Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 4



Template:Infobox imam

 * 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 after replacement with Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Only 2 tranclusions. I haven't done full research but one of Infobox person, Infobox religious biography must be enough to do the job. Magioladitis (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too few uses. Infoboxes for musicians, head of states, major religious figures such as prophets etc make sense but doctors, lawyers or minor religious figures such as imams etc do not. Farjad 0322 (talk&#124;sign&#124;contribs) 16:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Government of the Northern Territory

 * 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. Moving of the other template to this name is left to editorial discretion. RL0919 (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:Government of Northern Territory. Miracle Pen (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Government of Northern Territory; I've added the image and groupstyle so it is truly now redundant; it still, however, seems like a plausible redirect. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  01:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was hoping to have it deleted so I could move Government of Northern Territory to Government of the Northern Territory. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete to move title.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Israel Squad

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)



Consensus is that such templates are only for the finals of senior competitions Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not necessarily on the grounds of notability, but the bigger problem with this kind of template is that any national team squad during a qualifying section will change significantly. This is due to the natural wastage of injuries, suspensions and players coming in and out of favour, as there is more than a year between the first and last qualification matches. Therefore it is impossible to maintain a stable template, unlike the squads in finals tournaments, where a squad is named and that is it - no changes are permitted after the naming deadline. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life talk 09:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This template is unmaintainable. – PeeJay 10:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This template is unmaintainable.--EchetusXe 14:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This template would chage too much to be practical, and its contents are not singificant enought to merrit a template. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ( talk ) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - navboxes are not needed for qualifying (only finals) and would be unmaintainable. Jogurney (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Half  Price  15:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  00:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:See also category

 * 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 to as it appears to be more general, allowing for multiple link targets. No prejudice against moving the merged template to See also category or another name. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:See also category with Template:Category see also.

I've used these templates interchangably. Unless there is a different purpose for each that I don't understand, I suggest they be merged. Thank. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support but leave the other as a redirect. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support and comment The difference between these two templates is that "See also category" permits the linking of only one other category, while "Category see also" permits the linking of several. In that regard, the latter is the more useful template.  -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 00:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to category see also. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  00:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merger of to  .  Imzadi   1979   →  07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Category see also allows for more than 1 category, and is inline. However, I like the italics thruout the line that see also category uses:
 * instead of half and half, like category see also . --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.