Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

Shortcut:
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template[edit]

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

I Tag the template.
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

II List the template at Tfd.
Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • For deletion:
    {{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging:
    {{subst:tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III Notify users.
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects (look on the top of the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

Twinkle[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion[edit]

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

July 2[edit]

Template:Shrubbery[edit]

Template:Shrubbery (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This isn't a template and the page hasn't been edited in 8 years. I'm not sure what the purpose of this page is. I gather it is a joke but it probably had more relevance in 2007 than it does now. Liz Read! Talk! 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Inactive userpage blanked[edit]

Template:Inactive userpage blanked (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I wonder if this template reflects current consensus. Other than a singular one-line mention to "Consider replacing the content with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}" at Wikipedia:User pages#Recommended solutions, there is no other mention of how it fits policy-wise. The other templates (Template:Courtesy blanked, Template:Intentionally blank, and Template:Discussion blanked) relate to discussions about content not actual allege content itself (we don't blank articles that don't pass AFD, we delete them). While this prevents indexing, the concern behind WP:NOTHOSTING is not just the fact that the content can be indexed but that the content is just not wanted here. The template itself is supposedly only for userpages which I consider the main page of an editor not "Old drafting pages" which is where it's mentioned and more likely where it's used (that's just a point not a deletion rationale). If it's just the main user page that's problematic, WP:U5 supports deletion not blanking in this manner. Policy also doesn't seem to support indefinitely (even blanked) drafts anymore as newer drafts (using WP:AFC for example) are formulated within draftspace and have fixed time limits to either be edited or reviewed (even those edited but going nowhere show up at MFD something). They all have various amounts of leeway towards restoration if requested which is admittedly more difficult for a new user to figure out than unblanking but (and there's no way to know this) I don't think there's a significant number of editors who come back and somehow know how to pull up the history and get an inactive version if they want but would be too discouraged if they had to go ask someone to restore it for them. Moving articles to mainspace provides finality, MFD provides finality and even movement to draftspace provides finality but this template does not. Also, as I admittedly argue at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User:YourBrandRocks.2FRyan Arnold, blanking a page doesn't stop the possibility of unblanking if there's gamesmanship going on and so these article may have to be monitored. There are 158 translucations of this template for reference. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:3166comp[edit]

Template:3166comp (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Orphaned template Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete. I'm the creator. Speedy even. -DePiep (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:1964 Constitution of Afghanistan[edit]

Template:1964 Constitution of Afghanistan (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Orphaned template unused at 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

NBA Finals broadcasters templates[edit]

Template:1960s NBA Finals broadcasters (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:1970s NBA Finals broadcasters (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:1990s NBA Finals broadcasters (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2000s NBA Finals broadcasters (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2010s NBA Finals broadcasters (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Mostly orphaned templates (1970s is only used at the 1971 article). The 1980s was discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_1#Template:1980s_NBA_Finals_broadcasters because this content is also redundant to List of NBA Finals broadcasters. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:1954 railway accidents[edit]

Template:1954 railway accidents (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template, while useful in some ways, only contains red links and is the only member of Category:Railway accidents in 1954. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete or userfy. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:All Schenker[edit]

Template:All Schenker (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Orphaned template Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:No Schenker[edit]

Template:No Schenker (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Orphaned template Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Albury/Wodonga radio[edit]

Template:Albury/Wodonga radio (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused template. Seems to have been replaced with Template:Albury-Wodonga Radio. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences Preamble[edit]

Template:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences Preamble (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

We don't have template that just hard-code text, it makes each article page excessively complicated with little gain. It could be considered a WP:T3 situation. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The template in question will be used on 652 pages. Perhaps I structured the page wrong with a template. Is there some better way to do this? But regardless, the pages this template is being used on are already nominated for deletion, so I guess the point is moot. Slevinski (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Why does WP:T3 apply? T3 states Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days. The text of this template is original. Looking at the MediaWiki manual about templates: If you have standard texts you want to include on several pages, the MediaWiki template feature comes into play. What's the problem? Slevinski (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences Footer[edit]

Template:Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences Footer (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template only adds a category. It can be replaced with the actual category instead. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The standard footer is currently used on over 100 pages. There are 652 pages it might be used on. While the template is very basic right now, it is set up to expand the footer on each of those pages. Additionally, the exact name of the category might change, as well as the number of categories. Rather than changing each of the 652 pages, this template was created. Slevinski (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:X-Ray Spex[edit]

Template:X-Ray Spex (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Essentially only links between three articles. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • keep, has plenty of working links. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 1[edit]

Template:Pan American Games host cities[edit]

Template:Pan American Games host cities (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template is redundant because the Pan American Games template lists the same information. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bugoy Drilon[edit]

Template:Bugoy Drilon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused template that navigates to only one related article not covered by {{Pinoy Dream Academy}} • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

June 30[edit]

Template:Hartford Whalers roster[edit]

Template:Hartford Whalers roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template depicts a roster for a team that doesn't exist anymore, and this template is not transcluded on to any page. Canuck89 (converse with me) 23:36, June 30, 2015 (UTC) 23:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

My intention with this was to update it with info from the next season with each subsequent edit, and basically use it as a sandbox, pasting the new content into the respective Whalers season page. After my final edit I would then transclude it to the page 1996–97 Hartford Whalers season. Obviously I haven't had much time to devote to finishing this process. It is not essential to my editing that this template be kept, but I don't know if there's an extremely compelling reason to immediately delete it either. SStephens13 (talkcontribs) 02:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Other users have edited the template. If indeed you wanted to use the information for your own purposes, could have made a sandbox subpage.96.52.0.249 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Millennium Estoril Open tournaments[edit]

Template:Millennium Estoril Open tournaments (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

WP:TOOSOON. First year tennis tournament so it only has one link. Wait a couple of years. ...William 15:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - We don't do navboxes with one link: it serves no purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Chinese translation[edit]

Template:Infobox Chinese translation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox Chinese}}. Alakzi (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Empress of China
Chinese name (in mainland China and Taiwan)
Traditional Chinese 武媚娘傳奇
Simplified Chinese 武媚娘传奇
Chinese name (in Hong Kong, Macau and Malaysia)
Traditional Chinese 武則天
Simplified Chinese 武则天

June 29[edit]

Template:Ctlf[edit]

Template:Ctlf (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Generates:

== References ==
{{unreferenced}}

== See also ==



<!--Categories-->
{{categoryneeded}}

<!--Other languages-->

Not being used. Alakzi (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: "This template should always be substituted" – how do you know it's not being used? PC78 (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Educated guess, combined with the fact that it contains an interlanguage links section and that it is plainly useless. Alakzi (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
      • That's a cleanup notice, so should be quickly replaced. There's nothing distinctive in the output of this template that can be used as a signature of its use. And people likely add categories and delete other languages, as they go about editing the article this was used on. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—this template is substituted so it shouldn't have any transclusions. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete per nominator. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Factor[edit]

Template:Factor (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Not in use Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • weak delete, Module:Factorization is being used, but this frontend is not in use. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • weak keep, per Frietjes (we have the module, and it should be easy to use) Christian75 (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 28[edit]

Template:Largest cities of Serbia[edit]

Template:Largest cities of Serbia (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template is used (transcluded) in only one article. By definition, templates should be used when there is a need to transclude the same content in several articles. I propose to WP:substitute this template in the Serbia article and than do delete it. This is similar to the Template:WW2InfoBox which was used only in the World War II article, and was deleted so. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Support, substitute into appropriate article(s).--Zoupan 22:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Gamebryo games[edit]

Template:Gamebryo games (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The topic of this template is the video game engine Gamebryo, listing the video games that use it. That's already mentioned here and has its own category.

Now, WP:NAVBOX says: "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" and WP:NAV says: "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics?"

