Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 11

< April 10	April 12 >

April 11

Template:Country data Commonwealth of Nations/doc

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Izkala (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Commonwealth of Nations/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A free image of the Commonwealth flag is now available. --Neve –selbert 18:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even if the warning about there being no free image would no longer be necessary, the doc page is still used for categories. Also, File:Commonwealth Flag - 2013.svg is still marked as non-free (and hasn't been edited recently), so which free version are you referring to? SiBr₄ (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SiBr4: Oh, my bad, I didn't see that. I had assumed that the image was free as it's featured prominently on the article Commonwealth of Nations.--Neve –selbert 18:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all images on WP are free; non-free images may be uploaded and used here, but only under some strict conditions. It is often reasonable for the main article on an entity to include its flag, logo or other emblem (even if copyrighted), while use of any non-free image in the flag template system fails multiple criteria. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why do we need to delete a doc page? Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Packers1995DraftPicks

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izkala (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Packers1995DraftPicks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. ~ Rob^Talk 17:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izkala (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Gaddafi backed

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izkala (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaddafi backed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inclusion of these very different organizations or vaguely related topics into this controversial template is neither specified, qualified, or quantified, nor is it sourced or comprehensively covered.
Even if a proper article on this topic existed, I doubt this is an appropriate topic for a navbox. We could have myriads of similar templates claiming to collect groups supported by Putin, Erdoğan, the Saud family, U.S. government agencies, etc. p.p. But I'd rather keep navboxes limited to uncontroversially related articles only. I'm however not opposed to listifying these, if properly sourced. PanchoS (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the Gaddafi government in Libya was particularly notable for it's foreign policy of supporting and financing revolutionary political movements (the article for this is Foreign relations of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi) across the world associated with the Non-Aligned Movement and this was a key aspect to a number of conflicts. This is an uncontroversial fact. Yes, we could have other templates along similar lines, that could be very useful... I think templates on movements the US or Soviet Union supported as part of their foreign policy during the Cold War would be useful. Or even the Saudi royal family. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The question here should be "Will readers want to navigate from one group supported by Gaddafi to all other groups supported by Gaddafi?" The answer to this is a clear no. While a properly sourced list may work in the mainspace, this doesn't make sense as a navbox. ~ Rob^Talk 00:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izkala (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. The template lists groups worldwide that were supported by Gadaffi's Libya, but Gaddafi nor Libya are mentioned there. As such, it doesn't function as a navbox. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Rob. It doesn't make sense from a navigational standpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

PUF templates

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).

The result of the discussion was delete all. Izkala (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Puf2 preload

Template:Puf2 preload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 130#Close down Possibly Unfree Files. Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Puf2a

Template:Puf2a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 130#Close down Possibly Unfree Files Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no transclusions and PUF has closed, so it should be fine to delete the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Puf2

Template:Puf2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 130#Close down Possibly Unfree Files Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no transclusions and PUF has closed, so it should be fine to delete the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No transclusions, process it was used in is closed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fdw-puf

Template:Fdw-puf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 130#Close down Possibly Unfree Files Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine, delete. (This and the above two templates.) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's one transclusion (on Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/old details). Something should be done with this transclusion before deletion. The PUF venue has closed down, so this template should never be used again. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Sonic features

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).

The result of the discussion was redirect. Izkala (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sonic features (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merged this template to Template:Sonic games; Sonic games is not particularly burdened by the items in this template and the single encompassing template will aid navigation better. Izno (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Might force Sonic games to become a bit too large. Would be fine with a merge as well though, no strong thoughts either way. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Satellizer: The template is about as large as Template:Street Fighter series. --Izno (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, didn't see that the template had already been merged, sorry. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my rationale below; entries are already part of {{Sonic}}; not so big it can't be part of that. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the main Sonic template is longer in the tooth than I remember it. Readers only interested in the cartoons might benefit from this smaller navigation template. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sonic isn't the only game Sega has made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that have to do with this deletion discussion? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Already included in the main template. For those concerned about the main navbox's size—many of these "features" are wholly unsourced and need to be merged as articles anyway. The navbox size concerns are easily rectified by cleaning up the constituent articles. There, then, is no remaining reason to keep the "features" distinct from the rest of the franchise. czar 05:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Sonic characters

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).

The result of the discussion was redirect. Izkala (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sonic characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merged the characters into Template:Sonic games, as the number of characters has substantially decreased. Enough so that there is only a single line. Izno (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's still 9 items on the list, and the massive size of the Sonic template would be made worse with having to merge these back into it. (And as a side note, this template is very useful to have on my watchlist, as it tells me every time the Sonic fanbase attempts to spinout another non-notable character article.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: A bit WP:otherstuff, but there are other templates as large; see e.g. Template:Street Fighter series. As for spinning out, I don't see how a template is the best way to handle that; it would be better to use Special:Recentchangeslinked with a list of the particular articles which might go from redirects to "full" articles. --Izno (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its worked fine for me for like the last 5 years - every time someone makes a terrible character article, they add it to the template. I have the template on my watchlist. Thus, every time someone adds a character to it, I'm notified, and scope out the article. I've caught many non-notable spinouts for Metal Sonic and Silver the Hedgehog through this method. Yes, I suppose this could also be applied to the massive series template, but with that being so much bigger, its easier to miss additions with so many more items/changes occurring on the big one. Anyways, regardless, I'm just not excited about making a massive template that's already only going to get bigger over time, even bigger with merging this one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per my thoughts here. Personally I think this would aid navigation as it allows readers to quickly jump from a character article to a game article and vice versa. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, didn't see that the template has already been merged, sorry. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already merged into {{Sonic}}. I don't think a total of 9 characters is too much to have incorporated into the series' template. I am also thinking of WP:CONSISTENCY; other video game series with character pages are also part of a single template, not several. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete, fits in one line in main template. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. There aren't enough characters to justify this template's separation from the main one. They've already been merged, so we can delete or redirect this template. (Not sure attribution needs to be maintained for simple navbox lists.) czar 05:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. It is simply too small a template to need to be separate from the main one, and precedence suggests that it's usually best to keep it confined to a single template. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Inc-films

