Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 23

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

October 23[edit]

RefX family[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ref A (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ref C (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ref D (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ref I (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ref P (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ref R (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ref U (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ref W (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Templates for an old citation system that is no longer used; redundant to the {{Ref label}} system and other citation methods. No transclusions for any of these. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it is time for these templates to be deleted. After all, they have been out of use for some time now. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2009 (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:Paleozoic[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Unused templates for a wikiproject that has been inactive since 2007. Siblings of {{Precambrian}}, nominated by another editor below. RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. These seem to have been superseded by {{Geological era}} etc, so there's no particular reason to keep them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2009 (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:RR[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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Short, practically unused template, could be confusing due to short name. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unused and abandoned. It has no talk and no edits since it was created in 2004, and its only transclusion is on a userpage of the editor who created it, who hasn't edited on WP since 2006. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing with railroad... what is it anyways? I see it predates Template namespace... since it's MSG:RR ... 76.66.201.240 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2009 (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:Precambrian[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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Unused infobox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unused template for a wikiproject that has been inactive since 2007. --RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. These seem to have been superseded by {{Geological eon}} etc, so there's no particular reason to keep them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2009 (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:2003 Cincinnati Reds season game log[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 substitute and delete per WP:CSD (db-author). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:2003 Cincinnati Reds season game log (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Old, unused template. Could possibly be substituted on 2003 Cincinnati Reds season if it is of any use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I say substitute and delete- I completely forgot about that template, but I figure someone else might finish it if you do that.   JJ (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (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:All plot[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 as two distinct templates Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Merge to {{Plot}}; both templates serve essentially the same function - to notify that an article has too much plot - and I see no valid reason to have two separate templates. Both put articles in the same category. This appears to be more of a wording/POV split made during disagreements about the word of the Plot template. Plot is the older and far more widely used, so suggesting this template be merged there. Merging of the wording should not be a big issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. Please see the related discussions at Template talk:Plot#Requested move. The current wording of {{Plot}} appears to have consensus and the two templates do indeed address distinct issues and cannot be plausibly merged. Moreover, the current version of {{Plot}} is what is novel. Almost all of its active transclusions date back to the original wording, which is far more like the current template:All plot. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
From your explanation, All Plot is basically the "old" plot template despite consensus approving the new wording. That, to me, would indicate a pointy or non-neutral forking to retain the preferred old wording. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus relating to the "old" wording is to be found in policy, at WP:PLOT. If anything, the new wording of Plot is not based on policy. But I think the new wording does have its, if more style-related than policy-based, justification. Central to my opposition here is that the meaning of the current All plot template is the one built on a far longer-lasting and deeper-rooted consensus (despite aggressive attempts by a vocal minority to enable all-plot summary "articles"). So long as {{Plot}} does not relate to WP:PLOT, we need a different template to address that very distinct issue. Tbh, I really don't understand your vigorous opposition to my initial move request for {{Plot}}, much less your subsequent deletion request here. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see how. If it has too much plot, it has too much plot, regardless of percentage of article it takes up. It would be just as easy to even put a flag in plot to switch between a stronger wording of "all plot" versus "too much" and to put in any article/section switches. If its purely strength of language, I see no reason the stronger language of all plot can't be merged into plot, which could use it anyway. Plot's wording was, however, changed by "consensus", so someone creating a new template that goes back to the older wording against that consensus seems very inappropriate versus resolving the issue with further discussion. Further, All Plot may have "stronger" wording, but it is not well used or well known. Never heard of it myself and even having now seen it, I'd still just use plot for the same purposes even if an article was nothing but "this is about x" followed by 3 pages of plot summary. Both address the same core issue. Unref and refimprove are two different issues - one indicates a total lack of references while the other indicates that more are needed and can be applicable even when there are 20+. Too many images would also seem to be fairly unnecessary - that's what nonfree is for. