Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9 October 11 >

October 10[edit]

Template:Other Radio Stations in New Jersey[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. Despite there being a larger number of bluelinks, there still are no article-space transclusions. NPASR. Primefac (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC) post-close notice the {{Radio formats}} template in the discussion was messing up the close so it has been commented out. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, navigates only one article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: For some reason, this template has several incoming links from article namespace pages. Most likely, there is a link to this template on a template these articles transclude. (If I have more time later, I may determine which template(s) that is/are.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is a proper template which to merge the content in this template. Turns out that the links to this template are caused by the transclusion of {{Radio formats}}; {{Radio formats}} is set up to only link to the nominated template, a well as generating text referring to the nominated template, only when the template exists. However, unless there is an appropriate place to merge the content of this template, it should be kept due to how {{Radio formats}} functions. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: So you're saying a template with only one article, that navigates literally nothing, should be kept just because other pages use it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping TenPoundHammer. Normally, yes, I support WP:NENAN as the standard for when a WP:NAVBOX should remain in existence or not. In this case (as well as the two others I stated this on), I don't think that should be followed. In this specific case, if this template was deleted, it would actually disrupt any WP:NAVBOX template that transcludes the following template syntax: {{Radio formats|New Jersey}}. At this point, not counting the nominated template, there are apparently 15 templates that transclude {{Radio formats|New Jersey}}. The nominated template serves to navigate/link readers to the radio stations that are not covered by the radio formats listed in the New Jersey market in any of the other navboxs created when transcluding {{Radio formats|New Jersey}}. In fact, here is a transclusion of the list of pages/navboxes that {{Radio formats|New Jersey}} creates when it is transcluded:
{{Radio formats|New Jersey}}
...TenPoundHammer, if the only radio station listed in the nominated template, WFMU, can be reasonable merged into one of the other navboxes linked above by its genre, then my concern is no longer valid and this template really can be deleted. But otherwise, deleting the nominated template hinders the navigation abilities of 15 other templates. Also, since this template itself transcludes {{Radio formats|New Jersey}}, the template guides readers to templates of other formats of radio stations in New Jersey, essentially navigating to several more articles. Steel1943 (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there may be other stations that fall into this category that aren't yet listed. Plus, deleting the "Other" formats template usually results in this link going to "Spanish" radio stations & those are 2 completely different things.Stereorock (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: there are 10 stations in the template with more to come.Stereorock (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: 13 stations are now listed.Stereorock (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 10 October 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).

Template:Prefectures of Alsace[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) 01:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN anyway Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 10 October 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).

Template:Jazz Radio Stations in Massachusetts[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. Despite there being bluelinks, the template still remains unused. NPASR Primefac (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one station, navigates nothing at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it navigates from all of the different radio formats in a state to the full time Jazz station. The link is there in the formats, so they should link to something & not the generic Jazz page!Stereorock (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The use is that stations are flipping formats all the time-what may appear useless now to you may be valid in your eyes a month from now & it would be stupid to recreate it then. Plus, Massachusetts radio format pages link to this & by getting rid of this, you're essentially saying there are *NO* Jazz stations in Massachusetts, which is a lie!Stereorock (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stereorock: You clearly don't understand what templates are for. They're to navigate between related articles. There's no navigation here since it can only be used on one article at the moment. General consensus is that a template should have at least five articles to navigate among. If four more stations in MA suddenly flip to jazz in a month, the template can be remade then, but there's no reason to put the cart before the horse. If someone wants navigation, that's what categories are for. We don't need a template to tell us how many such stations there are. What if there were none? Would you still want a template then? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stereorock: What point is one with only one link in it? It can't navigate anything since it can literally be linked on only one page, and thus can only link to the page you're already on. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TenPoundHammer:Number 1, there may be other Jazz stations in Massachusetts. I'm just interpreting this to mean full-time Jazz, but if there are layers for full-time & part-time, the number goes up (+WGBH, WOMR, & possibly others). Secondly, it serves an informational purpose: there is only 1 full-time Jazz station in the state of Massachusetts, but there IS a station, therefore, if you're clicking around all of the formats in Massachusetts, the Jazz template is in use as there is a station. I want to ask: what have you done to search to see if there are other Jazz stations in the state, or other stations in the templates' formats that you have nominated for deletion? A station may have been missed due to oversight, or several. Why haven't you nominated RI NPR for deletion as there are 5 stations, but in reality only 2 links as 4 of those stations are all part of the same network (RIPR). As I've said, stations change formats all the time. So long as at least one station exists in a format, the template should always stay! Especially since there are so few stations total in a given state like Massachusetts, or Rhode Island. What good does it do for the Jazz template to be deleted & just link back to the article on Jazz? That's not why the person is there-they want to use the template to see what Jazz stations are on in Massachusetts! The template-as is-is serving more of a purpose than the default link does! The template serves a purpose.Stereorock (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template navigates to more than one article due to its transclusions of {{Radio formats|Massachusetts}} and {{RadioFormats Other|Massachusetts}}. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing admin comment Steel1943, just as a note both of those transclusions put template links at the bottom. There is a long-held consensus that article navboxes should not link between templates. Unless you've got a different reason to vote keep, I will be discounting your original opinion. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 10 October 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).