Gamebryo is used in very different games, from strategy games to action-adventure games, from role-playing games tower defense games. They were developed by several studios. Besides having the same engine, they do not have anything in common. And because it's already listed in the main article and has its own category, it seems unnecessary to have this navbox around. Soetermans. T / C 10:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, would be better as a category. Additionally, it would be very unwieldy to have a navbox for every video game engine's video games. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting and notable enough, doesn't take up much space at all, overall beneficial.--Sιgε |д・) 18:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not everyone has the patience to deal with returning to a category page over and over when reading series of articles. The benefits of reduction of space by not having to list dozens of "see also" references and ease of navigation seem to me to outweigh any benefit I can perceive of deleting it. Is it strictly necessary? Perhaps not. But it looks good, serves a useful purpose, and it already exists, so why go through the process of deleting? —Dromioofephesus (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per User:Dromioofephesus. Its usefulness is outweighed by what deletion would accomplish. North America1000 05:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Upon consideration I have modified my !vote above from "keep" to "weak keep". North America1000 21:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The rationale behind the cancellation request is valid for any other template in the Category:Video game engine templates. --Enok (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: There's little to no relation between games using a general-purpose engine, making such a template not very useful for navigational purposes. There's a reason we don't have Template:Unity engine games (anymore). It also adds another set of links to maintain in addition to the category and the table in the main article. And Dromioofephesus, maybe you should use a tabbed browser if that's much of a problem for you. Don Cuan (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, the category and list article are covering this just fine. we don't need a navigation template as well. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is nothing in common between these articles. Using the same engine does not mean that these titles are related to each other. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Icon-issues[edit]

Template:Icon-issues (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Article notices should be used for serious issues that actually require effort to remedy. Alakzi (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep There are certainly articles that need such notices. If BRIC was include flags, it would be excessively politicized and such a template would be warranted.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Either WP:FIXIT or leave a note on the talk page. Not everything needs to be banner-tagged, and the fact that this template has got all of three transclusions is testament to that. Alakzi (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't agree with this: This could be argued for {{linkfarm}} and {{quotefarm}}, as just a few examples. And these ones could be easily fixed by deleting the link or quote entries. But we don't delete these warning templates because the purpose these templates serve is for when tagger does not know which quotes or links to remove and to allow the tagger to highlight the issue with the page.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, better to either fix it, or raise the issue on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There is utility to this template: on the talk page: "it's very likely he lacks the confidence to know what the right action is (or the right way to go about it), but what he can do is mark the article for another editor to review".96.52.0.249 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
oh, I see, it's for men who are unable to fix things, so it doesn't apply to me. Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure the editor meant both females and males. Almost all articles can be improved. The template is of critical value to the template and editing message system, just like {{unreferenced}} or {{improve references}}. I otherwise see no meritable or useful reason to delete this template.96.52.0.249 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Scite[edit]

Template:Scite (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ussc (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Scite with Template:Ussc.
The functions of {{Scite}} are served by {{Ussc}}, which is a more detailed template. There is a discussion at "Template talk:Scite" stating that {{Scite}} differs from {{Ussc}} as the former does not create an external link. If this is a desired feature, an appropriate parameter can be added to {{Ussc}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi SMUconlaw. I see that you've already articulated the reason for having two templates. Why would an extra parameter be needed? Is there something wrong with having two templates? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems unnecessary to have a separate template just so that an external link is not created. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The external-link thing is, IMO, a significant issue. True, WP:EL says external links "should not normally" appear in an article body — but it also says (see note 2 on the page) that "exceptions are rare" and lists only a few likely exceptions. If we simply redirect {{Scite}} into {{Ussc}}, without first reaching a consensus to amend WP:EL to relax the "normal" avoidance of external links in an article body, the template change runs a real risk of being doggedly and forcefully reverted by people insisting that the WP:EL violation is unacceptable.
If people insist on consolidating these two templates into one, I'm afraid we're going to have lots of confusion. Even if a new parameter is added to the Ussc template to enable or disable the external link, people are unlikely to remember to use it properly. Would it be possible to deal with this situation, either with a bot, or by having the template include the external link by default if and only if it appears within a <ref>...</ref> (can this be done?)? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no proposal to change WP:EL here. The proposal is to merge {{scite}} into {{ussc}} as suppression of the external link can be dealt with using a parameter within {{ussc}}. That will do away with the need to have two separate templates doing pretty much the same thing.
If the templates are merged following this discussion, a request would be made at "Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks" for existing occurrences of {{scite}} to be replaced by {{ussc}} with the necessary parameter. As for new uses of the template, it would presumably be obvious to the editor that an external link had been created, and that if she wished to suppress this she could visit the {{ussc}} documentation page to find out how. I don't think our current Wikimedia parser functions can test for whether text occurs within <ref> tags. — SMUconlaw (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a merge right now. I think having two templates is fine here and I don't see a compelling reason to merge them. They provide different functionality and both seem to be working fine. {{scite}} is primarily intended to be used in the lead sentence and contains no external links. {{ussc}} is primarily intended to be used in external links and references sections and contains external links. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the external link can be suppressed by default when the merged template is used outside a <ref> (something which is apparently not technically possible). I'm not convinced the external link will be obvious to editors, and it will be even less obvious in the case of existing {{scite}} templates that were put in place a long time ago. Even if a consensus were to be reached here for the template merge, I'm still worried that other editors (not involved in this discussion here, and becoming aware of the merge only after the fact) may object to the resulting chaos caused by the wholesale — even if intended to be temporary — violation of WP:EL in countless articles on US legal topics. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:BMW E24 timeline[edit]

Template:BMW E24 timeline (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template that was only ever used in one article, which it has now been removed from. It is extremely ugly, and is an inferior way of representing data that is already displayed in table form within the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:1996 St. Louis Cardinals[edit]

Template:1996 St. Louis Cardinals (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The Cardinals did not win the World Series in 1996 so this template, which portends to represent the 1996 champions is simply wrong and unnceccesary Spanneraol (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I've already pruned the obviously bunk information about the Cards winning the World Series (Yankees beat Braves) and Pat Borders being named the WS MVP in 1996 (that was won by John Wetteland). Mindmatrix 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Spanneraol's reasoning.--Yankees10 17:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:China color[edit]

Template:China color (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Now basically a complicated wrapper for 22 other colour succession templates (per system rather than for an entire country's systems). Most transclusions (originally more than 1,600) have already been replaced directly with these other templates due to the merger of {{China line}} with {{Rail-interchange}} and {{Rail color box}}.

Should be histmerged with {{BJS color}}, {{CCRT color}}, {{CDM color}}, {{CSM color}}, {{DLM color}}, {{HBM color}}, {{HZM color}}, {{KunmingRT color}}, {{NJM color}}, {{SHM color}}, {{SYM color}}, {{SZM color}}, {{SZRT color}}, {{TJM color}}, {{WHM color}}, possibly {{XA color}},[Note 1] and {{ZZM color}}; and then substituted and deleted. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Colours were also taken from its zhwiki counterpart, wherein they are exactly the same as in {{China color}}.
  • Merge, per nom. (P.S. Excellent job you've done, Jc86035, in rationalizing all these China templates.) Useddenim (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • How are these going to be histmerged? Alakzi (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • could be history merged with the oldest. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if it needs to be histmerged, really—I suggested it to preserve attribution, but another way would work as well. It might not be necessary because {{China color}} consists entirely of simple RGB colour codes. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Maddie & Tae[edit]

Template:Maddie & Tae (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

WP:NENAN/WP:TOOSOON. Only two singles and an album so far. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

June 27[edit]

Template:Infobox POC-PSC PNG[edit]

Template:Infobox POC-PSC PNG (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused and redundant to {{Infobox sport tournament}}. Alakzi (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox company network[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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox company network (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Alakzi (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2015 (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:Longitem[edit]