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try and take your response at face value. There are many articles that consist of concise (in and of themselves entirely appropriate) plot summaries, but which consist of nothing but the plot summary. Those articles couldn't plausibly be tagged with the current version of {{Plot}}. The old version used to do that, and now that function has simply been moved to All plot which contains the all-relevant mention and link to the policy at its core. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree with the reason given by Collectonian. After reading the arguments made in favor of {{All plot}}, I'm even more convinced that they should be merged. It is not quite clear the difference between the two and I really don't see a reason to have two similarly named templates which are used for a similar function. There are other templates to complement the function of {{Plot}}, like {{Incomplete}}, {{Overdetailed}} or {{Sub-sections}}, so I don't think there is a specific need for {{All plot}}. Jfgslo (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as I've shown, there very clearly is. Let me repeat myself: There are many articles that consist of concise (in and of themselves entirely appropriate) plot summaries, but which consist of nothing but the plot summary. The argument that such articles should be deleted rather than tagged is also invalid, since such an article might well be expanded with real-world info. A cleanup template encouraging users to do so is more than in order. Indeed, practically all transclusions of Template:Plot date back to when the template's wording was based on WP:PLOT -- a function which has been shifted to All plot. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on that. Why only the plot and not other data? I understand that you are mostly referring to articles in which the plot is essentially okay, but that lack any other section. But dedicating a single template for that is confusing. A template which ask for other sections would work better instead of a plot specific template, in my opinion, because there are other articles which probably have a good developed section of some other data, let's say reviews or reception, but that lack a plot. Shouldn't that also merit its own template? I think not. My point is, {{All plot}} is way too easily confused with {{Plot}}, and I also don't think that an specific template for articles which only have plot is needed. I'd rather have a template that indicated that other sections are needed in an article instead of focusing only on the plot section. Jfgslo (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You are ignoring WP:PLOT. It is longstanding policy and addresses the exact issue of all-plot-summary articles. Your disagreement here appears to be based on your disagreement with WP:PLOT, therefore I suggest you present your objections at the appropriate place, WT:NOT. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, your argumentation is entirely beside the point, if you don't mind me being frank. Where there exists a specific issue with e.g. the introduction, one of the specific introduction templates is used. Same here. But I agree with one point of yours: The danger of confusing {{Plot}} and {{All plot}} exists, mostly due to the fact that "Plot" is the generic title which was ok as long as there was only one template. That's why I originally requested the move of Plot to a more specific name, reflecting its current specific wording. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:Plot refers to what is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia for Wikipedia and that the plot is only a part of the coverage, that's clear and I never made a point against that. My issue is with having a single dedicated template for something that is already covered by other templates in a better and less confusing way. It's more than enough to say that an article is incomplete, no need to have an specific template regarding the plot. When an article is incomplete, whatever is missing should be discussed on the talk page of said article. In said talk page, all points related to all issues in "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" can be addressed more appropriately than merely saying that an article is a plot summary. Because of that is that {{All plot}} gets easily confused. You mentioned the Introduction related templates, which are actually a good example. All Introduction related templates address flaws or omissions in the intro itself, not about an article being simply an intro. Precisely because they are focused on that instead of saying that the whole article is an intro is that they don't get confused between each other. And that's why, I think that {{All plot}} is unnecessary and confusing and should better be merged with an already existing template. Jfgslo (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You don't find it at all noteworthy that Wikipedia policy makes explicit note of Plot-only description of fictional works ? That specific situation was singled out for good reason, and we need a template to let people know that plot-only is a severe shortcoming, and to encourage everybody to expand the page beyond a mere recounting of the plot. --87.79.169.145 (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It is noteworthy but that is not the only explicit note there. I don't think an specific template is needed for such a thing. An article which is only plot is merely lacking other sections. By using the logic of creating a specific template for plot-only, a template for lyrics-only articles should also be created, or also an statistics-only template. Plot wasn't the only singled out issue in Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If an article is incomplete, then a template pointing out at the lack of other sections is better than pointing out what the article has already. Jfgslo (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You're again ignoring that Wikipedia policy makes explicit mention of this situation because it is a very frequently occuring problem. If you don't like WP:NOT, address that there. --87.79.182.211 (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, this is not the only type of situation that frequently occurs in Wikipedia, but this is one where a confusing template exists to deal with it. You are the one that's insisting that an specific template for such a situation should exist, not Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, there are better ways to do it and that, as it is know, I consider that this template creates more problems than solutions because it