Template:Doctor Who video games[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3 as all links are already present at {{Doctor Who}}. --woodensuperman 10:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, used for articles where the full {{Doctor Who}} is too much. WP:CSD#T3 does not apply, as this template is much smaller than the other one. —Kusma (t·c) 10:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#T3 does apply, as this is a substantial duplication. Its function is already dealt with by the larger template. Either this one goes, or the video game section is removed from the other navbox. That's how navboxes work. --woodensuperman 11:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can currently choose whether they want the {{Doctor Who}} navbox or this one. This one does not obscure links to other Doctor Who video games by linking to a dozen other categories of articles. —Kusma (t·c) 12:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how navboxes should work. You should ideally see the same navigation box at the target article. The function of this navbox is redundant. We do not need multiple navboxes with the same links or additional navboxes with a subset of the same links. --woodensuperman 14:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could just as easily remove the video games line from the big template (I would prefer that) by essentially reverting this edit. Other Doctor Who subtopics are not covered in the big template, for example the incarnations of the Doctor in {{Doctor Who navbox}}. In any case, until you recently changed all transclusions of {{Doctor Who video games}} to {{Doctor Who}}, the template was in use, and users clearly thought it was not redundant, or others would have used the big navbox instead. —Kusma (t·c) 14:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the necessary thing to do if this navbox is not deleted (as I mentioned in an earlier comment). Some of the articles had both navboxes on, which clearly demonstrates redundancy. --woodensuperman 14:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, duplicates other navigation (and the category). Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a bad idea. It would turn {{Doctor Who}} into a horrible mess. --woodensuperman 08:06, 11 October 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).

Template:Infobox fictional planet[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 merge to Template:Infobox fictional location. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox fictional planet with Template:Infobox fictional location.
The majority of the parameters in fictional planet have a distinct overlap with fictional location. Those not overlapping ( |moon(s)=, |continents=, |oceans=) can be trivially added. Izno (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I have just realized that I was the creator of {{Infobox fictional location}} in 2008.— TAnthonyTalk 14:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see why its necessary, as long as its done quickly. Every single fictional location template is not editing correctly, because this conversation is open, so no matter what happens, as long as the consensus is brought to quickly, its fine with me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Navarre0107 (talk • contribs) 21:35, September 28, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any errors or render issues, and I also checked Equestria, the fictional location article you edited today. — TAnthonyTalk 21:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, it seems as though it was only a temporary glitch, please disregard what I said, I oppose a merger. --Navarre0107 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: seems easy enough to do. One step closer to standardisation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The 2 templates are similar enough. Just merge any extra parameters from the fictional planets templates into the fictional location one, and make sure that all of the affected articles are working properly afterward. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:08, 18 October 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).