Template:Longitem (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

An ugly CSS hack, the purpose of which is to reduce the leading of multi-line infobox and navbox labels for aesthetic reasons. Should the leading need to be adjusted, that ought to be done in one of our stylesheets. Alakzi (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • comment Please explain (which stylesheets etc.) - it has 450,000 transclusions. Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I propose that a discussion be held at Mediawiki talk:Common.css to decide whether infobox and navbox labels require a reduced leading. Whatever happens, this template should not be kept. Alakzi (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unnecessary hack. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • keep for now, I would like to see a wider discussion (say at Mediawiki talk:Common.css) first. it's clear to me that we could make a 'longitem' class, and then use <div class="longitem"> ... </div>. however, if we did that, this would become a wrapper. if (1) the position is that we never need to override the default line-spacing, then fine, this template can go, but it would be good to have a wider discussion. if (2) the position is that we can magically remove the need for this template with a change to the common style sheet, I would like to see that first. since, it's not clear to me that you could achieve the same result with such a simple change. Note, there is also {{longlink}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:ChoralWikiNoScores[edit]

Template:ChoralWikiNoScores (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template had only one transclusion that has been easily converted to {{ChoralWiki}}, which everyone uses (1040 transclusions). Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:ChoralWikiName[edit]

Template:ChoralWikiName (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template had only one transclusion that has been easily converted to {{ChoralWiki}}, which everyone uses (1040 transclusions). Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Subject bar[edit]

Template:Subject bar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

A mere 1,477 transclusions in 4.8 million articles, in over four years, show that this template has failed to gain traction with the community; and that its presentation is thus non-standard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep I fail to see how the 1.5K articles where this is used are harmed by this template, or how a significant portion of the other 4.8 millions would not be improved by it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The vast majority of Wikipedia's articles are also Stub and Start class, meaning most articles aren't going to be developed enough to use it. Pretty much all of the FAs I've written use it, meaning it has survived FAC on numerous occasions without any problems. It doesn't violate any policies, so why bother deleting it? Anyway, the template was based on a similar design from frWiki, so it's not completely non-standard. And speaking of non-standard, all the other templates for mentioning Wikiprojects, Portals, etc. typically get placed all over articles in non-standard ways. Some projects put them in infoboxes, while other editors put them in External links or See also or even in the References. In fact, I created this template so that people could standardize. Favoring another style of presentation isn't a reason to delete a template you don't like. – Maky « talk » 16:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You may have created this template so that people could standardise - and thank you for your contribution - but that effort has clearly failed. FA has no mandate to decide on such matters, and no interest in doing so (besides, most FACs do not use this template). Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Making a point that most FACs don't use this template is also a strawman. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an "unofficial guidance essay", not a policy or even a guideline. Furthermore, it clearly states that it was written to help resolve notability issues for articles, not templates. As for this template's "failure", that is entirely your opinion. I agree with the anonymous IP editor that 1000 transclusions is significant, especially since I've only used it on mostly my best developed articles and haven't gone around adding to articles to help popularize it. I think it's use is spreading quite well, and will probably continue to do so with time. Rather than trying to stop its spread by deleting it, could you try using it and help standardize how projects, books, and portals are presented on Wikipedia. If standardization is truly your goal, that would make more sense. – Maky « talk » 19:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
        • It would make more sense to do so if this template were the best, most standard and community-adopted way to do so. It is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep over 1000 transclusions, clearly this has favor with editors. If every article had to have every template then all templates would need to be deleted for not being used by atleast 1 million articles -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "If every article had to have every template" - straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      • IMO, that's hardly a strawman argument. You're trying to argue that this template hasn't reached some magical threshold for widespread use. Is there a policy or guideline that defines how widely used a template must be after a certain period of time in order to be kept? And as for those ~1500 transclusions, have you looked at the list? These aren't trivial articles. Just skimming over the list, there are very important articles about well-known elements, geographic locations, important political figures, and other notable figures. – Maky « talk » 19:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
        • They are indeed significant articles. All the more reason to remove this non-standard, ill-conceived template from them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • That's the argument used for deletion, so it is a strawman, it is the nominator's (your) strawman, not mine. If you call your own deletion argument a strawman, you should withdraw your own deletion nomination. Your argument is that there are millions of articles and this doesn't appear on millions of articles. That means all templates should be deleted, because they don't appear on millions of articles. You made no reasoning as to why this particular template should appear on millions of articles, since templates should not appear on all articles, anything that needed to do that should be built into Wikimedia itself. Templates should only be used discriminately, anything that apples to every page should be part of the software. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
        • You appear to be under the delusion that I have claimed that "every article has to have every template". You are mistaken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Your argument for deletion only works in the case of having every template appear on every article, otherwise there is no rationale left to your deletion nomination. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Balderdash. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Your reasoning in the deletion rationale has no bearing since it is irrelevant how many articles exist on Wikipedia, so the only way that statistic matters is if all templates are used on every article, otherwise, you have no deletion rationale, since no template is expected on every article. Indeed if any template were to appear on every article it would mean that MediaWiki is deficient, and that WikiMedia to install additoinal extensions. So, your deletion rationale is missing. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it adds value and use it frequently MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - enormous and horribly crafted. If there are issues with our interwiki templates, do attempt to address them through collegial collaboration; do not simply fork existing templates to alter their style. Alakzi (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neat and combines the functions of several different templates, e.g. {{Portal}}/{{Portal bar}}, {{Commons}}, {{Wikiquote}}, {{Wikisource}}, etc., etc. These other templates are boxes of varying sizes; including several of them in an External links or See also section adds to the visual clutter in articles and, if the boxes are aligned to the right, often creates white space (as at A Midsummer Night's Dream#External links). I can't comment on the code but visually {{Subject bar}} is the most elegant solution to including Books, Portals, other Wikimedia projects, etc., in one place. Ham II (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per the rationale of User:Ham II. A functional template that provides opportunities to neatly combine various links. Its deletion won't improve the encyclopedia, and would simply limit options. North America1000 06:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox 2015 Ramadan attacks[edit]

Template:Campaignbox 2015 Ramadan attacks (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

If 2015 Ramadan attacks is going to be deleted, so should this template, which is based on a supposedly hypothetical topic. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Although I don't think we should keep 2015 Ramadan attacks, it would be appropriate if the attacks were tightly coordinated (similar to September 11 attacks). However, even then, this would not be an appropriate template. This is not a "campaign", and these are not battles. If there were such a template (which is not established) it would need to be named and implemented differently and go in the bottom of the article, like {{September 11 attacks}}. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per the exact same reasoning I provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Ramadan attacks. RichardOSmith (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not worthy as special template- Varma 05:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.55.51 (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete term "Ramadan" is POV/SOAP for ISIL, the links between these attacks needs to be discussed in the article body (it's debatable if there is one) - especially for AMISOM, when the current phase of the war in Somalia has been ongoing since 2009. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the main article has been proposed to be renamed by someone, see Talk:2015 Ramadan attacks -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I voted in favor of keeping the article but there is no reason for this template. МандичкаYO 😜 12:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete for God's Sake There not battles, they're terrorist attacks. The attack are planned by different terrorist groups. How can it be connected when a ISIS leader calls for attacks days before, Somalia has a terrorist attack but with Al-Shabbab instead of ISIS. 174.113.217.132 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename Bloody Friday - duh, for some reason I thought it was the infobox being deleted and thought that was a custom job. I didn't notice this box. Yes, definitely keep; it doesn't matter that different perpetrators did the attacks as significant coverage is of them as a whole. Somalia should be removed - it's not being discussed together with the three others as of yet. МандичкаYO 😜 16:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It remains unproven that there is any relationship other than coincidence among these disparate events. WWGB (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Bloody Friday (2015).GreyShark (dibra) 21:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Matt - this is a different situation to the article, as a string of probably uncoordinated attacks on the same day isn't what the campaign/battle box is for. ansh666 22:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - sorry for my change of vote once again. This should be a regular template. Now that I edited the template I see it was created as a campaign template, which it is not. МандичкаYO 😜 23:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - It's an easy way for readers to see/access all of the articles on the attacks, without having to read through the entire article. Regardless of the type of template being used, it should be kept for the audience's convenience, not deleted due to some editors' dislikes about the template usage. LightandDark2000 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WWGB et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 26[edit]

Template:Black Lives Matter[edit]

