Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 31



Template:Ref GM

 * 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, I was going to redirect it, but it's not a "cite" template, but a template that creates a &lt;ref&gt; tag. Feel free to redirect it if you really want a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref GM

I understand the purpose, to generate a citation to google maps, but the template takes no parameters, so it's too non-specific. on the other hand, Google maps generates a specific citation. we should encourage specific citations, not generic ones. Frietjes (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Saying Google Maps is your reference is about as helpful as saying Google or Wikipedia is. Have the title redirect to Google maps. I'd say deprecate, but it doesn't seem to be in use anyway. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I didn't realize this template existed, redirect.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:35, 2 November 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:Old RM multi

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Old RM multi

This is just a less informative version of oldmoves. Simply saying an article has been the subject of RMs isn't very helpful. Listing results, as with oldmoves is helpful, as is addressing the issue in a talk page FAQ. Since this template isn't used much, I personally volunteer to convert all instances to oldmoves if it's deleted. Finally, while I think it would be appropriate to redirect this title to oldmoves, I don't think a merge makes much sense. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect modify oldmoves to accept a parameter "1" that is an alias for the current "list" parameter ; ignore the image parameter. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:03, 1 November 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:InternalLink

 * 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) 01:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * InternalLink
 * OptionalLink

I understand the purpose, but since it is not in use, do we need it? Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. At one time, they were meta-templates used by Physics particle but were removed because of performance issues. See Template talk:Physics particle and archived WP:VPT discussion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:32, 1 November 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:MMAevent fight

 * 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) 01:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * MMAevent fight
 * MMAevent top
 * MMAevent bottom

unused and no significant advantage over simple wikitable markup. unlike MMAevent card, which is used and generates a significant amount of header data. Frietjes (talk) 18:34, 31 October 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.

Deep Purple track list 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fireball tracks
 * Deep Purple in Rock tracks

Not enough independent articles to warrant a track list template for navigation. Linkable songs are already contained in the Deep Purple navbox. Album track list info easily accessible through the respective album articles. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 4 November 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:California Golden Bears men's basketball retired number navbox
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * California Golden Bears men's basketball retired number navbox

Delete per WP:CBBALL, we have done away with these. If any exist out there then it's by mistake only. Also per WP:CRUFT, this is a superfluous navbox whose 4 entries in no way constitute navbox clutter. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 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:Infobox Harry Potter location
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox Harry Potter location

Redundant to Template:Infobox fictional location Cyan Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 07:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * merge as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge; I think consistency is (almost) always better and a separate template is unnecessary. Mr. Absurd (talk) 17:28, 1 November 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:Req
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Req

Unclear purpose. Guessing from linking pages, it was apparently used to ease some kind of automatic processing, but I could not find any details. The discussions about this template seem stale, so whatever purpose it had, it is probably no longer relevant. Keφr (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment did you ask at WP:Requested articles, which uses this template? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI some use it and some don't. Thomas d stewart (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm currently writing a bot (see request) that would clean up WP:RA when articles are created, and the existence of such a template would make processing the page extremely easy. Legoktm (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I found the original implementation of this template, it was requested here, and mentioned again here. Legoktm (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But that proposal looks stale, and it seems that you will have to handle the case without req anyway, and it does not seem much harder to do (just try matching every line with ). Unless I missed something. Keφr (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That one is, but I'm working on a new one (brfa). The problem with just searching for a wikilink is that people tend to link to other related articles in the request which is useful to the article creator, but makes it more difficult for the bot to process. Using req just makes it easier all-around. Legoktm (talk) 06:44, 8 November 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:International recognition of states with limited recognition
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * International recognition of states with limited recognition
 * States with limited recognition

Propose merging Template:International recognition of states with limited recognition with Template:States with limited recognition.

I think that the content of the two template is quite the same, one contain more link, but to the states, and the other less but the international recognition; I think that the two template can be merge to create a template with the link to all international recognition. Stigni (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are the same template is completely false claims. After all, each template refers to a completely different pages! And where will reference the merged template? So the template placed on the page International recognition of Kosovo will place on the page, such as International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, refer to the page of Abkhazia?? Really great! And what's the point, to eliminate this template, in addition to preventing cross-similar pages? Jan CZ (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Content is the same. I note that Template:International recognition of states with limited recognition is older, so perhaps the new one should be merged into that one? CMD (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the template properly, each refers to a completely different pages! Jan CZ (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I prefer Template:States with limited recognition as the destination since it's more concise, but I don't feel strongly about it. --BDD (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the template properly, each refers to a completely different pages! Jan CZ (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Against There are not two, but three different templates. One shows the States, the second shows the foreign relations of these States, third international recognition of these States. Each has its own purpose and each refers to the other pages. Therefore, all templates should be retained. With the proposed merger of I disagree. Jan CZ (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, and agree with BDD to make States with limited recognition as target. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 05:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the template properly, each refers to a completely different pages! Jan CZ (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is a merge proposal. So the links in International recognition of states with limited recognition can be incorporated into States with limited recognition. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 14:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In theory, it can, but it is quite contrary to the current practice for all similar templates, where there are separate templates for groups of States and individual templates for specific articles (e.g. on foreign relations of these States). Merge? Who would have thought that Template:Countries and territories of Africa will links not only to Rwanda, but also to the Foreign relations of Rwanda? No One. Merge has no practical sense, quite the contrary. Jan CZ (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You will also propose the removal of Template:Foreign relations of states with limited recognition? If to cancel this these necessary and meaningful templates (Template:Foreign relations of states with limited recognition and Template:International recognition of states with limited recognition), I'll put them again. Jan CZ (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also that template will be merge, i didn't see it... So what have in common these states? They don't have recognition, so why we have different template for this matter that to not link to the international recognition? We have the "template:Member of the EU" so why we don't create the "template:Foreing relation of the Member of EU", because it is a useless template that don't means anything because the related topic is the states not their Foreign relations. Here the same the related topic is the international recognition and not the state in itself, so the template it has to point only the international recognition and not the state in itself or the foreign relations.Stigni (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? There is a Template:Countries and territories of Africa, and there is a Template:Foreign relations of Africa. These templates work exactly the same as the template that you want to cancel. So clear this african, asian and others templates, which is according to your logic too completely useless! For the first time what I intend on Wikipedia really don't understand someone's argument. Jan CZ (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that each state could have a bracket after it with (recognition, relations) or something similar. CMD (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are templates for groups of States (African, European, members of the AU, States with limited recognition), and then there are templates for their specific topics (foreign relations, recognition). No templates have not yet been aggregated, don't see any reason why to do so in this case. It's all a misunderstanding. Merging would be piece-meal completely. As long as there will be a separate templates Template:Countries and territories of Africa and Template:Foreign relations of Africa and so on, I am strongly against proposed merging. Jan CZ (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Recognition is far more relevant for all the entries in this table than they are for those in similar templates. However, you're right that there is a precedent. Striking, for now. CMD (talk) 18:29, 12 November 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:Indonesian selected article talk
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 history Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indonesian selected article talk

Not used, superceded by Template:Indonesian selected article talk modern — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If it's not used, and superseded by another template, I vote Delete. Grande (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge, overwrite the current template with the modern one's code, and redirect that title to this one, since this one's name makes more sense. I really don't see why you forked the template. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Originally to preserve the history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 31 October 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.