Template:Shia Imams in History[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 for now. The creator is obviously interested in the subject material, but the concerns expressed by other editors demonstrate that it is not suitable for article space at this point in time. If requested, there is no issue with undeleting and moving to the user space for continued improvement; in such case it should not be used in Article space until it can be shown to meet the concerns given here. Primefac (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Messy, non-encyclopedic and giant sidebar that takes up precious space for other more important things like images. Factually inaccurate because individuals and entire ethno-religious groups are mashed together as if they are one big family, while not every Shia individual is descended from Ali/Fatima. An overview of these denominations already exists in {{Islamic theology}}. Additionally: WP:NOTGENEALOGY. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shia is short form of Shia-tul Ali, means followers of Ali who believe that Ali is representative of Mohammad. Every Shia need not be decedents of Ali. This chart is in very brief encompassing most of Shia at one platform providing at a glance view with facility to link all of them from one place, nothing non encyclopedic and of much more face value than a single image.
This chart is beyond a family tree, correlating Fatema and Ali with their followers. Shia means Ali's follower and chart justifies that. This chart does not show descendants, neither list denominations as in Islamic theology nor a mere directory, but correlate present with past Shia groups indicating link to major personalities, in user friendly way at a glance with link to encyclopedic articles, hence most encyclopedic.
We should examine it in not only theoretical point of view but with a greater sense of value addition in encyclopedia and how it help readers in correlating concerned information at one point and getting details if they desire through links.
Eliminating or deleting works in the name of perfection is very easy, but to create a perfect thing is very very difficult. Wiki is a unique platform to develop such items with wholehearted facility of open edition. -Md iet (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
You haven't done anything to make this chart more compact or hideable—two things that should be easy to do—to make it more acceptable. You have a habit of re-adding it to articles where it's been rejected before, without much, if any, modification, and without getting the assent of the editors who are objecting to it. I suspect the chart was made according to some standardized Wikipedia template or other facility, which is why the boxes are so large and have so much space between them.
Also, the present caption at the moment isn't very clear. What are you trying to say when you write Chart is in steps of era of different Shia Imams/ sects? It doesn't make sense to me. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dhtwiki, for kind advice. I am always and ever ready to make improvement and always welcome any one who wants to add value to the Wiki contents. There can't be immediate solution from anyone if there is straight deletion/rejection without a clear cut way forward.
You are very much right. the chart is not as per standardized format. I have learnt making chart copying from others and trying my best to improve my skill. Wiki is editable and I welcome any one who can help me in this regard.
Regarding subject caption, it is not necessary in the chart and, can be removed, if it is not making sense. I am making further edition in the template as suggested.-Md iet (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this chart is not a family tree, regarding confusion on charts and family, the points mentioned in the following RS is worth mentioning here:

Book: Soc Relign Pt5:Typ Rel Ils 83, Part 5| Written By: Werner Stark [1]|Quote: "A sect is not like a business partnership; it is much rather like a FAMILY…...".