addresses what an article already has ("this article only has a plot") instead of addressing what it lacks ("this article is missing an introduction section, reception, cultural impact, references, citations, etc.") Jfgslo (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It's just me who deems this template important? Au contraire, considering that almost all active transclusions of {{Plot}} date back to when the warning in Plot was what is now {{All plot}}. The question you may want to ask is why a widely-used, policy-based template was changed by a minority effort to some stylistic advice based on an essay. Hint: At least one proponent of that "change" (I'd call it a hijacking, after having spent time and AGF to rationally converse on closely adjacent issues with the individual in question) is on a campaign to make plot-only "articles" possible through the backdoor, after repeated attempts to get rid of WP:PLOT have failed. All in all, I'm glad that the vast majority here appears to agree with me on the all relevant points. --87.79.182.211 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that you were the only one, I just wanted to emphasize that Wikipedia does not establish such a thing, that would be against other Wikipedia principles. But you are right on that the majority agrees on most of your points. That doesn't mean I agree with them, but my vote in favor is not necessary when the vast majority agrees with them. I know little of the situation regarding the changes done to {{Plot}}. Even so, I still maintain my position that {{All plot}} is an unnecessary template. For what I understand from this discussion, I'd be in favor of changing back {{Plot}} to its past functions instead of creating {{All plot}}, but that is not what's in discussion here. Considering that the consensus is pretty clear on this one, we'll see how {{All plot}} works and how well it fulfills the function for which it's intended. Jfgslo (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That's very easy: {{All plot}} has the exact same function as {{Plot}} had before it was changed. --78.34.98.119 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep They serve two completely distinct functions, in the way that warning levels do. {{Plot}} is basically saying that an article is unbalanced, this one is saying "there is nothing else here - this is a deletion candidate". Black Kite 17:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Plot}} is basically saying that an article is unbalanced -- No, it isn't saying that. The difference is that Plot is addressing stylistic issues of the plot summary itself, while All plot is addressing the policy-based issue of WP:PLOT. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose a merger because both templates do not serve essentially the same function. {{Allplot}} is a tag placed at the top of the article to indicate the bulk of it is merely a synopsis of the film's plot and it needs to be expanded with pertinent data. {{Plot}} is a tag placed at the top of the plot synopsis section to indicate it exceeds the suggested word limit and needs to be trimmed. There is a very distinct difference between an article having a plot synopsis that's too long and an article being nothing more than a plot synopsis without production notes, a cast list, critical reception and awards and nominations sections, etc. LiteraryMaven (talkcontrib) 18:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Plot is not placed purely at the top of a plot section, it is placed more often at the top of the article to indicate the article has too much plot, including exceeding word counts and having more plot that real-world context. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
That does not reflect the current wording, which I believe was arrived at after it became evident that the tag was being used contextually in articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I rarely have seen {{Plot}} placed at the top of an article. Given it states, "This plot summary may be too long or overly detailed," it's obvious it belongs at the beginning of the plot synopsis section. However, regardless of where the tag is placed, its message clearly is something quite different from that of {{Allplot}}. LiteraryMaven (talkcontrib) 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Despite its current wording, {{Plot}} is in fact still very frequently found at the top of articles. Which is plausible, considering that the vast majority of all transclusions were instated when the template had a different wording and meaning, one which is now reflected in All plot and based on WP:PLOT. The current wording of Plot should indeed have been split off into its own template page rather than rendering all the transclusions wrong by changing their meaning. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They serve completely different purposes. {{All plot}} addresses articles that have all plot, i.e. no or minimal real world content. {{Plot}} marks a plot section as being unbalanced in comparison to the rest of the article, or the subject that the plot is describing. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. {{allplot}} can be used for stub/start articles where its basically a few paragraphs of consise prose that isn't too long or overly detailed.Jinnai 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose (merging)/Keep (separate tags) It's so obvious each tag serves a different purpose that I don't understand why this is even open to discussion. {{Allplot}} means this article contains nothing but a plot summary and should be expanded with facts. {{Plot}} means this particular section of a fairly complete article is too long and should be trimmed. LargoLarry (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose any merge or other weakening. This template may be changed in the future when all articles consisting solely of plot summary are gone from Wikipedia. Until then it is useful. Abductive (reasoning) 18:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As mentioned by others, these two templates serve two completely different functions and should not be merged. - kollision (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2009 (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:Bioprotocols[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 as external links should go in the external links section. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Violates WP:SELF inherently and has been applied to a number of articles despite being incomplete and broken. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a new template and I did not posses the knowledge to fix the bug (thanks for fixing it), I have removed the violating part.
