Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 7

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ingredient-E422 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bizarre template that was only used on one page and could easily be hardcoded into the page. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2017 (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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:E-ingredient (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bizarre template that was only used on one page and could easily be hardcoded into the page. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2017 (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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ingredient-E414 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bizarre template that was only used on one page and could easily be hardcoded into the page. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2017 (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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ingredient-E211 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bizarre template that was only used on one page and could easily be hardcoded into the page. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2017 (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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ingredient-E124 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bizarre template that was only used on one page and could easily be hardcoded into the page. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2017 (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 delete (NAC) Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AustTelevision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused template Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2017 (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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:History of music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or redirect to Template:Music eras. Frietjes (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2017 (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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rugby league match collapsible (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, looks like this one never caught on. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2017 (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 relisted on 2017 September 16. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ankh_series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 relisted on 2017 September 16. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ranks_and_Insignia_of_Non_NATO_Armies/OF/Iran_(Army) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ranks_and_Insignia_of_Non_NATO_Air_Forces/OF/Iran_(Air_Force) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Works by Fatima Surayya Bajia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no links, providing no navigation Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment , I am not sure but I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2017 (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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox clergy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox religious biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox clergy with Template:Infobox religious biography.
per WP:INFOCOL and MOS:IB. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: The design of "Infobox religious biography" is that the title makes it suitable for folks like Samuel or Anna the Prophetess when not all editors agree if these are historical figures or merely literary figures. In many cases Wikipedia (or at least the infoboxes) doesn't need to specify (or cannot specify) who is of which type. Have an infobox that doesn't imply either way can save a lot of hassle and debate. At the least, this infobox type supports handling these figures more consistently. Also note, plenty of these figures are not also clergy. tahc ^chat 04:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: These serve different purpose and I see no benefit to a merge, per my notes above. If we really want to merge them for fun anyhow, the "Infobox religious biography" should be the name kept as the more general of the two. A much better plan, I would think, would be to merge "Template:Infobox Christian leader" and "Template:Infobox clergy" into an "Template:Infobox religious leader" or such. tahc ^chat 04:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a solution, if someone would work out the modules necessary for an infobox with such a broad spectra. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I concur with all of the points made above. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Infobox religious biography is better suited for leaders of cults or sects. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there are clear differences in the use of these two. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it cannot be applied to for instance Mother Theresa, it should not be merged or have its name changed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (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 keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox StarCraft character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}, with which the only three (3) transclusions should be replaced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Frietjes's comment in the last discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_5#Template:Infobox_StarCraft_character. --Izno (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those comments included (emphasis added) "keep for now... if you want to simply have it deleted completely, then we should start a new discussion...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be reasonable to say this is redundant to {{infobox character}} if this template were used in Infobox character. It is not. Do some more research please. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep can be useful. AlfaRocket (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems like over-policing, there seems to be a legitimate need for a special infobox._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a module used on just three articles a "legitimate need", when the same fields can be entered into {{Infobox character}} using the generic |lbl21=/ |data21=, et seq? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of the many subtemplates used in the inuniverse= field of {{Infobox video game character}}. Any proposal for a merge should be preceded by a sandboxed version demonstrating the proposed new code so it can be tested for functionality. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but... I would keep the template name, but use it as a wrapper to call {{Infobox character}} or {{Infobox video game character}}. –Fredddie™ 11:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to {{Infobox character}}, to improve both. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge with {{Infobox character}}. it's debatable whether or not we need an infobox with just three items (species, affiliation, position), but we certainly should not add a "position" parameter to {{infobox character}} for such a small number of articles. we should simply delete it since it's already redundant to {{infobox character}}, see this demonstration of a replacement. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason the infobox module even exists is because Template:infobox video game character is much more restrictive than Template:infobox character per WP:WAF. I don't agree with using it as a module in the video game character infobox as a result. If we were to reduce the number of fields in the generic character template, I would guess we could even deprecate the video game character infobox. --Izno (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2017 (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 delete after merging with the article Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Armenian-ethn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template; should be merged with the article. Pppery 00:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The template is transcluded on 48 articles. This shouldn't be deleted without a reasonable plan to handle its content. – Uanfala 16:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. It turns out this is transcluded on Non-visa travel restrictions which in turn is transcluded on several dozen articles. Article content shouldn't normally reside within templates, so it's best if this is merged into the article. However, because of the requirements for attribution this should be kept in some form, possibly by moving (without leaving behind a redirect) out of the template namespace, either to an article title or to a subpage of the target's talk. – Uanfala 16:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out we already have a broken attribution chain here, as the content is derived from Template:Passp-restr, which was recently deleted by Fastily. – Uanfala 16:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• move to article space, then merge/redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2017 (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 delete after merging with the article Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Israeli-PSR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

LSTify This template is in exactly the same situation as post-LSTification Template:N-VR; it is unnecessarily storing article text in a template. Content should be moved to Non-visa travel restrictions, and the rest of the pages that transclude this template should transclude the content directly from that article via LST. Pppery 00:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, but keep in some form because of the requirements for preserving attribution, see discussion immediately above. – Uanfala 16:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• move to article space, then merge/redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2017 (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).