Here 'sects' are classified like a family. Subject template depicts chart showing link of Fatima and Ali with Shia and contents are justified if all objects mentioned in are part of Shia and have some link in between. Derived Shia sects are as such very much linked to the head figures Ali and Fatima. Sects are further defined like a family in broader terms, and very much justified to be part of the chart.-Md iet (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Like" is not the same as "is". --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The apples/oranges intermixing of biological genealogy of the early leadership and the genealogical derivations of the sects is highly confusing, and it is unclear what it means to show a sect appearing to descend from a person. Agricolae (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the objection in better way. This chart is not a descendant tree, but like a family tree. The tree here is 'followers tree' like of 'family tree'. imams and sects have similar relation as of leader-followers or teacher-students. In the chart initial common main imams are of like leaders/teachers acting as guardian and sects are like group of followers/students, constituting a vast family in broader sense.
We can add caption with suitable wording clarifying the relation between Imams and sects. It can be like so:
"Note: This chart depicts family of Shia indicating their main Imams and main sects developed at various stages. Shia sects are brown colored and for the details of respective Imams refer to the articles linked."
Hope this will make Agricolae's stated 'highly' confusing relations, an understandable one. Chart is made further compact and the above note is added. Any further suggestions are welcome for providing readers a 'at a glance chart' on Shia Family. --Md iet (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - it still mixes apples & oranges, and what do the horizontal connections represent, vs the vertical ones. Why do Druze come off the side of Fatimid, rather than the bottom. Why does Ja'far come off the side of his father (or is his father coming off the side of him)? Also, just aesthetically, the bold boxes, packed together, make it look distractingly busy. I would suggest reducing, or even removing the borders. Likewise, there seems no particular reason to duplicate the sects at the bottom after showing them above. They could be shown just once, either with long, uninterupted dropdowns with the sects only shown at the bottom, or show them at the branch point and then remove the drop-downs, which would allow the whole thing to be compressed horizontally since you wouldn't need to show them all on the same horizontal level.
That is all just window-dressing. There is a more important problem. In general, if you need a detailed caption to explain what is being represented in a template, if it isn't obvious just looking at it, it is a failure. Sometimes minor tweaks such as a different title or adding a legend can resolve the problem, but sometimes what you are trying to do maybe just isn't amenable to a clear, concise template, and it is the concept and not the execution that needs rethinking. Agricolae (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for valuable suggestions. I am trying to resolve the issues pointed, anyone expert on the template design may help further directly doing window dressing as suggested.
Connections going out from the box whether from bottom or side represent same process, showing next stage of chart. Confusion if any is being resolved.
The concept part is also being worked out to make chart itself indicate what it intend. Caption will just further help to clarify.-Md iet (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to make every thing apples. Window dressing is done and concept itself also modified. Now chart indicates Shia development to the date with the help of their Imams/Dai indicating sects also. Now this is wider family of Shia Imams/Dai in sequence of emergence of sects. Hope this is not LIKE a family tree now, but IS family tree of Shia Imams. Any further suggestions are welcome. Agricolae, Thank you again.--Md iet (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to see the point Agricolae is trying to make. Some things are just not meant to be used as templates and a tree in a sidebar format is one of them. Stop trying to combine bloodlines and religious groups, because you just cannot combine them. For example, the da'is are shown as if they are the children of Tayyib, while Tayyib was only 4 when he disappeared and thus could not have had any kids. See, this is confusing. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be a rule that templates can be used for so and so purpose only. To save the space , a chart which is repeatedly used in many articles can be made in format of template.

Now the main question is whether this chart is conveying the message in unambiguous way? Here both concept and proper window dressing are important. It is no where written that a tree can be of descendants only, it is just a tool. Tree can be family tree, apple tree or orange tree, but it can't be apple/orange tree combined together. The subject tree is of head of Shia sects, that's it. It can be both Imam and Dai.

Dear HyperGaruda, tree are not necessarily only of real father and children, Druze Imam are also not children of Fatimid imams but they are Imam/leaders of bifurcated group from Shia. Tayyib was 4 when disappeared but he must have grown up. Bohra believes that earth cannot exist without Imam present, and Imam's son are existing as Imams one after another and that's why they named their leader as Dai a representative of present Imam.

