Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31[edit]

Template:Infobox bitcoin[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) 00:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bitcoin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox currency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox bitcoin with Template:Infobox currency.
Redundant to {{Infobox currency}}. Only 1 trasnluction. Has two unique parameters: Ledger and Issuance, which can be useful. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Georgian alphabets[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) 00:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian alphabets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure what this sidebar is for. The different alphabets are listed in the body of the article. Suggest deleting. — Lfdder (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template should definitely stay. It is for readers to see all the 3 alphabets with bigger letters and what kind of changes did it went through. And why did you changed the sizes of those letters? GeorgianJorjadze 23:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning toward "delete"). This template is used in two articles — Georgian alphabet and Georgian language. Since the three alphabets are already shown in the body of the Georgian alphabet article, I'm really not sure the template adds anything to that article. And the template doesn't seem to me to add any real value to the Georgian language article either — this latter article doesn't go into any real detail about the alphabets at all (except for a bit of text and a "main article" link to Georgian alphabet), and the template doesn't tell readers anything useful about the alphabets except to give a very general idea of what they look like. Try imagining that you knew absolutely nothing about Georgian writing, and ask yourself if the template really gives you any concrete information (other than that there are/were three different alphabets, which look very different from one another, and none of which look like anything you've ever seen before.) To be honest, I think what would really help in the Georgian alphabet article would be a table showing all three alphabets side by side — like the existing table in the "Transcription" section, but with two additional columns for the asomtavruli and nuskhuri versions of the letters. A single table with all three alphabets side by side would, in my opinion, be much more helpful to readers who are unfamiliar with the older alphabets (or who don't know any of them at all); the existing displays just look like a bunch of exotic random glyphs to most readers. I understand you originally created this template, GJ, and I hope you will take my comments here as constructive criticism which I believe will improve the articles involved here. I'm leaning toward "delete", but I'm holding off on saying that definitively, pending your response to my comments/suggestions here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, you mean changing the template by making those 3 alphabet letters by side by side together in horizontal position? Would it be any different from vertical template? Let's keep the template and then we can discuss how can we change it. Maybe horizontal one may work. Let's see but first let this template be alive. There are many templates like this in other alphabet or script articles where they show the different types of alphabets in one template so template of 3 Georgian alphabets should also be the case and not be removed. GeorgianJorjadze 11:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing taking the existing chart in the "Transcription" section of the Georgian alphabet article, which shows the modern (mkhedruli) letters with their transcriptions and sound values, and adding two new columns containing the corresponding letters in the two older alphabets. New rows would, of course, need to be added for letters that are no longer in use. To someone not familiar with Georgian, the existing collections of letters (without any explanations for the individual letters) are nothing more than art objects, each one containing a random bunch of meaningless squiggles. Combining everything into a single table, with the corresponding letters of the three alphabets side by side, and with the other information in the existing "Transcription" chart, would allow a reader to see what all the various squiggles mean. (I'm not trying to insult the Georgian alphabets by calling the letters "squiggles", by the way — my point is that the characters don't look anything like anything a non-Georgian is going to be familiar with, so we have a responsibility to explain them.) While we're at it, I would also propose taking the info in the "Numeral value of letters" section and merging that into the "Transcription" table too — that is, add another column to this table with the traditional numeric values of the letters — again, putting everything into a single table that tells the reader what these unfamiliar symbols mean. As for whether the template should be deleted — I'm still leaning strongly toward saying it should be deleted eventually, because IMO it provides no real information that isn't already included in the Georgian alphabet article (the three alphabets are already illustrated in the text without needing the template), and the template doesn't really add any meaningful detail at all to the Georgian language article. I'm not lobbying rabidly for speedy deletion of the template, but I don't think we should stop and say that the template explains things sufficiently and that nothing further needs to be done. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. We can also paste the transcription info into this template and edit it from this template. Better if it will have its own template. And all those things you've mentioned can be done into this template. Let's do this then. GeorgianJorjadze 15:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the template. I've pasted the template code into the transcription section of Georgian alphabet's article. GeorgianJorjadze 16:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that Lfdder reverted your change to the article. Replacing the existing table in Georgian alphabet with the modified template may have been premature; there are pieces of information in the original table that aren't yet in the template, and people are likely to squawk if that info is discarded without a good reason. I think it might be preferable here to continue working on the template without immediately putting it back into the article; let's talk about the changes to the template and reach a consensus that the template looks OK, and then it can be added back into the article (or possibly just pasted directly into the article — there might not be a real need for a template here if it's only going to be used in one article).
