Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 19

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

July 19[edit]

Template:Pink Floyd singles[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 relisted on 2014 July 27 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Pink Floyd singles (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
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 non-profit[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) 22:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox non-profit (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox organization (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox non-profit with Template:Infobox organization.
Majorly similar templates, with overlapping usage. Merge at Infobox organization, keeping Infobox non-profit as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm okay with that. --Montgolfière (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I think both templates should be kept. There are differences between for profit and non profit organizations. Merging the two would make the distinctions less clear, and readers would have to take more time to read and identify what type of organization it is. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: removing identical or synonymous parameters from each template leaves us with:

{{Infobox organization
| native_name   = 
| alt           = 
| map2          = 
| abbreviation  = 
| merger        = 
| status        = 
| headquarters  = 
| sec_gen       = 
| leader_title  = 
| leader_name   = 
| leader_title2 = 
| leader_name2  = 
| leader_title3 = 
| leader_name3  = 
| leader_title4 = 
| leader_name4  = 
| board_of_directors = 
| main_organ    = 
| secessions    = 
| budget        = 
| slogan        = 
| remarks       = 
}}

and:

{{Infobox non-profit
| tax_id          = <!-- or | vat_id = -->
| registration_id =
| addnl_location  =
| origins         =
| products        =
| method          =
| revenue         =
| disbursed       =
| expenses        =
| endowment       =
}}

Most, if not all, of those could usefully be deployed in the opposite template. If we already had one template for all of them, we would not countenance a fork. The |type= parameter in each template serves to indicate the subject's status as a business, charity or whatever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge, since the usages of the two templates are very similar. APerson (talk!) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge as noted above - Most of what's in "Infobox Non Profit" is in "Infobox Organization", Seems more sensible to merge than to keep individually. –Davey2010(talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge since the two infoboxes are very similar already.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge into Template:Infobox organization. One is more than enough. BTW, the former is a variety of the latter anyway and all valid differentiations should easily be fixed. Poeticbent talk 05:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Neutralitytalk 07:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge, the term "organization" already includes both for-profit and not-for-profit ones. Kou Dou 08:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per other "former" template merge discussions —PC-XT+ 01:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge, I see no downside in rationalizing infoboxes. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge, as Poeticbent said above into Template:Infobox organization. --Devin Murphy (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (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:Imtiaz Ali films[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) 06:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Imtiaz Ali films (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Duplicate of Template:Filmography of Imtiaz Ali - Vivvt (Talk) 14:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom —PC-XT+ 01:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete this; the other one is better. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:47, 20 July 2014 (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:Missing article[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 relisted on 2014 July 27 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Missing article (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Search (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
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:France 2010 Women's Rugby World Cup Squad[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:France 2010 Women's Rugby World Cup Squad (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

only one blue link, all the other links are redlinks. Template could be userfied pending creation of the necessary articles. NSH002 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William 11:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please reconsider the deletion of this template, I'm creating the articles that link to it. Tamariki 3:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • There is no point in creating a navbox for non-existent articles - the articles should always be written first, before the navbox. You won't lose the work you've put into the navbox if it's userfied pending creation of all the articles. --NSH002 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy per nom Keep now that the articles are created —PC-XT+ 01:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC) 00:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as the majority (15 of 26) of the links are now blue. - Dravecky (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Someone has created a dozen or more stub articles for players linked on this navbox in the last three days. I have no idea whether these players are legitimately notable per the guidelines, but this is now a question for AfD and PROD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2014 (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.