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izkala (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inc-films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of {{Inc-video}} : Noyster (talk), 11:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inc-video. In veritas (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should templates like these exist? Don't they duplicate {{film-stub}} and {{expand}} ? -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was created by a quickly-blocked editor who was clearly trolling. wbm1058 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unused Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:RGVFC Toros squad

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RGVFC Toros squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

same as Template:Rio Grande Valley FC Toros squad; redundant and unnecessary template Joeykai (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Rio Grande Valley FC Toros squad since it is the same one. – Michael (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redirect serves no purpose. Giant Snowman 10:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why would anyone be searching for this over the proper name? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. PanchoS (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election table/header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This one is unused and, if I'm not mistaken, seems to be already merged into Template:Election table. PanchoS (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PanchoS, any particular reason why you didn't just ask me? Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: I see, I was a little fast. This one is not merged in, it is just unused. Or is it possibly subst? And is it useful? Something we can find out in a TfD. Sorry if you feel offended, but why should I ask you first instead of filing a TfD? Nominating an article/category/template for discussion is no offense – from what I know this is simply our resolution process for items an editor considers not useful for whatever reason. If the other participants' answer is clear, it can still be withdrawn or snowclosed. --PanchoS (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it's useful for simplifying specification of the election table headers. I added it to two templates as a demonstration. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw following considerable improvement by Frietjes. Doesn't support colspans or rowspans, so no grouping of columns, but for the most basic cases it is useful now. --PanchoS (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:FratMember

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. These are demonstrably redundant to {{Mem/f}} and so on. Izkala (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FratMember (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FratMemberStart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Frat/start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FratMemberEnd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While I'm unsure we need any of these fraternity and sorority template sets, we clearly don't need several of them. Producing farily plain tables that are not considerably different from the default table (see for example Alpha Epsilon Phi#Notable members or List of Sinfonians), these are easier constructed from articlespace using basic wikitable markup. Unlike the succession boxes or other template building systems, there's also no need for maximum consistency between fraternity/sorority articles.
Still, for now, I'm nominating only the extra ones, to be replaced by the Template:Mem set of templates. PanchoS (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Firstly, these are the only one for Fraternity/Sorority membership, all of the others in fraternity and sorority template sets are for building lists of *chapters* rather than members. Secondly, chapter is a field used by all of the users of these, and going for consistency among the various entries in Category:Lists of members of United States student societies is a good thing, not a bad one.Naraht (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: All of these can be easily replaced by the Template:Mem and its companion templates with no difference in ease of use. Minimal presentational differences are better resolved by improving the generic template. There is no need for yet another set of templates for fraternity and sorority member lists. See the comparison:

Examples

built using Template:FratMember etc.

Name	Original chapter	Notability	Reference
Martin Luther King, Jr.	Sigma	1962 Nobel Peace Prize; Civil rights activist; Co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established in honor; 1957 Spingarn Medal, 1977 Presidential Medal of Freedom, and 2004 Congressional Gold Medal recipient; first African American with a memorial on the National Mall

built using Template:mem etc.

Name	Original chapter	Notability	References
Martin Luther King, Jr.	Sigma	1962 Nobel Peace Prize; Civil rights activist; Co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established in honor; 1957 Spingarn Medal, 1977 Presidential Medal of Freedom, and 2004 Congressional Gold Medal recipient; first African American with a memorial on the National Mall

--PanchoS (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that at this point 20 articles use Fratmemberstart, 10 use frat/start, and 4 use mem/fstart, and wait for other users comments.Naraht (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into {{Mem}}. Functionally redundant, as clearly demonstrated by the example above. ~ Rob^Talk 00:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:HERC

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).

The result of the discussion was relisting here. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 00:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HERC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Delete. There is no article on the template's subject. Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion 4. Sixth o f March 05:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepUsed see here Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Tarlac State University

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).

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 16:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tarlac State University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most links lead to the sections of one of the articles using this template. Sixth o f March 04:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Slavic Orthodox Christianity

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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure). ~ Rob^Talk 16:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slavic Orthodox Christianity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no such thing as "Slavic Orthodox Christianity". That article does not exist and the template it made up of various Eastern Orthodox concepts. Very confusing. Zoupan 18:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got the idea to create this template from some of the articles about the Russian slavophiles and articles like this one Slavic Orthodox. I did not create this article nor the term nor the other releated articles. So I wonder if the above editor can find a source that says there is no such thing as Slavic Orthodox? Since there is of course Slavic Christianity and Slavic neopaganism, Slavic Muslims and sources that use the term Slavic Orthodox [1], [2], [3]. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 13:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 03:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not salient hoax Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).