Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 29

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

July 29[edit]

Template:Hotels in Algeria[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Template is an indiscriminate list and contains only a few notable buildings. Ajf773 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Navboxes ought to navigate either among a closed set of articles (i.e. no other topic exists that could be added to the list) or among the top few items in an area, but this looks like it's just bringing in a few hotels. Surely Algeria, with forty million people, has a good number more than eight hotels, and the fact that several red links appear here indicates that the template's not merely navigating among the top eight hotels. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2017 (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).

Template:N-VR[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. But, please feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This information is not specific to any of the pages it appears on. It should be linked from the relevant pages instead. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I came across this template and I wholeheartedly agree with the nom that the information is not specific. I posted on the talk page of the template editor but they did not seem willing to engage following my constructive criticism. Issues of passport validity make the template seem as if it's just a travel guide (which violates policy). However, I do see the merit in including information on Israeli passport stamps as they are often a barrier to entry to some Arab League countries. I don't see the point, however, in including this template to every page because the information is just 'generalised' and it needs to be adapted to that particular article. The template does specify Armenian citizens -- what use is that information on an article relating to Irish, Australian, US or British citizens? I think further consensus and discussion needs to be had before I make my mind up on this template.
One suggestion I would have for the Israeli stamps is to include information on it beside the country that forbids them, i.e. For Visa requirements for British citizens, add beside Iran - Evidence of Israeli travel prohibits entry to the country because of the Arab League boycott of Israel. This would help streamline information and would allow the template to be made redundant.
Similarly, for the Azerbaijan related information, include that under Azerbaijan's section on the article.
We are trying to build an encyclopaedia but I'm not convinced that the template is essential for the Visa requirements articles. st170e 20:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Twofortnights who would have a particular interest in this area of work. st170e 20:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I supported the information on Israeli stamps to be standardized as there was a user claiming there is a conspiracy in the fact that the information was not included in all articles the same way. As for the other info such as that concerning Armenian citizens, I think those need to be thoroughly examined. Anything that is not actually relevant for all the articles where the template is used should be removed.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The template in its current form is specific and relevant to every page on which it appears - and should not be placed on pages where the information it transcludes is either irrelevant or inaccurate.

The alternative is to have very many articles of the form "Visa requirements for Ezamplish citizens" either out of date, lacking important information or grossly misleading. Don't we have a duty to our readers to provide accurate information?

We may not be a travel guide, but the volunteer editors are just not forthcoming to keep more than 200 pages current with the passport validity needed on entry and vaccination requirements changing frequently.

Please note that the restriction on folk with Armenian ethnicity entering Azerbaijan applies to all nationalities (with the possible exception of Armenians who have been naturalized) and is independent of the passport or passports they carry.
Any "Irish, Australian, US or British citizen" with an Armenian name or ancestry (and regardless of what passports they're using) needs to be aware of relevant non-visa restrictions.
Any "Irish, Australian, US or British citizen" with a passport validity of less than 90 days (and regardless of what passports they're using) visiting a country that they are not a national of needs to be aware of relevant non-visa restrictions.
Any "Irish, Australian, US or British citizen" with a passport stamp from Israel visiting many Muslim- majority countries that they are not nationals of needs to be aware of relevant non-visa restrictions.

When any of this changes (eg, in the case of Azerbaijan, after a state of war with Armenia ceases), wouldn't it be better to update one template accurately and promptly rather than 200+ pages slowly and laboriously?

I have no quarrel with the notion that "Anything that is not actually relevant for all the articles where the template is used should be removed." However, I have asked for precise details of that type of information and they have not been forthcoming. In the same way that all humans must breathe air to live, all travellers on a practical level need to comply with the non-visa restrictions summarised accurately in the nominated template.