Template:Black Lives Matter (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Much as I support the BLM movement, this template fails NPoV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - nomination fails to explain exactly how the template is NPOV. Every death in this template is referenced in the main article itself. Each death also has a primary and secondary source linking the movement to it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Placing this navbox at the bottom of shooting articles appears to be WP:UNDUE and perhaps even WP:PROMO; in any case, it fails WP:NAVBOX criterion #2. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: - This can be remedied, although it'll probably be up to me to do it. Give me a few days.... starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Done! All shooting articles updated with connections to Black Lives Matter. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Regarding WP:UNDUE, what fringe opinion is being given undue weight by this template? Todd.st (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • What part of WP:UNDUE says it's only applicable to fringe opinion? Alakzi (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:UNDUE is not that big of a section. Would you mind explaining how this policy is violated by the template? Todd.st (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Eicosanoidergics[edit]

Template:Eicosanoidergics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Monoaminergics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Catecholaminergics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Corticosteroidics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Steroidergics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Sex steroidergics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Too large. Joining existing navboxes together like this is a really bad idea, particularly when said navboxes are themselves quite large. Note that the size of the underlying link structure increases as O(n^2) with the number of entries, if they are to satisfy WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Absolutely no need for this template, when the sub-templates are quite sufficient on their own. NSH002 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Note added 5 more templates, for the same reasons. NSH002 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – in addition to the reasons stated by the nom, the title of this navbox Eicosanoidergic is completely unknown in the scientific literature therefore amounts to original research. The creator of these navboxes has been previously cautioned about creating similar navboxes here. Boghog (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Split / delete. I agree wholeheartedly with NSH002 - these templates are huge and provide no navigational benefit by being grouped. They should be deleted and replaced with a single relevant template on each page. In addition, the subtemplates should be renamed so that their titles are more understandable to a lay reader, as Boghog states above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe an expert should comment here first before anything happens to the template. In question to User:Boghog, are you saying the name is a spelling mistake or just a made-up classification? If scientists use the name then that seems like justification. Anyhow the nominator was only suggesting 6 simple splits. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 18:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Nahiyan8: Scientists do not use these names. It is clear, based on lack of hits in Google web/book/scholar and PubMed searches, that {{eicosanoidergics}} as well as the sub templates {{leukotrienergics}} and {{cannabinoidergics}} are completely made-up classifications that are not used in the scientific literature. Hence I am proposing that {{eicosanoidergics}} be deleted and the subtemplates be split up. Boghog (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Boghog: This discussion might be duplicating the one you linked. I feel very uneasy when a debate gets conducted by non-experts in matters such as this, if you understand my concern. Also, if this matters, eicosanoid, leukotriene and cannabinoid classifications seemingly exist except without the "-ergic" part... I have nothing further to add as I am myself a non-expert. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the eicosanoid, leukotriene and cannabinoid classifications are widely used and therefore are appropriate subjects for Wikipedia. "Eicosanoid" was extended to "eicosanoidergic" based on analogy to certain CNS drugs like the dopaminergics. The term "dopaminergic" is well supported in the literature whereas "eicosanoidergic" is not. The later term is completely made up and therefore amounts to original research. Boghog (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, too big, and I doubt anyone use them.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – "...lack of hits in Google web/book/scholar and PubMed searches..." Interestingly the opposite is true. "Too large, too big". No! The templates are wisely structured and well arranged. I can't see any convincing arguments for deletion and regard the nomination as an act of destructive behavior by a non-expert who refused to reveal his/her complaints in prior discussion at appropriate places like WikiProject Pharmacology. This is bad style. See also his/her last edit in monoaminergic that is completely senseless and destructive! --82.149.161.98 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox World Championships in Athletics Sweden[edit]

Template:Infobox World Championships in Athletics Sweden (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox country at games}}. Alakzi (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Anti-Tamil riots in Sri Lanka[edit]

Template:Anti-Tamil riots in Sri Lanka (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template is Wikipedia:REDUNDANT as the more relevant and comprehensive Template:Sri Lankan Civil War already exists. Also highly non neutral. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Party games[edit]

Template:Party games (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Not a coherent or suitable topic for a navbox. Better as a category or a list. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep The template seems fine, fun, (in)formative, and is another way to address the topic. Coherent or suitable? Entirely subjective, as I and the creator of the template do, by definition, find it coherent and suitable. Some people look at lists, some at categories, and others at templates, all three serve the purpose of informative direction (A personal example: I seldom look at categories, so would miss everything if categories were all we had) The creator of the template also had a picture on it, which Robsinden removed, so some of the original template is missing. I was also a main contributor to the template, in fact just a few hours before this deletion nom, and was not notified of this deletion attempt, so Robsinden please alert main contributors as well when you go for the delete, per suggestion of the instructions for page deletions. Randy Kryn 10:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. While it is claimed that it is not coherent or suitable, no reason or argument is given. Hyacinth (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna go with delete on this one. While the topic is actually a coherent topic for a navbox, it is far too big. There are upwards of 80 different party games mentioned in party game, and so many more listed in Category:Party games. Wikipedia:Navigation templates suggests that navboxes "be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value", and I definitelt think that comes into play here. This navbox will either be fairly comprehensive, and thus a sea of links with limited navigation value compared to a category, or it will be manageably sized, but represent only a fraction of its scope. This particular topic is really best suited for a category. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 01:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    'Wikipedia:Navigation templates', the page that you quoted, is not a policy or even a guideline. It's an essay. Templates can be just as large as they need to be to fully map a subject. I don't think 80 party games will be listed on the template if a full template is made from all the articles you found, but if you wish to put every page onto the template the key is to put them into sections, sections which appropriately label the subject of the type of party games in that section. Eighty pages is not only a manageable number for a template, but the eighty can be sectioned to allow easy identification. I'm not going to add all eighty, if you do it I'll take a look and tweak and polish the listings and section heads a bit, but eighty links is certainly not too large a number of pages for this or for most topics. Randy Kryn 1:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant to the article party games; template adds nothing the article doesn't already address.96.52.0.249 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    That can be said for any template, or at least most of them. The template summarizes, presents Wikipedians contributions to the subject in an easy-to-find way, and places these easy-to-find links at the bottom of every relevant article. That's what templates do, they summarize, coherently map out a subject, and share. So your comment, which to a layman (i.e. non-wikipedian, a WP:Wikimuggle) may sound accurate, doesn't take the benefits of a template as a companion piece of the parent article into consideration. I'm kind of itching to try my hand at putting all 80 pages that someone found into this Party games template, unless someone beats me to it. Randy Kryn 3:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The definition of "party game" is essentially any game that can be played at a party. Seriously, all card games should be included in this template as well, not only those at party game. Arguments to keep are unconvincing; the reasoning proposed would logically lead to listing every single possible game, ad infinitum.96.52.0.249 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point. But card games aren't usually played at parties. That brings us into the definition of the word 'Party' (is a poker game considered a party?). "Party games" seems to be defined as games that can be played by a large group of people in a festive or semi-festive atmosphere. Looking at the games included in the article and elsewhere shows that many of the games are actually products, another area that people would disagree on regarding inclusion both in the article and on the template. Randy Kryn 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You have gotten it all wrong. A game is not a party either! "But card games aren't usually played at parties.": blatantly wrong: They are played at parties.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - altrough this may fit better for a category, a navbox is also helpful. --TL22 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There already is a category.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a classic "grab bag" - and we know that articles in a template "should refer to each other to a reasonable extent." This is not the case here. In addition, we have a category already. Neutralitytalk 22:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Card games could be included in this template, if it where not for Template:Card games.
Card games are related by the fact that they are games played with cards. Party games have no definitive criterion which defines a game as a "party game".96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: Has anyone in this discussion quoted or referred to a policy? Is there a policy to refer to? Hyacinth (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You may find WP:NAVBOX useful.96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You may find the article "Party game" useful. Hyacinth (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You can edit the article all you want but it won't affect the purpose of templates. The template lists "might" list a person's subjective list of "party games", but it would be unwieldly large and, more importantly, redundant to categories. And it is pointless and completely useless to have a WP:NAVBOX when your aim it so list the +100 party games into subsections of the template.96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, too widely targeted, better to just use the category, or create sub-navboxes like "drinking games", "card games", ... Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I note that you created {{Children's games}} and have !voted to keep {{board games}} and {{card games}}. It seems as if this is an attempt to frustrate the WP:TFD process; I note that if {{board games}} and {{card games}} are kept, they could be fait accompli argued for this template to be kept too.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
who are you talking to? I created no such templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Hyacinth is the creator of this template.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Please point me to the policy saying a user may only participate in one discussion. Should we delete this template because I created it? See: WP:Other. Hyacinth (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as stated below this may be incomplete but I don't see why the topic shouldn't get a navbox. The fact something else exists does not mean this should be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Children's games[edit]

