Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 8



Template:Arkansas Confederate Artillery Batteries

 * 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Arkansas Confederate Artillery Batteries

Should be replaced with generic succession boxes, or a navbox, at the foot of articles, where readers expect to find them; and where they are more useful. (Renominated after previous TfD failed due to lack of editors commenting). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before. This type of succession box located where it is on the page is common to most Military Articles. Please see
 * 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) Cavalry Example
 * 18th Infantry Regiment (United States) Infantry Example
 * 15th Field Artillery Regiment (United States) Artillery Example
 * Since U.S. military units are numbered sequentially, this type of template makes locating the desired unit much more efficient. It should be left alone! Aleutian06 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are other instances, they should be replaced, also. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * keep seems well-designed to me, unless there are some plans to add the succession to the main infobox. Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep —PC-XT+ 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I meant keep per above comments and previous discussions. Your suggestion is valid, but this seems practical, as well, and I don't think we should have both. —PC-XT+ 06:27, 17 July 2014 (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.

Moscow Metro style 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) 20:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sokolnicheskaya style
 * Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya style
 * Koltsevaya style
 * Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya style
 * Lyublinsko-Dmitrovskaya style
 * Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya style
 * Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya style
 * Kalininskaya style
 * Kakhovskaya style

Unused for several years (last usages of Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya style have been just replaced by me). All articles on Moscow Metro stations do not use any styling now. See also Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 11 & Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 10 YLSS (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (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:Sydney public transport

 * 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, as the templates have changes substantially since the discussion was started. Feel free to renominate them if you feel as though they still should be merged/deleted/etc. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sydney public transport
 * List of public transport infrastructure in Sydney

Duplicates. Firstly, both templates have very similar information. Secondly, the first template "Sydney public transport" (thereby known as template 1) is much more updated, organised and detailed than the second one "List of public transport infrastructure in Sydney" (thereby known as template 2). For example, template 2 still uses "Inner West Light Rail" or "Cityrail" wikilinks, though this can be updated accordingly, which would make it no different to template 1.

My suggestion is to merge most (if not all) of the information of template 2 into template 1, while keeping the name of template 1. Outer metropolitan information (i.e buses and trains of Blue Mountains, Newcastle, Wollongong etc.) of template 2 should be transferred to a newly created template, with names such as Template:Outer Metropolitan Sydney public transport or any other possible names. This new template will have a similar look to template 1 and will contain other appropriate information not mentioned in templates 1 and 2. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge Agree both should be consolidated into template 1, and a separate Outer Sydney, or even Regional New South Wales template for the rest of the state, created based on the same structure. Mo7838 (talk)!


 * merge Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The templates have been merged as of the time this sentence is written. Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2014 (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.