Dais are shown as just Dai head of Shia sect, not son of anybody. If tree on apple's history is made than various up/down gradation can be shown as time passes. Next apple need not be from the same tree. Agricolae, please examine it further with improvement angle and suggest on my explanations given.--Md iet (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apples = people; oranges = sects. As long as the templates intermixes the two, with sects arising from people deriving from sects descending from people, it will be confusing. When you have a genealogical tree, there are context-dependent conventions of what horizontal lines mean and what vertical lines mean when they are connecting people together. A person on the same level as another, linked by a branching set of lines from the top, by convention represent siblings. When you have a man and a sect so joined, there is no convention that enables someone to immediately understand what it is representing.
I said that when you have a long caption, the template is a failure, not because a template shouldn't have a long caption, but because if you need a long caption, you have bigger problems - a template (or picture or any other add-on) should make the text more clear, not require text to make its meaning clear.
It is not so much a matter of rules of what a template can and can't do, it is a question of some things working, and some things not working. Side templates functionally must be narrow, else they displace too much of the body. That is why almost all side templates are simply a list of links, sometimes with one tab-level for organization, and maybe with a single image at the top. They also must be relatively short, or they stick down too far, in some cases well beyond the text and references. The goal with a side template is to pack as much information into as little space as possible, while the goal of a genealogical tree is to spread things out in a formatted manner so that the interrelationships are clear. A tree will, of necessity, be a lot wider and a lot longer. That means it is not easy to fix the problem with minor changes, when the concept itself flies in the face of the imperatives that operate on a side template. It will take a very ingenious design to mesh the two. Agricolae (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am not mixing people with sects , but single Imams with group of Imams, joining person to person. 'A person on the same level as another, linked by a branching set of lines from the top, by convention represent siblings'. Here also same thing if there are two branches of Imams from one Imam the branched ones are consist of next generation Imams of first one's siblings. Generally it is father son relation except one of first Imam Hasan and second imam Husain being brothers.
All the Shia Imams are from same genealogy. All the bifurcations are of Shia ideology except of Druze with Imams of different genes.
These two exceptions may not explain what it representing, further modification being done to clarify these also. Now tree is with person to person relations showing complete Shia Islam having connectivity to Faima and Ali at a glance.-Md iet (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
. . . and here you are having to explain what your template means again. Remember what I said about a template you have to explain? Not all subjects are amenable to treatment in a side template. And you have to explain, because the fundamental problems have not been resolved by simply adding the word 'imams' to the sect names. Your average reader is going to look at that and have no idea what it all means. Agricolae (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What my template means is explained in the title: Position of Shia Imams in History

The subject and chart is further explained under captions for an average readers:

  • Shia Imams are shown in form of flow diagram as they appear in history one after another. Shia Imams of individual sects/groups are clubbed together and differentiated by brown colored boxes. Imams under these further follows genealogy one after another, details can be seen at linked articles.
  • Druze Imams are non Shia (Aquamarine box) with no genetic connection and indicated by dotted line.
  • Hard line connection also indicate sibling connection of father-son except Hasan-Husain brother connection pointed out in the box.

General norms of tree/ flow diagram are also matching with real positions.

  • Box one after another distinctly indicates sequence of imams as they appear in History. This also indicate father-son relation(with exception pointed out in box as well in captions)
  • Bifurcated box indicate sequencing as well as father - two son theory of family chart.
  • Branching to non shia sect is also indicated with dotted line - clear to average readers also as per family chart norms and further explained in captions.

Hope this modification (already done) will clearly explain what template intend to do, matching general tree/flow diagram convention and family tree structure to a great extent.