Template:Children's games (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

fails WP:OR. Not even the articles children's games, traditional children's games or some combination thereof, exists. No game is strictly a children's game. No game listed at List of traditional children's games can be played only by children.96.52.0.249 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we don't have templates such as {{adult foods}} and {{baby foods}}.96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Again, this is a classic "grab bag" - and we know that articles in a template "should refer to each other to a reasonable extent." This is not the case here. Neutralitytalk 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This template is not a list of games. Hyacinth (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is why it should be deleted since list of traditional children's games exists.96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep an incomplete navbox doesn't mean it should be deleted, nor does the fact that other things exist (WP:OTHER). Additionally navboxes do not cite references and so I am not sure what "OR" means. I think there is a common place acceptance of what a children's game is. Therefore keep. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no common place acceptance of what a children's game is, otherwise there would be a main article. It fails 4 of WP:NAVBOX: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."96.52.0.249 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Metropolitan area freeway templates[edit]

Template:Tampa Bay Freeways and Tollways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Houston freeways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:LA Freeways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Metro Charlotte expressways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Milwaukee freeways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:NJ Expressways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Expressways in Greater Orlando (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Phoenix-area freeways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

These templates should be deleted because they are not necessary in articles—Categories are sufficient for organizing these links—and because they cause problems with tracking what pages link where. Many of these types of templates have been deleted recently, starting with the Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, here, here, and here.  V 01:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per past precedent. Dough4872 01:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the past precedents. Also, with a lot of these "larger" metro areas, their definition is quite arbitrary (what is considered a "freeway"? an "expressway"? What is part of the Los Angeles area, and what is not? etc.) --Rschen7754 01:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per past discussions. SounderBruce 02:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all—per the past precedents and comments above. Imzadi 1979  04:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep- First of all, you should ensure that a category actually does exist. Second, the function of such templates cannot necessarily be duplicated by a category. In particular, I don't believe the utility of Template:Tampa Bay Freeways and Tollways can easily be replicated with a bunch of categories. The template aids navigation between several articles that would be buried in several different subfolders of Category:Transportation in the Tampa Bay Area. The template allows users to easily navigate between untolled, tolled, planned, under construction, and former proposed expressways as well as bridges across Tampa Bay. Furthermore, unlike categories, the template displays both the name of the article (usually the route number) and the name of the highway, eg. someone browsing categories would only see Florida State Road 589 despite the fact that the southern portion of the highway through urban parts of western Tampa is commonly known as the "Veterans Expressway" while the remainder is known as the "Suncoast Parkway" through suburban & rural regions to the north. I believe that the Tampa Bay template meets all of the advantages mentioned at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Advantages, except #4 (which isn't relevant). AHeneen (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • We can always create a category for freeways in a specific metro area to replace the functionality of the template. But the issue, as Rschen mentioned, is where do we draw the line between a freeway and expressway and what is the definition of the "metro area"? Therefore, I feel the category may not be useful, unlike a "Transportation in X County" category which has structured boundaries. Dough4872 14:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per past precedent. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per all my past votes. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 25[edit]

Template:Infobox ice hockey player embedded[edit]

Template:Infobox ice hockey player embedded (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I have replaced it with {{infobox ice hockey player}} using |embed=yes. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

notified User:Smartskaft Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Templates: TeX, LaTeX, LaTeX2e[edit]

Template:TeX (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:LaTeX (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:LaTeX2e (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

There is only one legitimate use of each of these templates, a "styled as [stylization here]" statement in the article pertaining to each of these (a total of two articles, as LaTeX2e is covered at LaTeX), and these are uses in which the templates can simply be substituted. One of them, {{LaTeX}}, wasn't even being used for that, only {{TeX}} and {{LaTeX}} were (I fixed that, in the lead of LaTeX). The various other uses of these templates, inline in running prose in other articles like Donald Knuth and Ellipsis, are clearly proscribed by MOS:TM: We do not use CSS tricks to try to mimic the typography of logos, as in "In the TeX typesetting system, the following types of ellipsis are available...", which presently appears in Ellipsis. So, substitute this template in these 3 legit cases [update: and in userspace/userboxes], and replace it with plain text where ever else it is transcluded . PS: At least the LaTeX2e one isn't even a good approximation anyway, except on Linux, so what's the point to begin with? Neither of the other two are exact, either. This has the effect of (poorly) evading MOS:ICONS by trying to do with CSS tricks what we never do with inline logo images. MOS:ICONS also says 'For purposes of this guideline, the term "icons" encompasses both small image files and typographic dingbats.' PPS: They also appear to be "attractive nuisances", inspiring enough vandalism that one of them's been semi-protected.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The originators of these templates have been notified, as have WT:MOSTM and WT:MOSICONS, the pages where most pro and con discussion of inline graphical and typographic effects take place.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove from mainspace use; there's absolutely no need to stylise (La)TeX in articles. They adorn a couple of user boxes, so keep the first two for that purpose, I guess. Delete {{LaTeX2e}}. Alakzi (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • They'll just end up back in articles. They can be subst'd in userboxes, and no one will even notice.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, fair point. Let's do that then. Alakzi (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no good reason to delete this template. "Doesn't need to be a template because it could be subst:ed instead" is a very poor rationale that could be applied to almost any of our templates. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not the [main] rationale. Violates two guidelines is the rationale. That said, "barely used and can be substituted harmelssly in the tiny handful of places it's legitimately used" is, in fact, a common TfD rationale anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, my callow youth. At the time that these were created, the alternative that was being used was an image of the words. Yikes. Suffice to say we're grown-up enough now that we can just use the letters. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:LoC catalog record[edit]

Template:LoC catalog record (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:LCCN (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:LoC catalog record with Template:LCCN.
After fixing 1000s of broken ISBNs, I am now making order with templates encountered during the process. Keep LCCN. Merge LoC catalog record into LCCN. Reasons:
1. Each template is simplistic
2. Each template requires the same main parameter: Library of Congress Control Number
3. The templates differ only in format of the output
4. Minimal number of affected users: LoC catalog record has only 21 transclusions.
Add a new parameter to LCCN to control output format. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. I'm all for consolidation of redundant templates. The shorter output should be the default.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the creating editor of {{LoC catalog record}}. The template I created is almost entirely redundant to the preexisting {{LCCN}}, which seems to lack only the support for the title parameter. I must have been unaware of {{LCCN}} when I created {{LoC catalog record}}, else I would have worked on adding the title parameter rather than produce a new template. I do think the title parameter is worth having in the merged template, however. The template may be used to point to an LCCN for a work that is not the exact subject of the article, so identifying the work to which the LCCN correspond is a worthy feature. But, subject to that concern, I support the merge. TJRC (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Linescore[edit]

Template:Linescore (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Baseball linescore table (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Linescore with Template:Baseball linescore table.
Both can be included in one template page. –Aidan721 (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Aidan721, can you provide an example of a merged template? they are used for two different things. one is used within infoboxes, and the other is used outside of infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in theory, since the compact output can be done simply with a |infobox=y parameter, but agree with Aidan721 that I'd want to see it actually working.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Funny, I wasn't aware that {{Baseball linescore table}} existed; I always use {{Linescore}}. They're used somewhat differently, though, so this would depend on making the syntax work. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If someone can make the syntax work, sure. Otherwise, I would oppose, since as Frietjes notes, they're used for different purposes. Canuck89 (converse with me) 03:16, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Template:Telenovelas broadcast by Venevisión in 2010s[edit]

