (another reason the mass nominations was inappropriate). Often, having a jersey retired by these schools is a career honor that is on par with hall-of-fame induction or team championship win for many of these individuals. In some cases, there may be no difference between deleting these than deleting hall-of-fame class templates or major award winner templates. Again, at most, the honored players should be merged back to their team templates as that is how such honored players are handled for virtually all other professional sports team templates in North America. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I respect your passion surrounding this topic, but I have to point a couple things out: Mass-nominating was not inappropriate because having any of these exist at all gives fanboys at lesser programs (Kent State, Appalachian State) the idea/incentive to create their own. Eliminating all of them is the only road to take, much like you wouldn't kill "most" of a termite infestation. If you leave any, they'll reproduce. Second, these are college athletes, not professional, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here (not only for the OTHERSTUFF guideline in general, but also because professional distinctions are a mutually exclusive set of criteria since (a) they're all inherently notable players to begin with, and (b) having a retired jersey by a club in a sport at the highest possible level is vastly more difficult/important/notable than Appalachian State thinking one of their running backs was good). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I find it Interesting that you cite WP:OSE since I equate you argument for deletion as essentially applying the inverse of it: "some other stuff exists (or might someday exist) that I don't agree with, and thus there shouldn't be any". That, IMO, is not a legitimate rationale to mass delete templates nor is it in any way supported by Wikipedia in policy, guideline, or prior precedent. The existence of a template for one team that you personally deem to be "lesser" does not necessarily invalidate the existence of other templates, particularly when none of the WP:TFD#REASONS apply. Beyond that, I am also not sure that it is appropriate to arbitrary labeling some teams as "lesser" and dismissing their templates as "fanboy" cruft. Appalachian State, who you cite, has won three FCS National Championships and every one of their honored players is deemed to be notable by your criteria. So as far as your use of OSE for college athletes vs pro, I don't see the logic in the argument since all athletes, other than perhaps some of the women's basketball players in these templates, are notable, and it is likely that these women are also notable but as of yet have just not had an article created. If it is that you don't agree with Appalachian State having a template because it is a "lesser program", then that template specifically should be discussed in a TFD and not used as an excuse to delete all of the others. But again, my personal preference would simply be to merge them back into the team templates where I think they belong, but if not, most of these templates have legitimate navigational purpose for a Wikipedia reader and should continue to exist. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Humayun Azad[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Humayun Azad (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

WP:NENAN. Even if it did have five bluelinks, this navbox is clunky and almost entirely devoid of function. Deadbeef 10:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - Serves no useful navigation purpose. The material is in reality his bibliography. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is almost a textbook example of how not to use a navbox. A navbox is not for things that should be presented in list form, which this would be better suited for. It's not a catalog of works. It's for links to related articles only. It can have some unlinked stuff and be used this way, but only if there is far more linked stuff than unlinked. LazyBastardGuy 21:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Language term infoboxes[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no conensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Arabicterm (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Infobox Russian term (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

These seem a bit silly to me, but if people think they're useful, then maybe we should consider creating a master template. — Lfdder (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the potential. image/caption are replaceable with media syntax; that just leaves title (the name of the article) and transliteration and translation that usually just go in brackets after the name in the lead. — Lfdder (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you are under the impression that there should only be one transliteration field? Like I said, there exist a number of romanization systems, and very often giving romanization in more than one is highly desired. I don't see how it is efficient to incorporate one language-specific systems into a master template...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 20, 2013; 12:19 (UTC)
  • Keep These should be expanded to show what romanization system is being used and the same term under different romanization systems for English or generic Latin-lettering. Russian has changed romanization standards a few times, so historic spellings should be available in the box. Arabic has several romanization systems in use, so collecting them in a better presentation is better than very long intro sentences of the various forms the term is romanized as. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do we need to have all these romanizations? — Lfdder (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
So that the Wikipedia search will find it, when you enter an alternate romanization. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not reason for an infobox. — Lfdder (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
We already put various spellings into articles, they could be collected in the infoboxen instead. And as people complain about redirects not showing up in the article (at RfD), they will now show up in the article. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Wrt the params you added to the infobox....'English translated term' doesn't apply cos it's for loanwords. Do you mean synonyms? What's 'literal meaning'? The etymology? Looks like it all amounts to a dictionary def to me; {{wiktionary}} exists. — Lfdder (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Loanwords can have English native equivalencies, and English Wikipedia is not restricted to writing articles on English loanwords, we can also write articles for them in Russian, say if American (word) were about a Russian word. (Just as English Wikipedia is not restricted to writing articles about the English world.) Also, terms that are phrases are not wiktionary material anyways. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • merge into say {{infobox foreign language term}}. the Russian template is more well developed, and has quite a bit that is not Russian specific. the Arabic template is less well developed, and the functionality is generally a subset of the Russian template. A 'language' parameter could be used to switch between different languages. Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment would this be a multipart template system then? Or template-subtemplate system? Or template-wrapper system? or monolithic template? (about half the Russian template is generic (or could be genericized), the other half is Russian specific; the Arabic one is now 3/4 generic (or could be genericized) ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • merge into {{infobox foreign language term}}.--82.117.201.26 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The more things I see being added to these two templates, the more I'd like to see them burn. — Lfdder (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You've been here 6 months? The templates have been here 8 years, and are in use, so people have found them useful for about a decade. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