The reason why it was mentioning that "wikipedia was created as an encyclopedia, so cannot contain protocols, which can be found at these sites" was to explain why there are no protocols (=a scientific cookbook-like list: deemed How-to) in the methods (=description) pages, which always baffles those who are not aware of this problem (both readers and editors). I however think that to make it clearer this should be exempted by the rule of self-referencing to increase user-freindliness, which is more important. --Squidonius (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than referring to external sources (because links aren't useful in print) perhaps the protocol should be described with prose rather than a step-by-step recipe. Someone who is looking to understand how to do a Southern blot wouldn't read an encyclopedia article on it (they'd go to college), but someone looking to understand what it is or how it works would. Does that make sense? 70.91.178.185 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment though Wikipedia cannot how-to, WikiBooks can, you can write-up the protocols into Wikibooks or Wikiversity. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


::Thanks for your concern, I understand it is not very elegant but it is a practical solution to a problem. There are few experts in Wikiproject MCB so many pages are not as good as they should, regardless of wikibooks, protocols are cyclically added and are deleted according to policy, without increasing the value of the page, but resulting in the loss of any new editors, who by the reason of needing protocols are of the postgraduate or postdoctorate level, which the project cannot afford to loose. This templete removes the reason for them to add the how to, in the first place. Additionally, I understand it may not look nice printed but the vast vast majority of the readers are online, and they will be looking up a method and often wanting a protcol so will be hugely benefited, so the printed concerns are greatly outweighed. Later on in the week if I have time, I will trasfer any illegal protcols to wikibooks and add wikibooks links in the templates of the various pages. In conclusion, this template in its current state, if adopted may be very helpful for users and as a defence against edit-wars in my opinion. Having clarified it reason of being and as the violation has been removed, is there are objection to the deletion tag being removed?--Squidonius (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The TfD tag should stay on the template until this discussion has run its course and it closed by an administrator. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for more information on the process for discussing deletion proposals. --RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not being a subject-matter expert, I don't know how relevant this type of link would be for readers of the articles. However, I can say a few things about the box and how it is used currently: 1) Lists of external links belong in the "External links" section at the bottom of the article, not in a box at the top. 2) The image in the template is distracting and not helpful, and should be removed. 3) I am not seeing any reason why the relevant links could not be provided in the regular list format typically used for external links. If someone can provide a reasonable explanation in response to item (3), then I think the first two problems could be fixed by removing the image and moving the placement of the template to the "External links" sections of the articles in which it appears. --RL0919 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks RL0919. The image was there just to make it less rubbish. About it being at the top, that is so to
-redirect immediately people looking for protocols
-stop people feeling the desperate urge to add them by explaining why there are not there, but that line on the template has been removed due to self-referencing guideline (it said "Due to wikipedia's policy, protocols cannot be featured here"), hence me asking if that could stay (policies are guidelines not sacrosanct rules).
However, kept at the bottom and without that explanation the template is useless, so I think a less pretty but within policy solution could be adding a warning bar saying "wikipedia cannot contain how-tos, under which category protocols fall under, please see external links" (btw, adding a hidden message at the top of the page asking no how-tos does not work (I got nasty comment, despite the fact that I am trying to help). I would like to retract my sentence claiming that I wanted to stop the cyclical edits, but due to the number of limiting policies I rather other people waste their time than I waste mine, so I do not mind if this gets deleted. --Squidonius (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If the choice is either to use it as-is or delete it, then sadly I'm afraid my !vote is delete. The idea of a special template to highlight non-official, non-Wikimedia external links is questionable to begin with, but the practice of placing this at the top of the article is just too much emphasis on what should be considered purely supplementary information. I appreciate your desire to prevent inappropriate material from being placed into articles, but I think you may be expecting too much from a template. --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then, I will remove it from the pages when I have a tea break next. However, about the alternative idea of making a warning banner (like uncited, biased, in-universe etc.) requesting the non-inclusion of protocols, can tags be added proactively? --Squidonius (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Normally tags are added to an article when it actually has a problem, not as a preventative measure. My suggestion would be to add a regular external link to relevant protocols in the External Links section of each article. (You can create the section if it doesn't exist in a given article.) Then if someone then adds inappropriate how-to info about protocols, you (or anyone else) can revert and leave them a polite note linking to WP:NOT and telling them the info is in External Links. --RL0919 (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2009 (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:Collins class submarine and related characteristics template[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 Doug.(talk contribs) 19:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Collins class submarine (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine propulsion (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine displacement (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine length (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine beam (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine draught (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine speed (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine complement (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine EW (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine range (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine sensors (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Collins class submarine armament (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

These templates are unused and have been made redundant by {{Australian submarines}} in the case of the first, and plain text or the conversion template in the articles themselves for all the others. -- saberwyn 06:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete all characterisitics templates - they're not templates, they're boilerplate text. Why were they ever created? 76.66.201.240 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all. They are all unused. The first one is a navbox that does appear redundant to {{Australian submarines}}. The rest look like article text, contrary to WP:TMP#Usage. --RL0919 (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (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.