Template:Telenovelas broadcast by Venevisión in 2010s (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only original programming should be included in navboxes, not every program that is broadcast by a channel. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Original programming is dealt with at {{Venevisión telenovelas}}. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

{{AMC Shows}} only includes original programming, like {{Venevisión telenovelas}} mentioned in my nomination. {{Telenovelas broadcast by Venevisión in 2010s}} includes programming by other studios, from other countries. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions anyway. PS: The {{Univision 2013 telenovelas}} template also lists all-original programming, but that of Televisa; as Univision is just the broadcaster (though a fiscally-related company), I've proposed moving that template, at Template talk:Univision 2013 telenovelas.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If we had a separate template for every channel that broadcast a channel, we'd end up with lots of navigation templates on some shows, so many that they'd functionally be useless. Much better to restrict templates to a channel's original shows. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Happened to have been broadcast at some point on so-and-so station" isn't a defining characteristic of anything.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

June 24[edit]

Template flags Southeast Asian Games[edit]

Template:FlagSEAGathlete (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:FlagSEAGteam (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:FlagSEAPathlete (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:FlagSEAPteam (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

These templates are no need and not used in the Southeast Asian Peninsular Games and Southeast Asian Games have merged to flag and name of a country of Southeast Asian Games (new) has been provided: flagSEAGF (new), flagSEAGFteam (new), flagSEAGFathlete (new), flagSEAGFmedalist (new). Thank you! Boyconga278 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why did you create a whole string of templates without discussion with others? You are aware how many articles are affected as a result of your unilateral decisions?Huaiwei (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: Why are we creating flag icon templates that are specific to the Southeast Asian Games -- are these not completely redundant/duplicative of generic flag icon templates that do exactly the same thing? I think we need to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template of this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Dirtlawyer1: It doesn't seem entirely redundant as they're designed to simplify linking to the "country at games" article set. The forebears Template:FlagIOCathlete/Template:FlagIOCmedalist don't provide that functionality for other games; see for example Template:FlagCGFmedalist for linking to Commonwealth Games team articles. Template:FlagIOC2medalist seems to allow a broader function which may overlap with the above ones
    • We need to balance desire for a combined functionality for each games while avoiding the need to pipe in the games edition 50+ times on the same page for the template. Given that the results pages that these are used on tend to have a common format (e.g. Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 4 × 100 metre medley relay), I think we might be able to achieve decent results by string functions on the page title. If we remove the title elements preceding the "at the" and anything after "–" then we can automatically know the year and the games of the intended link, while still allowing manual input of those bits of data if given in a parameter. I've started a basic template to fulfil this function at {{FlagGamesMedalist}}. This could probably supersede some other templates too, like Template:FlagATHCHathlete. SFB 18:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I thought about doing something similar a little while ago, but another issue is with using the IOC code to produce an older flag or country name. Templates in the {{Country name IOC alias}} series expect the games to be part of the second positional parameter; we'd have to modify all 200-odd of those templates to extract the date and set up year ranges. The whole series needs to be Luafied - and the sooner, the better. Alakzi (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Template:Tennis event MSE[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 mergeOpabinia regalis (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tennis event MSE (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox tennis tournament event (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Tennis event MSE with Template:Infobox tennis tournament event.
Merging requires the addition of another |type= option, team. |otheryear= are |otheryear-defchamp= are unused. The parameter comparison can be seen here and a side-by-side comparison below. Alakzi (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 23 June 2015 (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:Ananda Mahidol[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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ananda Mahidol (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Improper use of navbox format. Navboxes should be placed in all listed articles so that they link between each other. This one appears to be a general see-also box appropriate only on the main article page. Paul_012 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (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:Bhumibol Adulyadej[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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bhumibol Adulyadej (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Improper use of navbox format. Navboxes should be placed in all listed articles so that they link between each other. This one appears to be a general see-also box appropriate only on the main article page. Paul_012 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (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:Belize Super League[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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Belize Super League (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only two blue links to season articles, plus the parent article indicates the league is disbanded so the club section (currently entirely unlinked) is no longer needed. Fenix down (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete fails wp:navbox. template navigates to 3 links: 2 seasons and main article.96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2015 (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:FC Ordabasy matches[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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:FC Ordabasy matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No Blue links at all. Not a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NAVBOX. template stores links to nonexistent articles.96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - simply not required. GiantSnowman 13:23, 30 June 2015 (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:Board games[edit]

Template:Board games (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Fails WP:NAVBOX, specifically 1, 2, 3, 596.52.0.249 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Card games[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 Merged with {{Cardgames}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Card games (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Fails WP:NAVBOX, specifically 1, 2, 3, 5 96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. 1. The article "card game", the "playing cards" used in those games, various actions with those cards, and awards received for playing those games seem highly and clearly related. 2. Card games are mentioned in every article. This proposal seems either poorly thought out or possible vandalism. Hyacinth (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No: The only links that could be argued to be related are in the 2nd row "Introduction", a pointless relationship to the article card games; the links within that group lists:
Card game: unnecessary
playing card: the unit which defines a card game
Shuffling: unrelated to card games
Cut: also related to many other things
The rest of the links are to awards related to cards, only adjunctively related to "card games".96.52.0.249 (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that "cut", "cutting", and "cutting (disambiguation)" are related to many things, but it seems difficult to argue that "cut (cards)" is not related to card games. Hyacinth (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This template was on only one article. Its title is redundant to {{Cardgames}}, to which it now redirects. Hyacinth (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2015 (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 Russian inhabited locality[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. I am the nominator and I have decided to withdraw my proposal.Regards, Sovereign/Sentinel 10:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox settlement (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality with Template:Infobox settlement.
Per WP:TFD#REASONS no. 2. The Infobox Russian inhabited locality template is redundant to the Infobox settlement template. Sovereign/Sentinel 08:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose. It was already nominated previously and kept. Seriously, people, it is great that someone comes and says "It is redandunt, boooo", without any interest in working on the articles where the template is used, and then Ezhiki and me, who work on these articles, are expected to sort out the mess which will be there after the template is deleted. Just leave it in peace.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This merger was proposed in the past and did not succeed. Note that the Russian template supports several sections which the generic Settlement does not, and incorporating those sections into the generic template would be counterproductive because they are only used in the context of Russia. Also, the Settlement template does not allow for controlling the flow for presenting Russia-specific information in a way that makes sense. In all, there is nothing wrong with having a dedicated template for complicated cases which don't fit the mold; Russia is most certainly such a case! And I agree with Yaroslav's point above—while there seems to be no lack of volunteers to merge things, there are hardly any who stick around to clean up the mess.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2015; 13:29 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - argument per WP:TFD#REASONS no. 2 doesn't seem to be justified in the merging rationale. Exactly how is it "better designed"? For the purpose of generating Russian locality infoboxes the Russian-specific template is much better designed. It simply doesn't require the level of knowledge of the framework of administrative divisions that the more general template does. I don't think I would ever have got started on any articles on Russian places if I had had to do all the additional work that the general template requires in order to populate it. I just don't see how not having specific templates for complicated instances is not of benefit to the community both in terms of ensuring accuracy and consistency across the subject and ease of use. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to wrapper if the only thing stopping Russsian pages editors from using {{infobox settlement}} is difficulty in syntax, this does not mean that the Russian infobox shouldn't standardize on infobox settlement. Thus the Russian template coding should be replaced by an intermediate transclusion to infobox settlement -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    These arguments have been previously examined and rejected.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2015 (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.