@Muffizainu:, as you are active on many Shia articles, will you also examine the template and comment/suggest on whether the chart is helpful to average readers/Islam readers to know at a glance the history of Shia Imams and their respective relative position with respect to each other.--Md iet (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for HyperGaruda also, for his efforts to bring the matter here and fruitful discussions we had for the improvements in the chart. Efforts for bringing at a glance chart of Shia Imams altogether can be useful for readers. There is always scope of further improvemnets and deletion can also be done any time we want whenever better option available.-Md iet (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is now supposed to give an overview of Shia Imams, then it is redundant to the more comprehensive {{Shia Imam Chart}} (which by the way is also a monstrosity that should not be transcluded onto biographies of individuals) and {{Shia Imams}}. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This chart is developed for at glance view such that Imam's relative position in history can be imagined. Shia Imam chart was also initiated by me but now made so comprehensive that it is very difficult to search and differentiate one branch from another. This chart is no good to place with articles of individual sects where most of average readers visit. Very few average readers interested in comprehensive charts and advanced reader already know the history and this big chart is of very restrictive use.
{{Shia Imams}} is just listing of groups of Imam and cannot provide a pictorial view of relative position of Imams in real history.
HyperGaruda, Whatever technical difficulties observed by you on presentation is well discussed for remedies. Definitely there is some common information in the present chart, you may agree that this chart serve almost different purpose and this chart can be placed in the article where placing {{Shia Imam Chart}} , would look some what excessive. {{Shia Imams}} is almost of different category. For visualize relative position of Imams in History this template is no comparison.--Md iet (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{Fatema , Ali and Shia}} is excessive too and not an "at a glance" template at all if one first has to study its notes before being able to understand what it is supposed to represent. You have not provided any adequate remedy for the fact that extra explanations are needed, while templates should be simple and immediately understandable. All these templates violate WP:TEMPLATECREEP, such as at Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin, where {{Fatema , Ali and Shia}}, {{Shia Imam Chart}}, {{S-hou}} and {{Shia Imams}} are all used to show some form of lineage. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Flow chart defines subject perfectly, and imams listed one after another in perfect sequential order as per history. Other explanation are just to fulfill extra genealogical information which are not required as per subject of chart.
Mr. HyperGaruda, As per your definitions and explanations (available for every things) one way or another, it is very difficult to make perfect things and all the material available in any encyclopedia has scope of improvements hence every things are susceptible for removal. This chart is far better then present Shia Imam history available in the definition of at a glance view, for a an average reader. Notes just provide extra details on self explanatory material in the boxes as per subject of chart. Technicality part is over, now let the other people comment on the charts utility v/s present available material. --Md iet (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the template creator, nobody argued in favour of keeping it. In fact, 3 editors have expressed their concerns that this template's setup was a bad idea that is not easily repairable. Seems like a rough consensus to me... --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We agree with HyperGaruda, this template is unnecessary. Information here is already included in Template:Shia Imam Chart but that one also should not be exploited in irrelevant places.161.253.75.216 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 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).

Template:Previously deleted draft[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) 01:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created in obvious good faith, but determining when it can/should be used in itself is a bit of a task that it seems editors are not doing. In the template's current state, an editor would have to look at a page's deletion log to determine if the page has been deleted in the past prior to placing this template. In fact, at the present time, this template has 0 transclusions. The most effective way to implement a draft page to display this template would be if there is a way for there to be an automatic check to see if any content at a title has been deleted in the past, most likely by automatically verifying the deletion log. (This may be able to be accomplished by a magic word of some sort, but I'm not sure if such a magic word exists.) If such a magic word or technical capability exists, then I suggest we merge this template into Template:Draft article to allow this functionality to occur on any new draft created through the draft creation wizard. Otherwise, it may be better to delete this template as it may never get used as a standalone template. Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted notifications of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and Wikipedia talk:Drafts in hope of getting input in regards to this template. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{Draft article}}. Disregarding the debate of the instructions of this page, I agree that some sort of TemplateFu could be implemented to see if a page had previously existed in mainspace and was deleted. The instructions seem ill concieved at best and an attempt to non-admin lay down administrative rules. If merge is not accepted then my preference is Delete. Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hasteur: What do you mean? The template was created by TParis. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: What part of my view confuses you? I din't think that there is a consensus for the procedure as described in the template so it reads like a bunch of recent rule making laid down by non-admins that tries to masquerade as admin rules. Hasteur (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hasteur: I was confused since with your use of the terms "non-admin" and "administrative", I was not clear on if you were referring to the template's current state or my proposed resolution, if possible to implement. Now that you stated some clarification, I see that it was the former. Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:08, 10 October 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).

Template:Mohammad Family tree[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is better off being a part of Family tree of Muhammad, but it should not be a template available for transclusion onto other pages due to the sheer size. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:08, 10 October 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).

Template:Culture of Iran[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. Template is now used, but otherwise there is no consensus to keep or delete. NPASR if different rationale is provided. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Frietjes: This is sure an alternative, but exclusively cultural template, and such templates exist since long ago for to let the reader follow a group of relevant topics in a quick and convenient way. Definitely useful, and I don't see no good reason for its deletion; unless you provide a Wiki policy that would back up your position, explicitly.
                Regarding the logic you have given above, we would need to replace all country-specific history and culture templates with a single, all-involving template for each country that would be placed at the bottom of the articles. Well, I'm afraid I don't agree with that.
                @HyperGaruda: I believe both the width and the height of the template enjoy flexibility. Do you think it would help if we make use of that?
                —Rye-96 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • There is only so much flexibility before you run into problems with line breaks. No, I am more concerned with sidebars taking up space that is better used for an infobox or images, which are both more directly relevant to an article. However, I do acknowledge that one particular TfD is not the right venue to discuss a Wikipedia-wide decision. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:30, 13 October 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).