      • What is the relevance? Old templates get deleted all the time. There's nothing to say people have found them useful. There's nothing encyclopaedic about listing all the transcriptions in all the transcription schemes under the sun; it's just cruft. — Lfdder (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Who's listing all transcriptions? Listing the popular and common transcriptions, is certainly useful, and given the distribution of multiple transcriptions for many terms, encyclopedic. We shouldn't assume that there's one and only one transcription for any term. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Has it occurred to you that any given Russian term may show up in any sources using any of the existing romanization systems? There is no way to predict which spelling readers will stumble upon and we can only pick one as the main title anyway. Other variants should be set up as redirects and included somewhere on the page so the search engines have easier time finding them. This template is perfect for that. I find characterizing the inclusion of that information as "cruft" and "non-encyclopedic" rather disturbing. It's like saying the IPA pronunciation templates are "cruft"!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 23, 2013; 12:12 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Ezhiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox WorldScouting[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox WorldScouting (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template needs a rethink; and possibly even forking. It's used for organisations (redundant to {{Infobox organisation}}?); events (e.g. Pinewood derby; redundant to {{Infobox recurring event}}?); training programmes (e.g. Law Enforcement Exploring); places (e.g. Treasure Island Scout Reservation; redundant to {{Infobox park}}?); badges (e,g, Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America); redundant to an award or medal infobox?); and generic topics (Scouting, Scouting in Alabama). 861 transclusions in all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - I'm not sure what your trying to say, but a deleation is wrong. If it needs to be changes, I could get a request like that, but not a delete. It is appropriately used on 861 pages Scouting Pages, as you even say. Instead of having to uses all the "redundant" templates, as you call them, a single Scouting template is uses. This is no different then other templates. {{ --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • As I said above, I'm suggesting that "this template needs a rethink; and possibly even forking". And yes, it is different from other templates. Almost all our other infoboxes are thematic, not organisation-based. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • keep Mainly because I don't understand the rationale. I've been pondering this for the last week. Is the objection to the utility of the infobox, that is; it is used for multiple purposes? A "rethink" should be discussed on the infobox talk page. --  Gadget850 talk 12:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:History of the Hebrew language[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:History of the Hebrew language (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Redundant to {{Hebrew language}} and misleading (passing off varieties as periods of the language). — Lfdder (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • merge/delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have edited the template to not pass off varieties as periods. I have no opinion on whether the template should be kept or not. —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Eygeptian village[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Eygeptian village (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose deletion. It is not used and has no likelihood of being used; any situation where it might be used is already sufficiently covered by {{Infobox village}}. Failing deletion, it should be renamed to correct spelling and indicate that it's an infobox. — Paul A (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:Saleh, Beni Suef[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Saleh, Beni Suef (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose deletion. It is not used and has no likelihood of being used; it's so specific as to be useful on only one page, and on that page it's already been replaced by an instance of {{Infobox settlement}}. — Paul A (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. — Lfdder (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not used and too specific. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if it could be used it should not be its own template. This could easily be rebuilt on the subject's article. LazyBastardGuy 22:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ETS LRT future[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:ETS LRT future (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This entire discussion is becoming moot, given the edits made by 96.52.42.160 (talk · contribs). Useddenim (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandal edits, removing discussion notices, blanking pages, and substituting templates, clearly the user doesn't want to be part of the discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems pointless to me. None of the stations have their own articles. The only reason I can justify keeping Template:ETS LRT route is that it is a "clickable" route map, otherwise I'd prefer to keep only File:EdmontonLRT.png and File:Future Edmonton LRT.png. A fourth map is just too much. Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Userfy on the basis that this is unused today, but future use will happen and there is a heck of a lot of work in understanding the arcane syntax to use to create the thing in the first place. That work may as well be preserved for future use. Fiddle Faddle 10:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    We don't keep articles just because someone has put a lot of time into it. 117Avenue (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As I said, "userfy'. I did not say "keep". the distinction is large. Fiddle Faddle 19:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ETS LRT route[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:ETS LRT route (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
  • Delete. Unnecessary template. All the information in this template is a subset of Template:ETS LRT future. Useddenim (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Please don't write your own template, then nominate the one that has been used for years for deletion, bring up your proposed changes for discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and put the overly complex one on hold. This should mostly show the current route and it's just too soon to show such detailed plans for future expansion. I don't know why the nominator had to blindside the frequent ETS contributors in this manner. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep; what's called for here is a merge discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.