June 22[edit]

Template:WWE Programming[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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:WWE Programming (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Overkill. The main WWE template has all of this stuff covered in it, and 2 templates regarding the same topic seems redundant to me. Vjmlhds 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm pretty sure that the only shows linked in this template that aren't in the main WWE template are redirects to the List of current WWE programming article.LM2000 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2015 (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:Principle CW-radar[edit]

Template:Principle CW-radar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only used in one article, info can be transcluded there The Banner talk 14:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete inappropriate use of templates96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this is just a clunky way to make an annotated image. They're not intended to be widely used; they just provide searchable, legible text superposed on an image that can be reused in other language wikis. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • indifferent, I simplified the code to use {{annotated image}}, and to only use the features which are in use. I don't really have a strong opinion concerning merging it with the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The template should be deleted now. Per WP:TMP, it should include "Wiki markup to be included on several pages via transclusion". It is no longer used on any page and is not likely to be used on any other page.96.52.0.249 (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:The Casual Vacancy[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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:The Casual Vacancy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Delete as unused. Bazj (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2015 (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:GKDLink[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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:GKDLink (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

1. The creator of the template says, "There are now no links to it and the German equivalent has been deleted (presumably superseded) so I think we can safely bin this one". See "User talk:Bermicourt#Template:GKDLink"
2. 0 transclusion(s) found. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2015 (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.

June 21[edit]

Template:Arab Winter[edit]

Template:Arab Winter (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Violation of WP:OR. This is an attempt to bypass consensus at Arab Winter which was reached a few months ago and in which this was discussed via RFC. The RFC was conclusive, see Talk:Arab Winter#Arenas section - Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename - the information in the template doesn't belong to the Arab Spring topic, as it was almost unanimously concluded that Arab Spring is over. The Arab Winter (or another name) refers to post Arab Spring developments.GreyShark (dibra) 07:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Greyshark09: the RFC at the Arab Winter article was conclusive. You don' get to bypass consensus by creating a template with the same content... - Cwobeel (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
And your argument is exactly what WP:NOR tell us not to do. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Station layout templates[edit]

Template:SL bottom (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL br (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL div (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL file (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL head (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL multi (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL pic (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL row (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL sep (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL size (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL text (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SL top (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

These nonstandard templates are only used on eight articles. They can be replaced with the standard and much more popular BSicon templates (see Side platform, which has both a BSicon table, at top right; and an SL table, on the left side of the first section). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to replace all their usage with BSicon? For example, two tables are here. Is it possible to replace both of them? Vcohen (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vcohen: I think that one could plausibly be replaced with something similar to {{Central Station (MTR)}} (although   (BS SR) and   (BS SL) could be overlaid between the platforms of different levels, like with the diagram at zh:油麻地站 in the infobox). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
So, as I see, all replacements are vertical. How can we depict a horizontal layout? Vcohen (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vcohen: Usually BS-icons have rotated counterparts (for example:   (STR),   (STRq);   (STRf),   (STRl)) and they can be systematically created if they don't exist, so I think all you would have to do would be to change the image placement and append q to the filenames. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Do they support including route bullets, such as NYCS-bull-trans-R.svg? Vcohen (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vcohen: Usually I've seen line/route interchange symbols added in the text margins (like at {{Paris Métro Line 5}}) using {{Rail-interchange}} or similar templates. However, there appear to be a number of bullets that have been given BSicon-prefixed redirects (the majority of which do not appear to be used). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. So, my opinion is: First create replacements for all articles where these templates are used, and only then delete. Vcohen (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, this is completely ridiculous. Why are you guys putting templates (before the NYCS route bullets) in every NYCS article for? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@JoesphBarbaro: If you read the nomination text, these templates, which I assume brought you here, are only used on eight articles (and on only three New York City Subway pages). I'm not sure what you mean by "every NYCS article"; could you please elaborate? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jc86035: First off, don't mock me by repeating a quote I said. Secondly, I find your stupid templates to be completely BS. Please don't tell me you're going to do this in every other NYCS article in the future, are you? Why are these so-called templates needed anyway? They're not needed. This is an encyclopedia, not a template world fest. Now answer my question and I hope it's a good answer. If not, I'll delete all of them right on the spot. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@JoesphBarbaro: You know, if you're just going to be rude to me when I'm trying to explain things nicely, I may as well not reply to you.
I'm not trying to mock you. I quoted you so you could know what part of your comment I didn't understand.
I honestly don't really know how to reply to you saying "I find your stupid templates to be completely BS", "they're not needed" and "why are these so-called templates needed anyway". For one thing, I certainly didn't create these templates, nor did I put them in the articles. The TfD notice, if you're complaining about it, is generally mandatory for templates which are going to be deleted, as otherwise the editors using those templates will probably be unable to find the discussion.
I would think it unwise for you to delete all the templates, since there is no consensus to just completely remove all the templates from the articles without replacement. Do you mean you want the TfD notice in Template:SL top to be noincluded (removed from transclusions)? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I just haven't been in a good mood over the internet and outside of the internet due to a ton of personal crisis. But yes, I request for these templates to be deleted permanently at all costs. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
You have done a great work. However, I see some issues, and I don't know if all of them are solvable. 1. The SL layouts are equal size squares, the BS layouts are not. You are trying to work it around by converting several layouts into one block, but this force you to rotate them horizontally, while the main direction in the NYC Subway is north-south, and all generic layouts of its stations have to be vertical. The DeKalb Avenue station is oriented north-south too. 2. The SL layouts make difference between types of platforms, such as side, island, or island with one unused side. The BS layouts only support different widths of platforms. 3. The SL layouts make difference between types of tracks, such as in service, usable not in service, or unusable. I am not sure the BS layouts support that. 4. The SL layouts support showing distance between parallel tracks or platforms. Two adjacent tracks look adjacent, and two tracks with an empty trackbed between them look as two tracks with a strip. In the BS layouts the space between the tracks is occupied by arrows showing directions. Vcohen (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
“the main direction in the NYC Subway is north-south” — certainly in Manhattan and the Bronx; but in Brooklyn & Queens it’s generally east-west. Useddenim (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Even in Brooklyn & Queens the railroad directions are north and south. Therefore I say that generic layouts should be vertical. Layouts of specific stations may be either vertical or horizontal according to their actual orientation. Vcohen (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Railroad directions don't really mean anything to the general public. They look at a map and see “top”, “bottom”, “left”, “right”. (I believe this has been previously discussed, possibly at WT:UKRAIL.) Useddenim (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 Diagram from Cross-platform interchange 
[Closed]
NYCS-bull-trans-A.svgNYCS-bull-trans-C.svg
NYCS-bull-trans-G.svg
NYCS-bull-trans-G.svg
NYCS-bull-trans-A.svgNYCS-bull-trans-C.svg
[Closed]
 BSicon spacing 
Four tracks
Second track missing
@Vcohen: I'll address your issues:
1. I only rotated the layouts horizontally to save (a small amount of) space; they can be either horizontal or vertical. If the diagrams are restored to List of New York City Subway stations, if I have time I will rotate them to their original orientation.
2. and 3. The BSicon set has different icons for open and closed lines (  (uSTR),   (uexSTR)) and open and closed platforms (  (STRq+BSa),   (eSTRq+BSa),   (exSTRq+BSa)). See the first diagram at right.
4. Just add an empty parameter between one track and the next (see second diagram). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
See also commons:Category:Icons for railway descriptions. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)










The issue of unused tracks (3) is closed, thank you. Now, I'd like to see these (see above) layouts, while (1) they are equal size squares, (2) side platforms look different from island platforms, and (4) two adjacent tracks are really adjacent. Vcohen (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
In tunnel
 Demo 1 
 Demo 2 
 Demo 3 
Ground level
 Demo 1 
 Demo 2 
 Demo 3 
@Vcohen: I've addressed some of your issues in the diagrams to the right. However: (1) BSicon maps usually aren't squares (which is a good thing, considering some of them are quite long, and that they usually have text labels only on the right). I guess you could try to make them squares and centre-aligned, but you would have to give {{BS-map}} some small tweaks to make that possible (and it would probably have to be added with consensus from maintainers of WT:RDT and/or commons:Talk:BSicon). I think if you have any further queries about BSicons in general you should probably direct them to commons:Talk:BSicon because I'm not much of an expert on them. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. As I see, (1) can be done in theory, (3) is already closed, (4) is done. The last unsolved issue is (2). Vcohen (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1 2 3 4
With text
With number symbols