Template:Young Paperboyz[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parent article has been deleted, other articles are at AfD and not looking good. Unlikely to ever be used. A Traintalk 08:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete parent article deleted, studio albums deleted, associated acts not enough for a navbox. --SuperJew (talk) 09:01, 10 October 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).

Template:Spanish Radio Stations in Delaware[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) 23:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:06, 10 October 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).

Template:BRoy Sidebar-mini[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 rename. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • move to "Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/userbox" (or something similar). Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:02, 10 October 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).

Template:Formosa Television Friday Drama[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no parent article, no precedent for navigating by programming blocks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:44, 10 October 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).

Template:Ford aeroengines[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, almost all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:42, 10 October 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).

Template:Footer UK NC 3000 Metres Steeplechase Women[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, only one link that's red Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:24, 10 October 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).

Template:Footer Olympic Medalists Belgium Tennis Women[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:24, 10 October 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).

Template:Footer Mediterranean Champions 50m Breaststroke Women[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, all redlinks, would fail WP:NENAN even if the redlinks were blue Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:23, 10 October 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).

Template:Flourensia[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 10 October 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).

Template:First cabinet of Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no parent article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:19, 10 October 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).

Template:Shia Imam Chart[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) 02:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope is redundant to the much less intrusive {{Shia Imams}}. Hard to understand with random colour schemes, people and ethno-religious groups mixed together. Lots of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Violates the prerequisite that WP:SIDEBARs should only include closely related subjects where the involved articles refer to each other. The extensiveness of the tree violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. (TfD related to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 27#Template:Fatema , Ali and Shia) HyperGaruda (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preserve We disagree with the nominator, since the colors explain the relationships between various sect emerged, this one also contains the information given in Template:Fatema , Ali and Shia henceforth it can be used in place of that one. 161.253.75.216 (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The average reader has no chance of deciphering the various types of relationships between people and groups it encodes or guessing the significance of the colors. Eperoton (talk) 00:34, 12 October 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).

Template:Eurohistcollaboration[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:46, 10 October 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).

Template:Education in Mexico[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, crude, and outdated infobox Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:42, 10 October 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).

Template:EasyEn[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) 23:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was used a few times, but no proof that this is supported by policy Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Supported by WP:MEDMOS. And it is substituted so one would not expect to see it "used" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems quite useful to me, because it is indeed communicating something important about MEDMOS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's bloody good advice, regardless of whether it's ever been typed into a policy. AGK [•] 15:53, 17 October 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).

Template:E.I.S. Men's Volleyball squad[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: highschool team. I would not expect their individual members to become notable during their time in the team, so this would stay an eternal sea of unnavigable red links. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highschool team so players won't be notable during time in playing. Also not updated since 2011. Not even sure if the parent article is notable. --SuperJew (talk) 11:01, 10 October 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).

Template:E-country 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused draft Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:19, 10 October 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).

Template:Ds[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) 23:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of template space. This is not even a template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's the root page of a range of other templates which use this heading as their base. Removing it would make it more difficult for people to find what they're looking for. Also it is feasible that this template could be used to supply a description of the discretionary sanctions templates on other pages. It would likely be necessary (if it were moved to the Wikipedia namespace) to redirect from the template namespace to there as an explanation of the Ds template subpages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and agree with Callanecc. Contrary to the nominator's very brief statement, I fail to see how the project is well-served by deleting the topmost of a template family. Furthermore, WP:ARBPOL#Jurisdiction: ArbCom "retains jurisdiction over […] associated enforcement processes". This TfD is not just contraindicated – it's ill-advised, given the volatility of the users and topics which use this template. AGK [•] 15:51, 17 October 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).

Template:Dominica legislative election, 2005[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, subst if needed Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:21, 10 October 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).

