Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 6



Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Army/Generic

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ranks and insignia of NATO/Army/Generic

broken and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused unchanged since 2005 Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. See: Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 2 for a similar previous discussion. Please see my talk page for discussion in regards to genericification of Ranks and insignia templates. This is a work in progress. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked at it. Um . . . . I don't get it. It's a work in progress since 2005? The template is used by Warrant officer, but the template isn't linked to anything and looks broken. Huh? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy If this is a work in progress, than it doesn't need to be in the template namespace. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:36, 9 February 2012 (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:Campaignbox Battle for Australia

 * 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. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Campaignbox Battle for Australia

Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. A military campaign box template of unrelated battles based upon a WP:FRINGE theory rejected by Australian military historians. The main article is notable, and explains the controversy surrounding it, but the presence of this template on high profile pages which gives it WP:UNDUE weight contrary to WP:NPOV. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Serious Australian military historians agree that these series of battles weren't directly related, and even many of the (largely amateur) proponents of the 'Battle for Australia' concept agree. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I should also note that despite my comment above, this template was created in good faith and, as I noted here, was partly my fault as I created the dodgy article which appears to have inspired it. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The idea seems to be the result of pressure groups wanting to tie a series of unconnected battles together. Until it's endorsed by mainstream historians, which seems unlikely, we can't treat it as an accepted concept. EyeSerene talk 09:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: per policy cited in the nomination. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename and reuse as a navbox for battles etc taking place around Australia during the war. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nomination. Battles taking place around Australia during the Second World War already have Campaignbox South West Pacific and the actual Battle for Australia article. Jorgath (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nomination. Most links already appear in other navboxes anyways. --CapitalR (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2012 (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:Sc

 * 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. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sc
 * Smallcaps

Propose merging Template:Sc with Template:Smallcaps.

Template:Sc forces a bunch of text into uppercase, which is very poor accessibility, per WP:ACCESS and MOS:TEXT. The similar template Template:Smallcaps uses CSS to style the small-caps, which is both better accessibility and (importantly for people with visual impairments like myself) can be overridden in a user CSS. So I'm proposing deleting Template:Sc in favour of Template:Smallcaps. OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever happens with this needs to be decided quickly, it's totally messed up Template:Respell and whatever other templates it's referenced in. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've d it; we shouldn't transclude even those little inline TFD notices in templates that are broadly used in the prose of articles. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done, SMc. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SMcCandlish. Stupid of me not to have checked the knock-on effects of tfm-inline. It's been a long day. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 *  Comment  (see merge !vote later) : I think the purposes are very different. From what I can determine, the sole reason sc exists is to format the Christian phrase "The Lord" as "The Lord " in small caps the way that the King James (or Protestant generally?) Bibles do, for esoteric reasons I will neither support not oppose at this point, and to ensure that when copy-pasted into some ASCII-only container, it comes out as "The LORD". It really has jack to do with smallcaps, which is a CSS container template only.  That said, maybe there are features from the one that could be useful in the other, maybe the one's entire featureset and purpose can be compressed into a parameter in the other, or maybe what one is doing is a bad idea.  I'm on the fence about that. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Merge with conditions: I have no strong feelings on smallcaps — I don't personally like it, but that's why I override it in my user CSS; I have no objection to its existence ;o) — but sc causes non-overrideable small-caps, which are substantially more difficult to read for people with visual impairments (I have a relatively strong astigmatism, for example), which is bad accessibility. I would be relatively happy if all instances of sc were migrated to instances of smallcaps, which would suit the æsthetic need in Bible quotes (for example), without forcing the capitalisation to copy/paste (which is the Bad™ bit). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a "Merge with conditions" !vote. If it is, I think I'll change mine to one, too, 'cause that seems like a compelling reason. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's certainly my intention. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with the condition that it stop changing the actual underlying case to upper, since this is an accessibility issue. By contrast, people don't have trouble using the encyclopedia if they copy "the Lord " into a text file and get "the Lord", which is still perfectly grammatical. PS: If this would break some external tool, just give that conversion case an special CSS class, like "convert-to-caps" or something, and a simple Perl or Python script or C++ or Java object can make the conversion on the external tool side. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Owen B. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 11 February 2012 (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:Bleeding Oath

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bleeding Oath

navigates nothing. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only link is to the band's parent article; the template seems unnecessary.  Gongshow  Talk 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NENAN Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:42, 9 February 2012 (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:The Sheepdogs

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sheepdogs

navigates nothing. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - currently has very little value, as the only two links are to the band's parent page and record label. Unless stand-alone articles for the albums/singles are forthcoming, the template does not seem necessary at this time.  Gongshow  Talk 21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:42, 9 February 2012 (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:The Nightmare Room

 * 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. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Nightmare Room

This navbox solely links between the people who worked on the television series The Nightmare Room, but neither of these people is primarily known for their involvement with this series. Also, neither of these biography articles link to this navbox. Navboxes are supposed to link between subcategories of an overarching category, but this navbox does not do that. Neelix (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, not how we do navboxes around here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:24, 7 February 2012 (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:Taxonomy/Acanothochitonidae

 * 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; deleted as G6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy/Acanothochitonidae

Replaced by correct spelling Template:Taxonomy/Acanthochitonidae. Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedily delete or redirect if things are actually linking to it. This isn't a TfD matter, just uncontroversial maintenance per WP:CSD. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:09, 6 February 2012 (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.