Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 7

[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 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:56, 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:17, 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, looks like this one never caught on. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 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 relisted on 2017 September 16. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:07, 16 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).

Redundant Iranian templates

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 September 16. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:24, 16 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) 18:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no links, providing no navigation Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 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 do not merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 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]

Single-use template; should be merged with the article. Pppery 00:03, 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) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).