Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 13



Template:A.R. Kane

 * 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 relisted on 2015 February 8. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:51, 8 February 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox political party/seats

 * 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 unfork, I will move the current version of this template to the sandbox of Template:Composition bar for comparison, but it seems the problem may have already been addressed with. In any case, the discussion of how to address any remaining spacing problems can happen at Template talk:Composition bar. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox political party/seats

fork of composition bar with the only substantive being the height/alignment. this history is basically (1) the template was created as Infobox political party/seats (2) it was moved to composition bar (3) hundreds of transclusions were changed from Infobox political party/seats to composition bar and (3) it was forked as Infobox political party/seats. it may seem like a good idea to fix the problems by simply forking it, but the problems should be addressed by fixing composition bar instead of forking it. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Frietjes, are you sure fixing the supposed problems with composition bar that led to the forking wouldn't create new problems at those hundreds of other pages? Or do you suggest adding optional parameters for height and alignment? In the latter case it may be wise to add them before deleting the fork. What we probably don't want is an edit war about those parameters in composition bar. Huon (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Huon, sure we can start with an option, say 'infobox=yes' or something that will fix the alignment in infoboxes, then work on a more universal solution. however, the current situation fixes nothing since hundreds were already changed to not use the redirect. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * merge the alignment and height changes back in to composition bar. I oppose straight up deletion without making sure composition bar can handle it first. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:39, 26 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lymphatics of head and neck

 * 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 merged
 * Lymphatics of head and neck
 * Lymphatic system anatomy

Propose merging Template:Lymphatics of head and neck with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.

as stated below Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ✅ per consensus below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lymphatics of upper limbs

 * 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 merged
 * Lymphatics of upper limbs
 * Lymphatic system anatomy

Propose merging Template:Lymphatics of upper limbs with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.

as stated below Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ✅ per consensus below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Thoracic lymph nodes

 * 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 merged
 * Thoracic lymph nodes
 * Lymphatic system anatomy

Propose merging Template:Thoracic lymph nodes with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.

as stated below Tom (LT) (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ✅ per consensus below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Abdominal lymph nodes

 * 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 merged
 * Abdominal lymph nodes
 * Lymphatic system anatomy

Propose merging Template:Abdominal lymph nodes with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.

as stated below Tom (LT) (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ✅ per consensus below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lymphatics of lower limbs

 * 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 merged
 * Lymphatics of lower limbs
 * Lymphatic system anatomy

Propose merging Template:Lymphatics of lower limbs with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.

I propose that this template be 'merged' or for a better term collapsed into the parent template, Lymphatic system anatomy. The benefits of merging are clear: all lymphatic structures are visible in a single template, instead of the tiny and confusing piecemeal templates. These small templates make the topic difficult to navigate, and by virtue of the slow speed of evolution and the relatively stable state of human anatomy and the science thereof, are unlikely to be significantly expanded. In addition to making the topic easier for readers to navigate, merging the templates is easier for maintenance, which includes making copyedits and keeping the set standard.

I have created this template as a result of a discussion with and. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have notified the relevant WikiProject (WP:ANAT) here: --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments re process: 1. I understand Lymphatic system anatomy is the target template (so I read: with into ...). 2. The five proposals here can be seen as one (a section restructuring could be done). -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge The templates will be far more useful when merged into one larger template.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support all merges. Not because I discussed this, but because the profound discussions at Template talk:Medicine navs show that nom and PizzaMan oversee the topic (of medicine navigation). -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Having all the lymphatic system templates in one place would give a more complete view of the subject. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge obviously PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support all merges. BakerStMD  T&#124;C 02:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

✅ per consensus above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:I-22 aux

 * 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 as uncontested Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I-22 aux

Navboxes such as this with only three links (I-22, I-222 and I-422) have traditionally been deleted. The usual rule of thumb has been to require about 5 or more separate links to put them into use in articles.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:47, 13 January 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). No further edits should be made to this section.