This economy and efficiency of editor effort is one of the reasons that we have templates. BushelCandle (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: I see the merit in a template for non-visa restrictions -- in fact I support the idea. The information regarding Israeli stamps in passports vary from article to article, so one template is needed to ensure conformity and consistency. Also, please remember I specified Armenian citizens and not Armenian ethnicity - I see the point in including that, but the template should strictly stick to Armenian ethnicity. Nevertheless, I'll vote to keep the template. st170e 14:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to highlight that the restrictions are not just towards Armenian citizens. (That's the only real justification for including it in so many pages.) The Armenian ethnicity information in Template:N-VR is included in the subsidiary template Template:Armenian-ethn. The current information included there is
Armenian-ethnicity
Due to a state of war existing between the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the government of Azerbaijan not only bans entry of citizens from Armenia, but also all citizens and nationals of any other country who are of Armenian descent, to the Republic of Azerbaijan (although there have been exceptions, notably for Armenia's participation at the 2015 European Games held in Azerbaijan).
Azerbaijan also strictly bans any visit by foreign citizens to the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh (the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), its surrounding territories and the Azerbaijani exclaves of Karki, Yuxarı Əskipara, Barxudarlı and Sofulu which are de jure part of Azerbaijan but under control of Armenia, without the prior consent of the government of Azerbaijan. Foreign citizens who enter these occupied territories, will be permanently banned from entering the Republic of Azerbaijan and will be included in their "list of personae non gratae".
Upon request, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic authorities may attach their visa and/or stamps to a separate piece of paper in order to avoid detection of travel to their country.(citations removed)
Do you think the emphasis in the information about Armenian ethnicity is wrong and/or the emphasis misleading? BushelCandle (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@BushelCandle: Transcluding huge chunks of prose onto many pages gives the reader the impression that there is something special to read on each page, when in fact they are just reading boilerplate. Material that is common to many pages should be linked, so the reader knows to read that material only once. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm most terribly sorry, CapitalSasha! I thought I had replied to you on American Independence Day, but I assume that there was some sort of cacheing error which I did not notice at the time... I probably can't reconstruct all of my reply that was lost then, but perhaps I can convey some of the gist:
I think it important that we don't lose sight of the needs of our readers. I doubt that many of our readers would deliberately sit down to read our more than two hundred separate articles about visa requirements, beginning with Visa requirements for Abkhaz citizens and breathing an enormous sigh of relief many hours later when they have ploughed through to the last citation listed at Visa requirements for Zimbabwean citizens.
I suggest that the vast majority of readers of any of the articles into which this template is transcluded just wish to quickly and accurately find out what hoops they have to jump through to visit particular countries. Visas are one obstacle, but they also should be made aware of other, non-Visa restrictions such as having a certain length of time remainiing on their passport. Why on earth should they have to jump from one page to another to find out very pertinent restrictions? Why make it more difficult for our readers to print out all the relevant requirements by having to print more than one page if they want a hard copy? BushelCandle (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In summary, this template is of considerable utility in ensuring that even the little-edited pages of small countries' visa requirements are accurate, up-to-date, and comprehensive while diminishing laborious and repetitive editor effort.

By contrast, none of the usual arguments to delete templates have been advanced, since

  1. The template does not violate some part of the template namespace guidelines
  2. The template is not redundant to a better-designed template
  3. The template is used extensively
  4. The template does not violate a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