A couple of thoughts about the template as it currently stands. I think the Georgian letters could be made smaller; look at the existing table and see if you can copy the sizes of the mkhedruli letters there. Also, when Georgian proper names are included in an English text, it is customary to omit the nominative ending (-i) — so, an, ban, gan instead of ani, bani, gani. And instead of imprecise pronunciation descriptions like "very hard K", it would be better to use IPA notation (as is done in the existing table in the article). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for the time being. I'm going to work on the template in the next 24-48 hours, with a view to making it a comprehensive table that can replace other material in the Georgian alphabet article. Once it's ready for prime time, I propose to incorporate it into that article. I've removed the template from the Georgian language article, where it wasn't providing helpful info and was, in fact, inadvertently dominating that article to no good end. Since this template will probably be used only in one article (Georgian alphabet), a discussion may be in order over whether to simply copy the template contents into that article and remove the template, but please let me finish working on the template first before seriously considering deletion. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just move it to userspace and work on it there? We don't make tpls to transclude in one or two articles and never for content. — Lfdder (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable point. I just spent the past hour rearranging the table already in the Georgian alphabet article and expanding it with the traditional numeric values of the letters (this last step, BTW, allowed me to delete the table of numeric values that used to be in the article). Tomorrow, I'll add the two older alphabets to this table; at that point, I hope GJ will agree with me that his template will no longer be necessary, because the information in his template will have been completely incorporated into the article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did we need a super-table under 'Transcription'? Numerals should be where numerals are discussed; similarly, a comparison of the three scripts should be where they are discussed. — Lfdder (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once I've added the other two alphabets to the "super-table", I would like to move it farther up in the article, or else at least rename the section from "Transcription" to something more general. As for the numeric values, I don't believe this topic really requires a separate section with a lengthy table of its own, so adding the numeric values to the "super-table" will help focus the article while not throwing away content that is at least somewhat useful. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Portsmouth Invitational Tournament[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) 00:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portsmouth Invitational Tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one actual tournament article was created, thus it doesn't connect related articles. Also, as an avid college basketball editor, I can assure you nobody out there is going to make any other PIT articles anytime soon. Recreate this if necessary. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete speedy per nominator. This is not a official tournament, so it is not notable. This navbox shouldn't be exist. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Singapore Bus Routes[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) 00:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singapore Bus Routes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. All bus route articles linked by this template have been deleted. Peter James (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:World War I Aircraft of the Entente Powers[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) 00:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World War I Aircraft of the Entente Powers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A wide ranging user by war navigation template that is far to big even before it is fully populated, and cumbersome to be of use for navigation, not needed when we have a list to do a far better job - List of military aircraft of the Entente Powers in World War I. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Way too big already to be of value as a nav box. If this were completed by adding all the participating aircraft it would be enormous. I agree that this is better handled by a list. - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template was created for the sake of convenience for those that are researching World War I Aircraft. It allows viewers to look up another aircraft WITHOUT HAVING TO GO BACK AND FORTH ON THE MAIN LIST. --Arima (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary duplication of list page, where material can be better laid out, and is more convenient since more information can be provided in a list than in a template page. That said, the list needs a lot of work. The AK47_derivatives template isn't even close sizewise to what the ww1 allies template already is, nevermind what it will become when fully populated (less than 10% of all the allied aircraft are listed so far). If he hadn't put forth the recommendation, I would have, and I added most of the entries to it. Any back and forth can be better handled by said researchers opening new tabs - it hardly needs a full navigational template. If anything is to be kept I would suggest breaking the template into individual countries, rather than displaying all of the allied powers at once, but even then they would be clumsy as there are too many entries for each category (making them hard to scan), and the categories cannot be easily broken down as distinctions would not reflect actual period useage which rarely specified differences between reconnaissance aircraft, artillery spotting aircraft, light bombers and ground attack aircraft, or between fighters and interceptors (terms not current until much later)..NiD.29 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. If sub-dividing the template into separate countries will help make it smaller, I'll do it. --Arima (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- this is definitly list, not navbox, material. While there are indeed many cases where both a list and a navbox are appropriate, this is not one of them. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Isle of Wight bus routes[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) 00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Isle of Wight bus routes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. All of the bus route articles were deleted or redirected, and Template:Isle of Wight Transport is used on the operators' articles. Peter James (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, no longer useful for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —me_and 17:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Greater Manchester bus routes 451 and 452[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) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greater Manchester bus route 451 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Greater Manchester bus route 452 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. These templates were created a year ago and are unused; the articles don't exist. Peter James (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Hertfordshire bus route C3[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) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hertfordshire bus route C3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. This template was created in 2010 and is unused; no relevant article exists. Peter James (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox noble house[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) 00:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox noble house (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox royal house (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox noble house into Template:Infobox royal house.
