Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 11

[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. ~ Rob13Talk 00:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Rfd-t with Template:Rfd.
A late June 2014 edit made the {{rfd}} template work for template redirects, so a specific `use for template redirects` template is not necessary. Pppery (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2016 (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 merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Other people2 with Template:Other people.
{{Other people2}} is very similar to one of the forms taken by {{other people}}:

  • {{other people||PAGE}} (note the double pipe) →
  • {{other people2|PAGE}}

Moreover, {{other people}} is implemented in Lua, meaning it's far more flexible and can handle cases {{other people2}} can't:

  • {{other people||PAGE1|PAGE2|PAGE3}}
  • {{other people2|PAGE1|PAGE2|PAGE3}}

The system of hatnotes is simpler when there are fewer templates to choose from and maintain. This template is redundant, so we should merge and delete it.

For context, this TfD is part of a series of TfDs I've filed to improve the hatnote system. See also About3 & About4; Redirect6; Details3 & For-on-see; and Redirect4, redirect5, redirect7, and redirect11, to redirect-multi. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's missing, is an in-depth discussion by multiple (experienced) editors as to the merit of merging or deleting this template. -Mardus /talk 20:53, 12 July 2016 (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. ~ Rob13Talk 02:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not navigate between sufficient number of bluelinks, does not merit squad navigation template. GiantSnowman 17:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:25, 11 July 2016 (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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 00:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates the category. the category doesn't suffer from POV decisions regarding who is included. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2016 (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 both. ~ Rob13Talk 02:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a copy of List of Iranian Americans. Too large and broad to serve as a proper navigation tool. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which one - one is just a copy of the other.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i mean the Template . i wanna made a Template to consider Iranian-Americans, for example famous Iranian-Americans who are most academic immigrants of the US( base on MIT reports at 2011}. if my last works was wrong please tell me how can to fix it . dear @PRehse: thank you so much for mentioning me . health n wealth dear Amir Muhammad 14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% delete per Gonzo_fan2007. Has absolutely no purpose and is problematic in numerous regards. PS: I just noticed he already spammed it on all those articles, and thus some bot manually deleting it would be appreciated. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: thank you for your helps in Iran Project related pages . as im an Iranian how can i make this template better as real and encyclopedic ?? can you help me to make ?? however im so appreciated to work with you fellows . you are so smart and kind and helpful . im waiting for your next present dear buddy . it can be nice of you . wish you the best by now Amir Muhammad 15:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you again for your help, that was so helpful Amir Muhammad 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: thanx . and we can have a Template for this purpose :) we have some other case like this that have Template and article etc in the same time .however your comment can be so helpful to me. health n wealth . Amir Muhammad 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no, the template suffers from POV, since the membership in the template is not automatic. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: thank you so much for considering this topic as your mention. your opinion can help me find out more . your sincerely Amir Muhammad 18:29, 11 July 2016 (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 as G6 by Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has no encyclopedic value. At best it probably is considered a userbox that would need to be moved to the userspace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: thank you so much man! you are so kind and helpful . God save you for us. Amir Muhammad 14:55, 11 July 2016 (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. ~ Rob13Talk 02:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of this template at WikiProject Aircraft resulted in a consensus that the template has no focus, no inclusion criteria and that there is no Wikipedia topic for Green aviation, nor any idea what that might include. The items included in the nav box are just random and mostly unrelated. The titular topic is piped to Environmental impact of aviation, which, while related, is not the same subject. - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2016 (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. ~ Rob13Talk 02:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not link to anywhere MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2016 (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. ~ Rob13Talk 02:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are not disambiguation pages MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2016 (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).