Template:Dhaka history graphical timeline[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this timeline does not even show the history of Dhaka. Looks like the creator wanted to start from the timeline of the Earth's history, but did not follow up any further. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:40, 10 October 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).

Template:Cricket graph requests nominate[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, unclear use Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:41, 10 October 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).

Template:Adelaide Lightning roster[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 merge {{Adelaide Lightning roster}} with {{2017–18 Adelaide Lightning roster}}, afterwards deleting the "season" template. Then update the documentation to make it clear that after each season is over the template is to be substituted into the articles on which it is transcluded. Then the template can be updated, transcluded on new pages, and the cycle continues. This allows for multiple-page usage but also avoids out-of-date rosters. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date, could be history merged with Template:2017–18 Adelaide Lightning roster Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Makes more sense to have the information at Template:2017–18 Adelaide Lightning roster under the title Template:Adelaide Lightning roster. We don't keep rosters for specific seasons unless the season was notable. --SuperJew (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See further up there. --SuperJew (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:22, 10 October 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).

Template:Leeds Carnegie roster[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 merge the "generic" roster with the "season" roster, afterwards deleting the "season" template. Then update the documentation to make it clear that after each season is over the template is to be substituted into the articles on which it is transcluded. Then the template can be updated, transcluded on new pages, and the cycle continues. This allows for multiple-page usage but also avoids out-of-date rosters. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not used in any articles and way out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Object See comment up there (not sure why these are separate discussions). --SuperJew (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
correction Leeds Carnegie is indeed a separate discussion, but Townsville Fire and Adelaide Lightning should be discussed together with the Canberra Capitals discussion. @Frietjes: can you explain your proposing for deletion? --SuperJew (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:22, 10 October 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).

Template:Canberra Capitals roster[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 merge the "generic" roster with the "season" roster, afterwards deleting the "season" template. Then update the documentation to make it clear that after each season is over the template is to be substituted into the articles on which it is transcluded. Then the template can be updated, transcluded on new pages, and the cycle continues. This allows for multiple-page usage but also avoids out-of-date rosters. Primefac (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Object These are the correct names for this series. The correct content is under the 2017-18 rosters found in Category:Women's National Basketball League templates. What should happen is that the content from the 2017-18 rosters should be copied to the non-season specifically named roster page, and the specific-season page deleted as we don't keep rosters for specific seasons unless they were notable. --SuperJew (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Frietjes: All are updated now and in use. --SuperJew (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SuperJew, that's great, but you do realize that single-use roster templates should be placed directly in the article? I can point you to several prior deletion discussion here at TfD which came to this same conclusion. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: Sure point away. I'll point you in the meantime to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_12#Template:Canberra_Capitals_current_roster which is almost the exact same discussion here. Sports norm is to have one roster which lists the current squad, not a season-specific template. --SuperJew (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SuperJew, no, the "current roster" templates are navbox footer templates which are used in more than one article and are not single-use (see, e.g., here where single-use roster templates are discussed). try this search to find all the rosters in separate templates vs this search to find all the rosters in articles. clearly, the convention is to put the roster directly in the article. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: I understand your meaning now. Your deletion rationale is not good in that case. I would propose substitute and delete, as they are indeed one-use templates and not navboxes. And I would propose to delete all the "2017-18 (team name) roster" templates here. --SuperJew (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since being up-to-date and unusable are easy to change things (as shown by my edits) this is not a valid deletion rationale. I agree that it is pointless to have duplication of the template, but I would suggest deleting the specific season rosters, as the consensus is to keep current squad templates, not a template for each season. --SuperJew (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
try this search to find all the rosters in separate templates vs this search to find all the rosters in articles. clearly, the convention is to put the roster directly in the article. Frietjes (talk) 18:15, 12 October 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).

Template:Egk operas[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 redirect to Template:Werner Egk. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and redirect as Frietjes said. The only connection the entries have is their composer, but otherwise they are hardly related to each other, thereby violating the close-relation principle of WP:SIDEBARs. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:48, 10 October 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_10&oldid=1145829039"