Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 17



Template:2015–16 Pacific-12 Conference women's basketball standings

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was merge, feel free to move it to the correct title. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC) This template is a duplicate of the preferred and correct Template:2015–16 Pac-12 Conference women's basketball standings. ("Pac-12" is preferred to "Pacific-12") UW Dawgs (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2015–16 Pacific-12 Conference women's basketball standings
 * history merge and redirect. Frietjes (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2015 (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).

Template:Convert/flip2

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 December 26. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * convert/flip2
 * convert/flip3
 * convert/flip4
 * 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).

Template:Convert/show

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC) unused fork of convert which is redundant to and. note this template is not used by (nor was it ever used by). this template was used by other forks like and. but, now that those templates have been deleted, this one can be deleted as well. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Convert/show
 * 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).

Template:PD-TXGov

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete with link in deletion log summary. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC) This is not actually a template, and there are no transclusions. Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PD-TXGov
 * delete, including the link in the deletion summary so people can find the discussion on commons. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (namely, this discussion on Commons of the copyright status of works of the Texas government (and a couple other states)) Good idea, Frietjes, with "Legality unclear. State works probably not copyrightable absent specific legislation."
 * Noteworthy: there's no copyright notice at texas.gov. Rather it says "Some information on Texas.gov may be protected by trademark and copyright laws and otherwise protected as intellectual property."  --Elvey(t•c) 21:49, 17 December 2015 (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).

Template:Wisconsin–Whitewater Warhawks football coach navbox

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC) WP:EXISTING -- It is used in only one article, Lance Leipold, making it hard to navigate. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". 🎄 Corkythe hornetfan  🎄 08:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wisconsin–Whitewater Warhawks football coach navbox
 * Keep. Functionally identical to numerous equivalent nav boxes as seen in Category:NCAA Division III football coach navigational boxes. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then they need to be looked at, but one or two links is not sufficient enough to navigate, which is the whole point of the navbox. 🎄 Corkythe hornetfan  🎄 18:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Unnecessary navbox. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We now have four linked articles from the navbox. Corky, does that suffice to withdraw this nomination? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. 🎄 Corkythe hornetfan  🎄 00:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination – enough links to navigate, now. 🎄 Corkythe hornetfan  🎄 00:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as more articles have now been created. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per EJ's comment above: good-faith article creation has expanded the number of linked articles to navigate since this TfD was opened. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. We now have six linked articles from the navbox. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2015 (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).

Template:Scottish dogs

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was merge into British dogs. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Welsh dogs with Template:English dogs.
 * Scottish dogs
 * Welsh dogs
 * English dogs

I propose changing the name of Template:English dogs to Template:British Isles dogs and merging Template:Welsh dogs, Template:Scottish dogs and Template:Irish dogs into it, in a similar manner to Template:Horse breeds of the British Isles. The histories of these countries and their dogs are intertwined, many of the breeds covered are shown in two or more of these templates and it will allow the separation of the Scottish, Welsh & Irish dogs into categories by role / type. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have undone the merger until this discussion reaches a consensus (either on the merger or final name).
 * Weak Support - As it is part of the United Kingdom, but I'd suggest "Template:United Kingdom dogs" or "Template:Great Britain dogs" as the name of the template. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose instead create a new template called Template:British dogs and a redirect from Template:British Isles dogs ; and merge all three templates into the new template, and redirect the source template names. There is no reason to promote the history of the English template instead of giving equal consideration. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Merged to Template:British dogs. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsure about the proposal. The list just gets longer and longer. Also, United Kingdom or not, the countries of the UK remain quite distinct in traditions, and dog breeding is a tradition there. A number of dog breeds have "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" or "Irish" in the name, while there is no British Terrier, Setter, or Wolfhound. See also the remark under . Next time please wait until a consensus is reached. PanchoS (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my above support to weak per your points. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 06:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC) It would probably be best if an admin closed the other issue first, possibly relisting this one again, so we can figure out the remaining aspects. PanchoS (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Irish dogs has been kept separate, and this discussion is about the various UK dog breed templates.
 * From what I can tell this seems to be supported. As stated below, the purpose of merging these templates is to better link dog breeds and types with common heritage and breeding.  Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral. As explained further down, I agree that "United Kingdom dog breeds" would include dogs of Northern Ireland, so the correct naming would simply be "British dog breeds" (see "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") vs. "Irish dog breeds" (see "Ireland"). While I'm not sure if the Great Britain ones need to be merged, I think Ireland shouldn't be merged in. If however all end up being merged, then the correct name would be Template:British Isles dog breeds, while otherwise Template:British dog breeds and Template:Irish dog breeds are the way to go.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2015 (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).

Emmerdale family navigational templates
<div class="boilerplate tfd 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Dec 30. Primefac (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Per WP:NENAN. These are redundant to Template:Emmerdale characters. - JuneGloom07    Talk  20:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * EDBlackstock
 * EDDeSouza
 * EDDingles
 * EDDolands
 * EDGlovers
 * EDHope
 * EDHopwood
 * EDKings
 * EDLambert
 * EDNicholls
 * EDPollard
 * EDPotts
 * EDReynolds
 * EDSinclairs
 * EDSugdens
 * EDTate
 * EDThomas
 * EDTurner
 * EDWindsor
 * EDWylde
 * Tending to keep. Rather the other Navbox, which presents a huge but incomplete selection of characters, should be deleted. PanchoS (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, the combined navbox works fine, and doesn't try to provide extraneous non-navigational information. Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The numerous character articles probably need to be merged. Also agree with Frietjes. --Izno (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2015 (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).