Per recent discussion. Keep as redirect; add a label to indicate type. The 'Noble' template has only 27 transclusions and is not based on {{Infobox}}; the 'royal' one has 289, and is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - they're basically the same template, and the royal one seems to be both better-coded and more commonly used. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Game of Thrones ratings[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 for now Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Game of Thrones ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no need to make a template for something that will only be used on one page. This can be substituted and the template deleted. For that matter, the image can be converted to an SVG and uploaded to Commons. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:The Killing ratings[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) 00:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Killing ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no need to make a template for something that will only be used on one page. This can be substituted and the template deleted. For that matter, the image can be converted to an SVG and uploaded to Commons. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This particular template serves no purpose, except to extend the page. As of late, I'm the only editor who maintains it, and that is out of routine housekeeping. Furthermore, lately, there are no major fluctuations outside of 250K viewers that cannot be seen in the normal seasonal pages or in a table with "average viewers" in it. Also, there is no easy way to edit the template unless you type its name into the search box. Lastly, this template is an eyesore, in my opinion. — Wyliepedia 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Disputed title[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) 00:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superceded by WP:RM. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: From what I read from the previous TFD discussion back in April, apparently it is used when one wants to dispute the article's title, but they are not yet at a point where they specifically have a new title to propose for WP:RM purposes. It is one thing to dispute an article title, but another thing if no one has any alternative titles to propose. The larger problem I see with this tag is that nobody bothers to remove it once these discussions go stale without coming up with new alternative titles, whereas WP:RM has a definite time limit and an admin going around on a regular basis and closing these discussions. However, this tag currently places the article into Category:Accuracy disputes, so I guess it was originally intended for discussions involving accuracy disputes regarding both the title and the scope of these pages, rather than just the regular naming conventions or primary topic issues you regularly see on WP:RM. Is WP:RM is equipped to handle long-term or ongoing accuracy disputes that may take longer than the seven-day limit (such as the default 30-day limit for WP:RFC)? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For that the normal procedure is to open a discussion about the article title on the talk page, and when the discussion is extensive, a dedicated sub-page. Tagging the article serves no purpose. Apteva (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagging the article alerts people to the active dispute. That's what every dispute tag does. My only concern here is that it's so rarely used: there never seem to be more than a handful of non-stale disputes thus tagged, which suggests this isn't really a common enough thing to need a separate tag for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If the concern is infrequent use, and not the addition of templates on articles for this purpose, {{Disputed|what=title}} or {{POV|what=title}} appear to be the closest suitable replacements, but they don't have parameters for alternative titles or additional text, and there may be circumstances for which those templates would not be suitable. Peter James (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last TfD. And if it goes stale, remove the template, just like any other template. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Template:Disputed title for the discussion that triggered this new TfD. I intend to post my opinion here after further analysis of the situation. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've just used this template for the first time (at Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide) and find it very useful to adress my concerns. With this article, the dispute evolves around the question whether the content is in accordance with the title. It's quite tricky, because it overlaps with POV concerns; but with another article name, the content at once might become NPOV.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • FoxyOrange, There are several article cleanup templates relating to titles:
      • {{Cleanup-articletitle}} – "The name of this article may be improper for Wikipedia."
      • {{Inappropriate title}} – "The title of this article seems not to accurately describe the article's subject matter."
      • {{POV-title}} – "The neutrality of this article's title, subject matter, and/or the title's implications, is disputed."
