Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 16



Template:County routes in Sullivan County, New York

 * 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) 01:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * County routes in Sullivan County, New York

I made this template several years ago back when there was more articles to need it. The template is down to one article and I don't think we need it now. Mitch 32 (It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 23:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - List of county routes in Sullivan County, New York links to County Route 149 (Sullivan County, New York), and CR 149 links to the county route list in the infobox. Thus, the navbox no longer has any real navigational purpose. –  T M F  (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. This probably could have been done as a CSD G6 once the last few article links were removed from the box post-merger.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Originally I was going to suggest expanding this template, but as Mitch said it is only down to one article. So unfortunately, I have no other choice but to agree to vote to delete the template. ---User:DanTD (talk) 14:31, 18 June 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:Scientific Alan 2/sign

 * 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) 01:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Scientific Alan 2/sign

I already moved this into userspace (User:Scientific Alan 2/sign) once but it was re-created. There is no need for signatues to be created as templates. A userspace version would work fine. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously since template space is not for an individual. It's not an issue for this discussion, but using SUBST from user space is discouraged, and external links are not permitted (see WP:SIG and following). The SIG guideline also says "Keep signatures short, both in display and in markup", and the signature is 415 bytes. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete You could have told me that I didn't need the template. Feel free to delete it now. Scientific Alan 2  (Click here to talk)  (What have I done?) (Me) 20:46, 20 June 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:Infobox estate 2

 * 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) 01:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Infobox estate 2

Unused. Magioladitis (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * delete or userfy to preserve the thread that uses it. Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 17 June 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:Five Civilized Tribes

 * 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. The template has been renamed, and significantly expanded since the start of the discussion, so it is impossible to make any decision here. Feel free to renominate if you still think it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Five Civilized Tribes

This is an antiquated term (popular in the early 20th century); the template is useless, since it links to five ethnic groups (as opposed to political tribes) spanning many US states, arbitrary, doesn't add anything a category couldn't. Uyvsdi (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Keep it navigates the articles which discuss the nations of that time. also WP:CLN -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Which time? The linked ethnic group articles are not limited to a timeframe; they span precontact to the 21st century (except for Seminoles, which originated as a group in the 18th century). The two links you added illustrated the arbitrariness of the term "Five Civilized Tribes" since Yuchi, Natchez, and other tribes who aren't Cherokee/Chickasaw/Choctaw/Muscogee/Seminole were part of the Trail of Tears relocations spawned by the Indian Removal Act; while tribes who are Cherokee/Chickasaw/Choctaw/Muscogee/Seminole, such as the Eastern Band Cherokee, Poarch Creeks, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Mississippi Choctaw, Jena Band of Choctaw, and Miccosukee tribes, were not relocated to Indian Territory. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Comment the links I added are under issues that someone looking at the Five Tribes would look for, which does not mean they are solely about those Tribes. Further, I never said the articles are time limited to the periods of the Five Tribes either, I said the articles cover the time period of the Five Tribes, therefore the template is a viable navigation template for that. Should we delete the members of the Beatles from the Beatles template because the group broke up, and their biographies cover the period prior to and after the Beatles period? You're suggesting we do just that. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * These tribes all still exist, and the Muscogee, Choctaw, and Cherokee people at least span centuries. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * And? Do you wish to purge the articles of all content except for the modern day or something? Is navigating history not important to you? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, you lost me there. What on earth are you talking about? -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * That you only deal with the present. The articles are not limited to the present day, so it doesn't matter that the "Five Civilized Tribes" haven't existed for a while, the articles still deal with the time period when they existed. If you want to deal only with the present, then you should remove the information about the past from those articles, and say move it to History of XYZ articles. But the template would still exist to navigate the content of those articles. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, your assumption is incorrect (check my edits and article created), and all these tribes still exist today. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Comment and likely Keep. I agree with the IP user's comment, time-frame isn't relevant, otherwise we wouldn't see Roman Empire or the like.  I just looked up Iroquois Confederacy out of curiosity, and it's "thin" on content, also; the Confederacy no longer exists, this would set a precedent I think for a TfD on that one, and others like it.  Noting also Iroquois Confederacy redirects to the Iroquois "people/ethno" article, and should probably be split off as it concerns a special era and certain organization/"government" and is not as a name for the Iroquoian peoples as a group.  This template (Five Civilized Tribes) could be improved by including notable figures and their former settlements/territories.Skookum1 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The timeframe for at least the Muscogee, Cherokee, and Choctaw peoples are thousands of years ago up to the present, so I'm not sure what time frame is being discussed. An "Indian Removal" template might actually be useful to people in a way that a "Five Tribes" template would not. The Iroquois Confederacy, which of course exists today, is a political organization that formed from linguistically, culturally, politically, and geographically related groups; the "Five Tribes" are not, especially light of the fact that all but the Chickasaw are split into removed tribes and tribes still in their original homeland. For comparison, please check out the Template:Choctaw, Template:Cherokee, and Template:Seminole. As far linking individuals, there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles for the notable members of these tribes. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * While well-intentioned, I do think that this TfD over-analyses the purpose of navboxes. They aren't to taxonomise articles; they are simply to allow readers to quickly navigate between related pages. If it is to be supposed that the particular period of Native American history referenced by this template is a browseable subject area, then it is an appropriate subject for a navbox. If there is a problem with the title, then it should be retitled. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no time period. Three of these tribes have been around for thousands of years, two of them have been around for centuries, and they are all still around today. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * You misunderstand. There is a time period during which the term "five civilised tribes" was a noteworthy part of the lexicon. This happens to be an extremely notable point of American history. There is nothing wrong with a navbox which navigates articles in that context, and it wouldn't take much modification to fix that in this template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, "Indian Removal" is an actual time period and might be a useful concept for navigation template. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Right. So rework this template to match what you'd expect from it. The point is that this template aims to be what you're referring to above, but simply falls short. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've begun the process of turning this into a template of "Indian Removal." Will solicit input from WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Comment I sitll think the Five Civilized Tribes merit a navigation template for themselves. The new Indian Removal revision does not distinctly indicate the five tribal nations. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indian Removal links to the Five Civilized Tribes and includes the tribes within the Cherokee/Chickasaw/Choctaw/Muscogee/Seminole group that were removed, while providing historical context; however, have you looked at the Choctaw, Seminole, and Cherokee templates that I keep bringing up and linking in this discussion? These are coherent and provide a Wikipedia user with a practical overview of topics related to each of these tribes. It would be quite easy to create similar templates for Chickasaws and the Muscogee Creek Confederacy, both of which are large enough groups with sufficient articles to merit templates. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * 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.

Automatic taxobox Cronquist taxonomy 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) 01:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy/Tracheobionta
 * Taxonomy/Spermatophyta
 * Taxonomy/Magnoliophyta
 * Taxonomy/Liliopsida
 * Taxonomy/Zingiberidae

These templates are part of the Automatic taxobox system. The taxa associated with these templates - Tracheobionta, Spermatophyta, Magnoliophyta, Liliopsida, and Zingiberidae - are higher level plant taxa associated with the Cronquist system of classification. However, among flowering plant articles, we at WP:PLANTS have decided (WikiProject Plants/Template) that it's best to use the classification system with the most up-to-date classification based on molecular phylogeny - the APG III system. The Cronquist system and its taxa are seen as being outdated. These templates, as part of the Automatic taxobox, unlike their APG III counterparts (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Angiosperms), have no transclusions and will not be used. Rkitko (talk) 07:26, 16 June 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.