Otheruses templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses9 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Otheruses7 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Templates are unused and easily replaced with {{about}}. — sligocki (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Redirect these were previously documented hatnote templates, therefore a redirect is appropriate. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - redirect to what? They do not have the same parameters/order as {{about}} (or others afaik). I suppose it would be nice to preserve the edit histories, is there an appropriate way to do that? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - No sense of keeping a pointless redirect around. Garion96 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2009 (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:Taxobox binomial[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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox binomial (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox authority botany (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox authority opt (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox authority parens (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox ordo entry authority (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox begin synonyms (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox end synonyms (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox begin placement virus (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox fossil range (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox group i entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox group ii entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox group iii entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox group iv entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox group v entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox group vi entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox group vii entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox group viii entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused and deprecated members of the old taxobox (i.e., {{taxobox begin}} {{taxobox end}}) group of templates. The new {{taxobox}} does not use these templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:39, 23 October 2009 (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:Taxobox alliance entry[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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox alliance entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox branch entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox infraclassis entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subclassis entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox sub classis entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox superclassis entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox cohort entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subdivision (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox superdivisio entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subdivisio entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox Subfamilia entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox superfamilia entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subgenus entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox hybrid entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox superordo entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subordo entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox infraordo entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox magnordo entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox superphylum entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subphylum entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox microphylum entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox nanophylum entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox infraphylum entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subregnum entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox superregnum entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subsectio entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox series entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox serotype entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subspecies entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subtype entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox subtribus entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox synonyms (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox synonym entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox synonym entry botany (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox synonym entry simple (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox trinomial (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Taxobox unranked entry Now redirected.
Template:Taxobox entry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused (or very few uses) and deprecated members of the old taxobox (i.e., {{taxobox begin}} {{taxobox end}}) group of templates. The new {{taxobox}} does not use these templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge to the new template (ie. add these levels to the template) 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell all these levels are in {{Taxobox}}. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment how do you place multiple unranked heirachical "ranks" onto the (somewhat) new template, and in the right positions? I remember you just shoved multipled instances of unranked into the old template at whatever place you needed them... 76.66.201.240 (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    There is unranked_classis, unranked_divisio, unranked_familia, unranked_phylum, unranked_ordo, unranked_regnum, unranked_superdomain, ... If you check the template code, there appears to be one for (almost) every rank. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    For an example with multiple unranked entries, see taxobox on the Bird page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    In that case, for {{Taxobox unranked entry}} redirect to {{Taxobox norank entry}} since it has exactly the same coding, and keep {{Taxobox entry}} in case of need for any missing instances in the main template. The others seem deletable. 76.66.195.206 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    Okay, I removed {{Taxobox unranked entry}}, but I think {{Taxobox entry}} is pointless, unless it's complete rewritten. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 31 October 2009 (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:Taxobox 8fields status noimage authority norange[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 Doug.(talk contribs) 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox 8fields status noimage authority norange (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Currently orphaned and untouched since 2004. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Abandoned and apparently redundant to {{Taxobox}}. --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2009 (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.