BushelCandle (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines state that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.", and this template appears to be in conflict with that guideline. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
At the relevant rfc there was discussion about including the modifier "normally". Consensus there indicated that "the second wording (Templates should not normally be used to store article text.) is more preferable due to there being situations that merit exception to the first wording." Relevant comments at the rfc included "... can think of several cases where we've put "text" into templates when we didn't want to needlessly duplicate something across several main space articles - something that wasn't strictly formatting or navigation. The other phrasing sounds like someone wants to use this guideline as a stick to beat people with if they happen to do this."
Deletion of this template would make it more likely that we'll have first and second class articles with relevant information on the non-visa restrictions for various passports being out of date and/or incomplete. BushelCandle (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus isn't very clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 09:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a perfect example of using a template to store text — you have a large piece of text that needs to appear in a bunch of articles in a uniform manner. The problem with storing text in templates is more an issue with small pieces of text, e.g. a few sentences. For example, my new Washington County Courthouse (Illinois) article begins The Washington County Courthouse is a government building in central Nashville, the county seat of Washington County, Illinois, United States, and a bunch of other Illinois courthouse articles (all of which I wrote this week) begin the same way, so I could create {{IL CH intro}} with the content ''The {{{1}}} County Courthouse is a government building in {{{2}}}, the county seat of {{{1}}} County, Illinois, United States'', and typing {{IL CH intro|Washington|Nashville}} would produce the whole sentence, but that's less helpful because it's a much shorter piece of text, because it's not necessary for all the courthouses to have the same intro, and because there's not likely to be a need to update all the courthouse intros anyway, unlike the possible update scenario mentioned above. This, on the other hand, needs to be uniform: any factual changes will be either vandalism (in which case we protect it if necessary) or a kind of change that needs to be reflected everywhere, and in both situations, there's apparently no good reason for one article to be different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    You have provided no argument against LST-ifying. Pppery 19:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I saw that above and figured it was a typo for LIST-ifying. Never seen WP:LST before, and although I've looked through it, I don't understand what it would do. What would be the result here? If we do that, will we still be able to change the contents of all articles by a single edit to one page, as now? If not, that's my argument: we need to be able to change the contents of all articles with a single edit. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    In the situation in which this was LST-ified, the contents of this template would be substituted to one (arbitrary) article that currently transcludes it, and the other articles would have {{#section-h:<article title>|Non-visa restrictions}}, possibly with a {{transcluded section}} hatnote. Then, any edits to that central section would get reflected in all relevant articles. See List of television stations in Mexico and Filming of James Bond in the 1960s for two examples (both of which were converted to that format by me.) Pppery 23:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I can follow that and I see how it could work. It's an interesting technique. What is less clear to me is why this would be an improvement in the present situation. The argument for not having text in templates seems to be that it makes things more difficult for editors. Is it argued that this makes things easier for editors? Except for people editing the one arbitrary article doesn't it make it more difficult? Also, if the arbitrary article gets moved or undergoes naïve editing, isn't there likely to be a shambles? Thincat (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    The reason I am opposed to having this much text in a template is that it creates repeated verbiage between pages but doesn't specify that it is repeated, so users have to carefully scan the entire section to ensure that there are not minor differences between the verbiage on different pages. LST-ifying would solve this problem perfectly, since it creates a hatnote clarifying that the relevant text is copied from another page. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, technically the hatnote and switching the transclusion method are separate steps. Pppery 21:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • True enough -- but what does the hatnote say if it can't link to a more comprehensive article about non visa restrictions? ∼∼∼∼
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:19th-century English photographers[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Selective list. Better left for category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep although can use work...Modernist (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Scewing (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems useful and interesting. SarahSV (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons given above. Coldcreation (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This reads like a textbook example of WP:ATA. No-one has given a valid reason to keep. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This template provides an excellent vehicle for users and editors alike, to quickly access associated objective material. Can this template be improved? Most certainly! It is time to stop nominating for deletion templates that simply should benefit from minor improvements. That is where our time and energy should be spent, rather than on responding to deletion requests. And since Rob Sinden is seemingly motivated, she/he should be on the front line of those attempting to improve templates, rather than remove templates. Coldcreation (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This cannot be improved, as a list of unconnected people who have nothing in common other than era and profession is not an appropriate topic for a WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a list of persons connected to the topic, exactly what the navigation template is designed for. Coldcreation (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an excellent layout for seeing at a glance the names of a group of "19th-century English photographers" of which the Wikipedia editors feel the reader should be apprised. In close proximity to one another, the names are arrayed with merely a bullet point separating them. One can, for instance, notice the names of apparently female photographers. If one is trying to for instance jog one's memory for "Julia Margaret Cameron" because one had previously heard something about her, the particular visual layout of Template:19th-century English photographers makes this particularly easy to do. One could similarly click on unfamiliar names while bypassing names with which one is already familiar. A great advantage of this page is that all names can be seen at a glance. We should not overlook that the names are simply arranged alphabetically. This is obviously advantageous. Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NAVBOX: Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links. See Category:19th-century English photographers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
That sentence should read: "Alphabetical ordering alone does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links." It would not be difficult to group the entities into "clusters, by topic, or by era, etc." WP:NAVBOX reads "The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc. Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links." There are 43 entities at "Template:19th-century English photographers". I think it is debatable whether so few entities calls for separation into clusters. I think we should do so only if such clusters would make sense, that is, that such a breakdown would be meaningful or somehow helpful. In this instance I find the mere ordering by alphabet to be useful. By that I mean that I would not argue for or support an initiative to put in place a random ordering or some form of ordering that specifically does not take alphabetization into account. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please !vote citing and/or on basis of policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know why this was relisted. Maybe a rationale for deletion is what Winged Blades of Godric is waiting for. The guideline WP:CLN suggests navboxes and categories are "applied for the most part independently". This suggests to me that editorial judgement should prevail. I am voting keep because I support the editorial view expressed by the consensus above. Thincat (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2017 (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).