    Whereas {{Disputed title}} just says "The current title of this article is disputed." without giving a reason why it's disputed. {{POV-title/doc}} says {{disputed title}} is for "accuracy" disputes, which seems redundant to {{Inappropriate title}} which also gives the "accuracy" reason. Could you tag Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide with one of these other three article cleanup templates? I'm concerned that {{Disputed title}}, by not giving any reason for the dispute and also with parameters for alternate title(s), is coming too close to the turf of {{Requested move}} and is being misused where wp:Requested moves is the appropriate venue. If one wants to discuss multiple alternative titles, use a question mark for the proposed/suggested/requested new title parameter in {{subst:Requested move}}. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the last TfD, requested move initiates the process to rename, while this template does not. It allows extended discussions to occur prior to requesting a formal rename, to hash out differences between the active editors, so allows a more sensible use of the requested move process, instead of cramming everything into a week, and if there are various different possible titles, to hash out the points each of them has. And like any other cleanup template, you should leave a message on the talk page to explain what the problem is. This would also allow indication of extended discussion after a no-consensus closure when a move is clearly desired but the title cannot yet be determined. Several RMs have closed consensus to move, but no destination title determined, clearly a poor outcome, which would require extended discussions to hash out a title, and then reinitiate another bout of RM. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Start date and age[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 or reverse merge, which ever makes the most sense. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start date and age (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Start date and years ago (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Start date and age with Template:Start date and years ago.
Redundant to {{Start date and years ago}}. Rezonansowy (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, whatever. If merging makes infoboxes not ugly anymore with stupid merge proposals, I'm in favor of a quick merge. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a reason to merge, nor not to. If you don't like TfD alert messages. please raise an RfC to stop using them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The templates are similar, and if it helps remove those annoying proposals... I love it. APerson (talk!) 02:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Is there a proposal somewhere how exactly this merge is going to be achieved? Apart from the obvious difference in the emitted text, there are some functional differences regarding the need for month and day parameters. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO merge. Because the latter only shows how many years something happened ago. It is missing the months and sometimes days. A better way woulb be to drop Template:Start date and years ago --Txt.file (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is it possible to add a switch parameter to the '...and age' template, so that the output is only in years? If so, do that, and replace then delete the 'years ago' template; otherwise keep. Please be careful to keep the embedded microformat markup - I'm happy to advise on that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Yes, please. I'd also vote for a switch parameter. Mateng (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • PS: Please merge years ago into age, mindlike Newbiepedian. Also, please remove the merger hint. It makes the infoboxes ugly. (Compare these edits) Mateng (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other way round. Merge years ago into age. The age template also supports months and days. The years ago template doesn't.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 16:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging SDaYA into SDaA per Newbiepedian. —me_and 17:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Per nom, makes sense. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other way around per Newbiepedian. Mitch32(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.) 22:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Per nom, go ahead. 174.95.188.8 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there is no detail on the technical implementation of such a merge. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need for such detail at this stage, Once we agree what should be done, a template gnome will implement it, and not remove the unwanted template until it has been done. In the virtually impossible case that it proved impossible, then they clearly would not proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge per Newbiepedian and Pigsonthewing -PC-XT+ 04:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Philippines Squad 2010 FIBA Asia Under-18 Championship[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) 00:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippines Squad 2010 FIBA Asia Under-18 Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a youth basketball competition. This navbox should be deleted speedy per here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

IRB Junior World Championship squads navboxes[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) 00:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 South Africa U20 Junior World Championship squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009 South Africa U20 Junior World Championship squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 South Africa U20 Junior World Championship squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 South Africa U20 Junior World Championship squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012 South Africa U20 Junior World Championship squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2013 South Africa U20 Junior World Championship squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is youth rugby union. Like association football, they should be deleted. Youth tournaments' squads navboxes of all team sports shouldn't be exist. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I think they are excessive. Sawol (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need for youth squad navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Social media[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) 00:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Social media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's completely wrong (the arrows suggest that first came Web 2.0 and then New Media), almost all links are red (and if they existed, they would belong into the main article), so it's just useless. --88.78.124.173 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. — Lfdder (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Marshall McLuhan would say some social media is missing, and this isn't an internet age construct either. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_31&oldid=1140154919"