Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 4



Template:International median household income

 * 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) 05:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * International median household income

There are many issues of this template that cannot easily be fixed. The definition of household varies widely by country.

In the US, a household would be "related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household." But in Canada a household is "A census couple family consists of a couple living together (married or common-law, including same-sex couples) living at the same address with or without children." The huge difference is that the US includes single person as a household and unrelated people as household whereas Canada only includes 2+ people that must be related.

Other countries also have varying definitions of household. Some countries also list mean household income rather than median such as Switzerland as many countries do not even have statistics for median. Other countries, like Korea, is listing figures from a poll asking "how much money should a person be making to be considered middle class" rather than actual verifiable statistics. The entire template is a mess. It doesn't appear to be easily fixable either since it doesn't use a single reliable source and because the definition of "household" varies so widely country to country. Request for deletion as this template is being linked to several pages and is severely misleading, inaccurate, and is not fixable BlackHades (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, if the information is not WP:OR, it can be added to an article directly, and does not require a template. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or articl-ify this shouldn't be a template, it should be an article. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2013 (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:UFC results

 * 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) 05:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * UFC results

Unused template which will probably never be used since results tables in UFC event use a different colour scheme and since there's no reason to expect that this table will ever be useful in any article other than UFC 146. Pichpich (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2013 (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:Césars by year

 * 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) 05:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Césars by year

Unused, unnecessary, as main template is sufficient. — WylieCoyote 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speedy per db-t3. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:40, 4 January 2013 (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:Canadian monarchs

 * 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 Australian and New Zealand monarchs, but no consensus for Canadian monarchs. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Canadian monarchs
 * Australian monarchs
 * New Zealand monarchs

Duplicate of Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs, are we going to have these navboxes for every Commonwealth realm? Even with just these the monarchs articles will get quite cluttered with excess infoboxes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I merged Template:Canadian monarchs into Template:Australian monarchs because the articles listed in both, and the way they are organized were exactly the same. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * comment why, as the Canadian template has existed since 2008, was it erdirected to the Australian template, as it was only created in 2011? The Canadian template has a talk page discussion its construction while there is none at the Australian one. This seems to be the wrong way to redirect things. And why would the Australian template keep Australian colors, and stay named as "Australian monarchs" if it is to serve both Canada and Australia? What happened to neutrality? Isn't the normal thing to do to merge the new one into the old one? And why merge one into another instead of merging both into a neutral name? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment you could also have redirected the Canadian template to the other Canadian template Canadian monarchy which makes a lot more sense than redirecting it to Australia. A monarch is an element of the monarchy for that country. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Victoria was the first Queen of Canada as Canada did not exist pre-1867, to use an example. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Template:Canadian monarchs can be merged into Template:Canadian monarchy, which is a less decorative and more expansive template that does not otherwise duplicate links (and is hence more useful). The list of Australian monarchs is, unlike the Canadian one, unsourced and the article disputes the interpretation given in the template: it says "References in the constitution to "the Queen" meant the government of the United Kingdom ... a situation that continued even after Australia was recognised as a Dominion of the British Empire in 1907." DrKiernan (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget (since someone made this a redirect) to Template:Canadian monarchy -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all. These templates are all redundant to each other - and other templates - and as such have no useful purpose as navigational aids.   notes that these people were the king/queen of Commonwealth Realms, of which Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all members.  The lone purpose these templates actually serve is to note that each monarch was the monarch of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but that is (or should be) mentioned in the prose.  There is no need for this template cruft. Resolute 22:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into existing navboxes, i.e. Template:Canadian monarchy, Template:Governors-General of Australia, and Template:Governors-General of New Zealand. It is template cruft, but they are not duplicates of each other. 117Avenue (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Canadian target already lists monarchs. As to the other two, what purpose do lists of Governors-General serve on the articles of monarchs? Resolute 01:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * GGs are representatives of the monarch. 117Avenue (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. But that does not answer my question.  What value is a list of Governors-General on an article about Elizabeth II, for instance? My point is that those are bad merge targets because you replace redundant links to these articles with irrelevant ones. In fact, we'd only be increasing the clutter in that scenario. Resolute 15:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The GG is the personal representative of the monarch, and acts in her/his name, so has in effect, the "power-of-attorney", so that's why they should be listed. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that the GG is the monarch's representative is valuable in an article about the monarchy, yes. But a list of GGs of various countries, irrespective of who the specific monarch was, is not valuable. Or, simply, what purpose exists in linking William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley to Elizabeth II? Resolute 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, navigation boxes are for navigation, and these are simply redundant. an article is the place to expound upon the history of the monarchy in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep Template:Canadian monarchs. According to List of Canadian monarchs the Canadian monarchy is quite distinct from the rest of the commonwealth realms. Canada had allot of French monarchs. Right now the templates scope is limited to Confederation monarchs, but I think it's scope should be expanded to cover all monarchs, from Francis I to Elizabeth II, that would make it a useful template. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2013 (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.