Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 16 September 18 >

September 17[edit]

Template:MATE[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 12:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Template:Xfce and Template:LXDE, should be deleted per those discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per precedent, navbox creep. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 18 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).

Template:Soccer in New York City[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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is it unused, but every blue link is already a part of {{NYC Metro sports}}, so even a merge seems pointless. Possibly just a template redirect to NYC Metro sports. Yosemiter (talk) 16:26, 18 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).

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation[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. There is probably some consensus for a partial merge. However, due to the many questions concerning how a merged template would look/function, the clearest path forward could be to make a merged template for demonstration and/or discussing further on the talk pages. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Oklahoma legislation, Template:Infobox California legislation and Template:Infobox New York legislation with Template:Infobox U.S. legislation.
These three state specific templates appear to me to be a subset of {{Infobox U.S. legislation}}. I see a couple of different solutions...

  1. Modify {{Infobox U.S. legislation}} to be more general so that the default is that it is federal legislation, but allow for options to be passed in that make it state specific.
  2. Leave {{Infobox U.S. legislation}} almost 100% as it is and make the state specific templates wrappers that in turn call the U.S. template. ({{Infobox U.S. legislation}} would have to have a few changes made that allow for custom images to be supplied).
  3. Leave the templates as they are (I.E. do not merge them at all), but convert the 3 state specific templates to use {{infobox}} as a base.

None of these are trivial... I'll happily tackle the work, but I want to make sure to get some input before I implement a long term solution.

-- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • My gut feeling is that it'd be difficult to shoehorn these into the U.S. legislation box. I'm a bit surprised there aren't infoboxes for every state, but I think that's because our state-level law coverage is pretty minimal compared to what it would ideally be. — RockMFR 17:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per MOS:IB and WP:INFOCOL. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - no need for separate templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - How are going to distinguish if it's a Federal law or State law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pedro8790: so you voted to keep without getting an answer to your question?? There a whole host of ways. Add a parameter obviously.... But if it is a wrapper template that would be automatically done. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the three state templates into the US legislation template. Extend the US template as neccessary. LK (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge, I could see creating a 'U.S. state' legislation box, but trying to combine federal-level with state-level seems like a bad idea, and there has been no demonstration of the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frietjes, I know you are frustrated, but AlfaRocket is a good faith editor. I do not think they are just being disruptive. English is not his first language. AlfaRocket is just trying to participate. Please be patient.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And has anybody shown him WP:ATA? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and modify the resulting template as needed to accommodate state-specific needs. Renata (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge state-level templates into new 'U.S. state legislation box' per Frietjes. In my opinion, some state legislative processes are more similar to other countries' national legislative processes than the United States's federal legislation. Thus, I object to the solution that mixes federal with state. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to garner more thoughts regarding the merger/creation of a "state legislation" template per some of the most recent comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. states can be rather peculiar in how they do things, even one from another - although I am not outright opposed to a merge, necessarily, some versatility will be needed - perhaps my position is closest to Mr. Guye. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate templates. States often have very different processes for sausage making and legislating. While there are certainly some benefits to creating a unified "state legislation" template, I also think that it may be more helpful to allow each state's template to reflect the peculiarly unique features of that state's lawmaking process. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:18, 27 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).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of SxG 77[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 per past precedent. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation; per recent discussion at Notability:People: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross recipients, the awarding of the Knight's Cross was deemed not to confer presumed notability on the recipients, and the template thus does not serve a useful navigational purpose and is indiscriminate. The appropriate Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross already exists and is sufficient for navigation.

Similar templates have been deleted in the past, such as TFD:KC recipients of the Fallschirmjäger (multi-TfD); TfD:KC recipients of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet; TfD:KC recipients of the 4th SS Division (multi-TfD), and more.

In addition, I'm nominating the following "KC recipient by X" templates; the nominating rationale applies equally to them as well:


  • Redirect to parent template. These serve no discernible purpose at the moment but the edit history may be of use to editors in the future. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:53, 23 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).

Template:Boston College Eagles athletic director navbox[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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used in two articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Created two more articles. The majority of the BC ADs now have articles that use the template. Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 17 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_17&oldid=803100333"