Template:MBC Dynamo Moscow[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

unused and out-of-date (team is defunct) Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Since this is just for their current people, the template should be blank, as defunct teams don't have current members. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2017 (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).

Template:Broke with Expensive Taste tracks[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Long standing consensus to delete these redundant templates in lieu of the artist navboxes. Please note there are countless such templates in Category:Album track list templates which should be nominated here. Is there a tool for it? —IB [ Poke ] 08:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Please add tfd tags to all the templates you nominate. Pppery 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
IndianBio, why is {{Future History (album) track listing}} listed four times? Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea, must be a copy paste error. —IB [ Poke ] 13:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 29 July 2017 (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).

Template:NI21[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Only 3 navigable links apart from the head article NI21 (a short-lived political party). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 29 July 2017 (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).

Template:Bids for the 2026 Winter Olympics[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no substance to this template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Useless. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. These cities are working with their respective NOC's and they may become applicant cities once the bidding process begins and some may be selected or non-selected candidate cities. The new bidding process will start with an extended Invitation Phase to one year where the IOC will take on a proactive role in conversing with these interested cities and their respective NOC's and clarifying referendums on whether these cities will host the Olympics or not and a shortened Candidature Phase to one year. Johnny Brockman (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:EXISTING and WP:WTAF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete Zero links. What use is a NAVBOX when it navigates to no where?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 29 July 2017 (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).

Template:Robert Antoine Pinchon[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. But, if more articles are written, just ask me (or any other admin) and the template can be restored. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Template was a mass of external and tangential links. Now these have been trimmed, there is nothing left. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. it appears the articles are already well-connected where it's useful. unlinked entries, and external links can be included in the parent list article as they do not aid navigation but are generally useful otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and repair...Modernist (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and repair...Coldcreation (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I will soon be writing several articles on particular paintings by Pinchon. Coldcreation (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:41, 29 July 2017 (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).

Template:Cc-by-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Unused, replaceable by {{Cc-by-3.0}} {{Cc-by-2.5}} {{Cc-by-2.0}} {{Cc-by-1.0}} FASTILY 05:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep; harmless, and useful when images are temporarily transwikied from Commons, since the same template is used there. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nyttend; if there is any circumstance where this template will legitimately show up within this project, even temporarily, then it is better to have a live template. bd2412 T 02:29, 30 July 2017 (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).

Template:High Desert/ Eastern Sierra Radio[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 August 6. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2017 (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).

Template:Geographic location[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 August 6. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2017 (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).