Does this solve issue 2? (ex platforms are used on the left for clarity; white versions of   (BS SL) &   (BS SR) would be needed.) Useddenim (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it is not clear enough, which platform is a side one. Vcohen (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, which is why station layout templates could be useful in situations like this. Epic Genius (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Platform in service for lines 1 & 4; no access from lines 2 & 3. Useddenim (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Look at my layouts above. Both represent stations with two tracks between the platforms and without tracks on their other side, but the platforms are of different types. Can you build anything like this? Vcohen (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vcohen, Useddenim, and Epic Genius: I've modified the separators in the diagram to be white (BS SL white). It seems that a better solution (such as making the stripes larger?) may be required, as they aren't particularly distinctive. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I see the change in the code, but not in the picture. Vcohen (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Black and white included for comparison. Useddenim (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are different. But none of them does what I want. Vcohen (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vcohen: If you wish to find a solution, you could ask on commons:Talk:BSicon, which is maintained by people with far more expertise in designing BSicons than myself. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
My solution is using the SL templates. I created them, I believe they are better than any existing alternative, and I am not interested in deleting them. If somebody thinks different, he should prove his opinion. Vcohen (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vcohen: If they were so much better than BSicons, as you claim, they would probably be used on more than three articles. (You also contradict yourself, as you earlier stated that they should be deleted, but only after replacement.) I've started a discussion on commons:Talk:BSicon; it would be great if you could participate and help in it. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I contradict myself, because I gave a chance to my opponents. That does not mean I totally agree with them. And yes, these templates are used in more than 400 articles of the Russian wikipedia, for example see here. Vcohen (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacing per nom. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Vcohen, who are your opponents? I did not start this discussion to start an argument—when you raised issues, I tried to solve them by showing how BSicons could be used. The templates on the Russian Wikipedia are not the ones nominated for deletion.

How, in your opinion, is the SL series of templates better than other existing alternatives, and why can they not be replaced? The only issue you stated was still a blocking factor was that there was, in your view, no way of showing a side platform next to another track which it doesn't serve, which Useddenim and I have tried to address. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

These are the same templates on the Russian wikipedia and here. The difference is not the templates themselves, but only the opinions of the participants. So, they are used, and (IMHO) they are visually more suitable for station layouts, but let's ignore that, because my opinion really may be prejudiced. I ask to show me only one thing: that the BS can do the same. If they cannot, there is nothing to talk about. Vcohen (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vcohen:, I think you're arguing against yourself now. The example at WP:ru illustrates perfectly why your SL templates shouldn't be used. (Compare with Times Square (New York City Subway)#Station Layout at WP:en.) That section provides much more information, and if actual track configurations are desired, well that's what BSicons are for. Furthermore, WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. Useddenim (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Side platforms
 
 
Island platforms
empty trackbed
 
 
Island platforms
no service
 
 
I really don't understand what you're asking for. Here's three more examples (in square boxes, for good measure). Useddenim (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Everything looks usable, IMO; though I prefer Vcohen's version, it isn't used enough, and bs-maps will suffice for most of the examples. However, in the second one, it looks like there's 4 platforms with empty tracks in between the inner platforms and the (nonexistent) outer platforms. @Useddenim: maybe the trackbed can be depicted by a dashed gray line instead of a solid gray line. Epic Genius (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
One picture is worth a thousand words. What I am asking for is shown above. Although a thousand words already separate us from my picture, it is still visible. Vcohen (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vcohen: Could you explain what you want in words (since your picture isn't really clear enough as to what you want and we've already made about four or five diagrams which you claim all don't match the one you want to be replicated)? Is it something to do with the borders? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, borders can help. An island platform has two sides available to trains, a side platform has one. The second side of a side platform is usually a wall or a fence, and that side has no border in my picture. Vcohen (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Side platforms
no service
 
 
The narrower width of, and blank white nothingness adjacent to the side platforms in the BSicon diagrams indicates that — well nothing (relevant, in a railway sense) – is there. I think that Vcohen is simply grasping at straws now to justify continuing to say “No” in a losing argument. Useddenim (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Your imagination is richer than mine. You can see things that I cannot. Vcohen (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I see the diagram you just added. Which of two my diagrams does it correspond to? Vcohen (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea; you just keep saying “that's not right” every time someone gives an example.

So, let's try again:











Side platforms
 
 
Island platforms
empty trackbed
 
 
Wide platforms
alternate
 
 
This is how I interpret the SL diagrams from earlier in the discussion. Useddenim (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
When even the number of tracks is wrong, how can I say that it's correct? Now, regarding the new diagrams: the left one is OK. The right one... why does it have four platforms? Vcohen (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Because I have absolutely no idea what Vcohen is trying to illustrate in the upper-right diagram! Useddenim (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Which goes back to my point above—maybe you should use a dashed gray line instead of a solid gray line to illustrate track beds. Epic Genius (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, but I still don't know what it's supposed to show. Useddenim (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)












Island platforms
(Divided)
 
 
Island platforms
(Separated)
 
 
Apparently, you are trying to say that two tracks or trackbeds shown around the platform are sufficient to understand that it's an island platform. I think our diagram will be much more readable if the platform configuration is shown on the platform itself, by borders or whatever else. Here → is a new example. The left diagram shows two stations. The inner tracks and the platforms' halves adjacent to them are 14th Street (PATH station). The outer tracks and the platforms' halves adjacent to them are 14th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line). The platforms are divided by walls so that there is no free transfer between the two stations. The right diagram shows the 14th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line) station only, emphasizing the fact that one side of the platforms is a wall and not available to trains. Using BSicons, we cannot show that. Vcohen (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The line should be longer, as long as the tracks, rather than the platforms. Then it will look like a trackbed, rather than a platform. Vcohen (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. I've added two more examples. To me, the black line implies a division or barrier along the platform (as at 14th Street), whereas the white line suggests physically separate platforms (such as at Highbury & Islington, where the Victoria line and Northern City Line platforms are interlaced). But there's nothing in Vcohen's (left) diagrams to indicate any sort of split, division or separation between the faces of the island platforms. Useddenim (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The only goal of my left diagram is to explain (here, in this discussion) the configuration of the two stations. There is no need to show this diagram in articles, as there is no article about two stations together. The diagram I want to see made of BSicons is the right one. Vcohen (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Then case closed. BSicons can replace {{SL}} templates. Useddenim (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It cannot be closed before somebody shows me an example. I hope now you can do it. Vcohen (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Example of what? Haven't we duplicated every {{SL}} arrangement that's been created so far? Useddenim (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
We are still with the difference between island and side platforms. My last example was for 14th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line). Can you rebuild it with BSicons? When you say you are sure you can do it, it's great, but I want to see how you do it. Vcohen (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is an exact duplication of your station at right in BSicons. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
And just to the bottom, a more spaced-out version. Epic Genius (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Center
Side platforms
Center
Side
platforms
Which part of these diagrams says me that these platforms have walls on one side and are not island platforms? Vcohen (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Vcohen: Is the blank space between the platforms insufficient? If you want you could add   (BS SR)  (BS SL) between the platforms and tracks to indicate that there is a wall. (This will require something like BS S2 and BS S3 for second-quarter and third-quarter dividing lines, or something similar for platforms in the equivalent positions—which only have first- (BSl) and fourth- (BSr) quarter icons—to improve display.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Diagram updated with   (BS S2m) and   (BS S3m). If someone thinks they could be renamed to fit better into the naming scheme then by all means do so. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, as far as I see, using BSicons side and island platforms look the same, unlike my SL set. However, BSicons do have means to emphasize both side and island platforms (showing walls and unused tracks/trackbeds respectively) if necessary. Therefore I think my resistance is futile. Thank you. Vcohen (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Question - Is this the reason so many line templates are getting totally screwed up right now? Because if it is, I'll have to Strongly Oppose the deletion!! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It shouldn't be, since there are only (IIRC) three pages on en:WP that use the {{SL}} templates. Which pages are getting totally screwed up? Useddenim (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Useddenim and DanTD: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Metro-North Harlem and Hudson Line templates. While this was entirely my fault (I tried something with {{BSrow}} which somehow broke a lot of diagrams), it's completely unrelated to this. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
In this case, I apologize. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

Archive and Indices[edit]