Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 3

< March 2	March 4 >

March 3

Template:Test

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These *seem* to be the same as the {{uw-test}} series of templates, and as such I am nominating them for deletion. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 20:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Note: I know about the discussion from 2007, I wanted to bring this up again, this almost falls under WP:CSD#T3 (duplicate).[reply]

Better to redirect than to delete, as it may still be used occasionally. Peter James (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that, but what about {{Test5}}? It's a Fox! (What did I break) 20:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's less of a reason to keep it, as would only be used by admins and its purpose isn't clear from its name. I don't know if any still use the old templates but if anyone does they would be able to undelete if it was deleted. These templates are substituted to users' talk pages, so would the history still be needed? Peter James (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing has changed since the last time this was discussed. Some of us prefer the old templates' style and continue to use them. Given the fact that they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (which would confuse users seeking an appropriate template), their retention causes absolutely no harm.
These are talk page messages, which needn't be uniform (unlike templates appearing in articles). Any editor who wanted to could store them on personal subpages and transclude them at will, but it's far more convenient to retain the longstanding locations (at which they've resided since long before the aforementioned "uw" series was created). The requested action is a solution in search of a problem (and one that would cause problems for no good reason). —David Levy 21:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As David said above. Some still prefer these messages instead of the newer ones. No point in deleting or redirecting them and it definitely doesn't falls under WP:CSD#T3. Garion96 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; see my comment on the template talk page. Some of the other templates in Category:TestTemplates can probably go, but only if unused or inferior to another template. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are speedy candidates. It's incredibly lame for people to insist on maintaining utterly trivial forks based on the most minor of wording differences. It may be best redirecting the uw- ones here, if they aren't being sat on quite so tightly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:CSD:
Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria.
Please explain how this description applies to the template in question. Please also explain what harm the template is causing and how the community would benefit from its elimination. —David Levy 11:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're substantial duplicates of existing templates which exist for apparently solely sentimental reasons. Proliferation of pointless choices is a common anti-pattern in Wikipedia (and software engineering in general of course). I appreciate, however, that the drama of deleting this particular version of these templates may be more trouble than it's worth, which is why I suggested the possibility of a merge the other way (assuming, or rather hoping, that there isn't such a strong emotional attachment to the other set of templates). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're substantial duplicates of existing templates which exist for apparently solely sentimental reasons.
You appear to have ignored the quoted text (describing conditions to which the application of a speedy deletion criterion is subject). You also appear to have misunderstood the rationale behind the template's continued use, which relates to preferences in the areas of wording, style and transclusion syntax (not a sentimental attachment).
Proliferation of pointless choices is a common anti-pattern in Wikipedia (and software engineering in general of course).
If users seeking templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace were being given redundant options, this would be problematic. As noted above, that isn't the case. So what harm is being caused?
I appreciate, however, that the drama of deleting this particular version of these templates may be more trouble than it's worth, which is why I suggested the possibility of a merge the other way (assuming, or rather hoping, that there isn't such a strong emotional attachment to the other set of templates).
Again, this isn't about emotional attachment. And why should persons who wish to use those templates be inconvenienced? How would the encyclopedia or community benefit? —David Levy 13:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - the title of this template is too vague. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's a neat trick: create a new template similar to the old one, then nominate the old one for deletion because it's a duplicate! I do prefer the original wording since it's not excessively familiar. It's true I haven't offered a policy-based reason to keep but then the nom didn't offer a policy-based reason to delete so I think we're square. It's not like we're talking about rationalizing an infobox; nobody benefits from this discussion regardless of the outcome. We're all the poorer from it happening in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's no reason to keep this template. If there is a desire to improve the text of the standard uw-* templates (which may be being expressed here), then that should be carried forward at those templates. On the other hand, I see no reason to delete outright. --Izno (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to keep the template was explained above; some editors prefer it and want to continue using it (which causes no harm in the context of talk page messages). We don't seek to change the "uw-" templates, which others prefer.
Please explain what problem redirection would solve. —David Levy 01:02, 17 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:List of bakugan:gundalian invaders episodes

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of bakugan:gundalian invaders episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - unused template created in 2010 that was added to Bakugan Battle Brawlers, apparently in an attempt to create an article, and removed only a few minutes later. Peter James (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G2. It's clear that what's in the template was a test that has nothing to do with the subject. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lists of bus routes in East Anglia

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of bus routes in East Anglia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template only included 2 pages. The two lists have the Bus routes in the UK template therefore this template is not needed. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for this template as per WP:NENAN. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 6 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Monarch of the Glen

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monarch of the Glen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MOTG characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Monarch of the Glen with Template:MOTG characters.
Merge suggested using a merge tag on the talk page. Nominated on user's behalf Ego White Tray (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Seems logical to me to make 1 template. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge -PC-XT+ 13:47, 8 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:House of Glücksburg (Norway)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:House of Glücksburg (Norway) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Norwegian Royal Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:House of Glücksburg (Norway) with Template:Norwegian Royal Family.
Nominated on behalf of User:Orland, who placed merge tags on these templates Ego White Tray (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The similar norwegian templates are already merged into no:Mal:Norges konge; which also covers royal buildings, and norwegian monarchy in general. Bw --Orland (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree These templates fulfill different purposes. Present members of the family get the Norwegian Royal Family template and former/historical members get the Glücksburg-Norway template. That's how it has been on English Wikipedia for years with royal families (not just the Norwegian ones). Seven Letters 21:52, 3 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:France national football team matches

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:France national football team matches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:France national team football matches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:France national football team matches with Template:France national team football matches.
Nominated on behalf of another editor who placed merge tags on the pages. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the same both templates. Thank User:Ego White Tray for nominating. Sawol (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Astrobiology

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Astrobiology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Extraterrestrial life (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Astrobiology with Template:Extraterrestrial life.
Nominating on behalf of User:BatteryIncluded who suggested this on the talk page. No opinion on my part. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the technical help submitting this proposal. I propose the merge because both templates deal with the exact same subject, though the "Extraterrestrial life" template is older and more complete. Two possible names after the merge could be "Study of extraterrestrial life" (the common name) or (my preference) "Astrobiology": the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose they're separate topics. astrobiology includes xenobiology (extraterrestrial life) and terrestrial biology (per the first sentence in our article on it), so it is an umbrella topic. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - extraterrestrial life is more about specific topics related to the subject than the discipline of astrobiology itself. Wer900 • talk 02:31, 6 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Army units

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep both. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Army units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chain of Command (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Army units with Template:Chain of Command.
Nominated on behalf of another editor who placed a merge tag on the page. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose {{Chain of Command}} is skewed, it certainly doesn't represent all armies in its characterization of force partitioning. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Blackadder

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Redirect Template:Blackadder to Template:Blackadder episodes. The latter contains all links from the former. Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blackadder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Blackadder episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Blackadder with Template:Blackadder episodes.
Proposed template merge out of process using merge tags. Listing it here for discussion on behalf of the editor who placed the tags Ego White Tray (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there are two navboxes which appear on different pages, one linking topic pages, one linking episodes. One unified navbox would offer more consistent navigation between related pages of this topic and allow linking between pages under the same topic. At present it's rather confusing. Cnbrb (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.