Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 17

< March 16	March 18 >

March 17

Template:Pro

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) 22:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Propose merging Template:Pro with Template:Agree.
Exact same usage. Also, there's an interwiki conflict between d:Q5056 and d:Q6257793. kwan-in (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Agree}} which is better. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Pro", add an option to "Agree" to determine the image used. {{Pro}} can have many encyclopedic uses (pro) so should not be occupied by this internal use template. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:24, 21 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:British dependencies

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 uncontested merge. DrKiernan (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British dependencies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:British dependencies with Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations.
Proposed by User:Wikipean, nominating here on that user's behalf. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:17, 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.

Islamic templates

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 {{Khalid ibn al-Walid}}, {{Adam}}, {{Nuh}}, {{Aisha}}, {{Israfil}}, and {{Khadijah}}. no consensus for the other three, but feel free to renominate any of them. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abu Bakr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Khalid ibn al-Walid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are hard-coded instances of infoboxes that should not exist as separate templates, but should be integrated in mainspace. They have few (if any) links related to the main subjects so they're not viable as navboxes (there are exceptions like {{Khalid ibn al-Walid}}, but there's already a campaignbox about his battles). eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:WikiProject Templates for preliminary discussion. Agree that these should be executed as standard infoboxes within article space and deleted as hardcoded duplicates. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, i think every one of them could be developed more and more. Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 10:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i too don't agree that they should be deleted i have changed the {{Ibrahim}} as here. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rewrite as a standard {{sidebar}} or {{infobox}} or delete. currently these are a mash-up of information that should appear in an infobox (e.g., {{Infobox Islamic Prophet}} or {{infobox person}}) and information that should appear in a sidebar (e.g., {{Muhammad}}). so, either remove all the biographical information, and turn them into proper sidebars, or delete them. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need to study the structure of each template in the list, some of them such as template:Nuh should be deleted because it includes only two relevant links (i.e: prophets in Islam and Noah) and there is only one page that this template can be used in and that is page Noah (which is not good because we do not create templates that are used by one article only).

I suggest deleting template:Nuh,Template:Khalid ibn al-Walid,template:Adam,template:Israfil,template:Aisha, template:Khadijah because they contain few if any relevant links and can be used by one page only.

template:Fatimah and template:Abu Bakr can be improved and probably saved from deletion.Kiatdd (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to merge the ones with a limited content into one or more.. template:Aisha, template:Khadijah and all you want to delete are infoboxes.. they're just used in there respective articles.. you can delete the template and copy past its code into the related article, i don't see the point in doing so, just keep it as it is. Template:Khalid ibn al-Walid is very useful, all his battles and and related conquests could go into this template. Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 15:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's aleady {{Campaignbox Campaigns of Khalid ibn Walid}}.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can delete this one and inject its content into {{Khalid ibn al-Walid}}. Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 20:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the following reasons they should all be deleted:

-They have article content violating Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Usage line 14 stating: "Templates should not do the work of article content, instead, place the text directly into the article." (e.g. template:Aisha contains information about Aisha's date/place of birth/death, ethnicity, clan, etc. the info is probably true but it belongs in the article space not template space.)

-They may be used by one or two page only.(eg. template:Nuh in page Noah)

-They have no/few relevant internal links.(e.g. template:Israfil has 2 links)

-Other than page decoration they have no navigational purpose, violating Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Style.2C_color_and_formatting mentioning "infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative."

-All of them contain honorifics violating MOS:ISLAM#Islamic_honorifics stating: "In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, honorifics should generally be omitted from articles."(e.g. template:Adam honorific ʿalayhi s-salām).

To summarize these bizarre constructions are essentially honorifics to honor important religious figures, they are not utilities to help navigation violating the very definition of templates. Kiatdd (talk) 06:09, 31 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:2013 music

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) 20:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2013 music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012 music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2010 music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009 music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced by Template:YYYY music for flexibility and uniformity. Iketsi (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom, but couldn't the new template be named to something more descriptive like "Music by year" or "Years in music". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I support deleting all music by year templates to conform to the uniformity that has been proposed and implemented. As the one who created the templates up for deletion, my knowledge of constructing templates at the time was lacking, so I am glad that someone "polished" my contribution. (Tigerghost (talk) 05:15, 18 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:LinkTalk

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) 05:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this template, my first, then it was suggested on the village pump that I could just modify la2 directly, the template this is based on. So I did that. So this one is a duplicate of La2 now. Silas Ropac (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - You could probably speedy delete it as G6 or G7, or even G2. Nice improvement, by the way. -PC-XT 05:00, 18 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:Southeastern Conference Men's Basketball Rookie of the Year navbox

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) 05:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southeastern Conference Men's Basketball Rookie of the Year navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Naavbox overkill. WikiProject:College Basketball has drwan the line for templates at Conference player of the Year and would not support adding an entire new class of conference templates to the mix. We already probably have too many Rikster2 (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tthe established understanding, if not the express consensus of WikiProject College Basketball is to emphasize major national awards, honors and championships over conference-level awards, honors and championships. Being the conference freshman of the year, while deserving mention in a college player's infobox and article text, does not rate the need for another navbox among many. It's simply a matter of prioritization. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per general consensus on treatment of varying degrees of notable awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I support a stand-alone list article for Rookie of the Year, but not an accompanying navbox. As Rikster mentioned, WP:CBB believes Division I overall conference players of the year deserve navboxes, but not when you start trivializing these awards to rookie-level. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:52, 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.