Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 16



Template:Vertebral column and spinal cord

 * 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 January 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Vertebral column and spinal cord

Only used in two articles. Unnecessary. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 16 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:Years in Sierra Leone

 * 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 insufficient working link for an effective navigational aid Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Years in Sierra Leone

only 2 working links. Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We had this before but we can still create the pages. Jackninja5 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When a TfD for a group of templates is closed, sometimes individual ones from that group can be renominated. (I'm unsure of the rules for this practice, but it's often advised by closing admins.) The group discussion was here. —PC-XT+ 09:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC) 09:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – See WP:EXISTING. Navboxes should only include links between existing articles; all the current redlinks should be removed regardless. If this template is to remain, the articles should probably be created first; then it would be reasonable to have a navbox. But a navbox is not necessary for only 2 existing articles. --V2Blast (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I !voted to keep in the last discussion if enough links turned blue, but they have not, so I now say to delete. If someone wants to create more articles, I would not oppose userfication. —PC-XT+ 09:36, 17 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:Years in North Vietnam

 * 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 userfy as a requested alternative for the consensus to delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Years in North Vietnam

no working links. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy procedural close this was nominated for deletion in December 2014, and the discussion was closed on 16 January 2015 as Keep, the very day it was renominated, by the same user who nominated it the last time. You should use WP:DRV to dispute the outcome of the last deletion request. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When a TfD for a group of templates is closed, sometimes individual ones from that group can be renominated. (I'm unsure of the rules for this practice, but it's often advised by closing admins.) One thing I think we could do is ping those who participated in the last discussions, in case they don't realize the deletion tag is a different one, (unless they have been notified, already.) —PC-XT+ 09:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC) —PC-XT+ 09:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support – See WP:EXISTING. Navboxes should only include links between existing articles. Given that none of the articles in question exist, I see no reason for this template to exist at this time. It might be justified to have it at some point in the future if at least a few such articles exist. --V2Blast (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Delete or userfy if someone wants to keep it to produce articles. In the last discussion, I !voted to keep if articles developed, but they haven't. It's useless like this. If someone asks for it, though, I'll support userfication. —PC-XT+ 09:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I changed to only userfy for Jackninja5 —PC-XT+ 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep' - It is currently being userfied. It is a slow process but it is being userfied. Jackninja5 (talk) 10:58, 24 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:Infobox military operation

 * 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 merge by consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox military operation
 * Infobox operational plan

Propose merging Template:Infobox military operation with Template:Infobox operational plan.

Merge and redirect this nearly identical copy of Template:Infobox operational plan with just "|planned_by" being replaced by "|commanded-by". Usually "|planned_by" will be used for plans never executed, "|commanded_by" for executed plans. We should however independently allow both parameters, as an operation may be planned by one president or general and later be commanded by others. PanchoS (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

- Pdfpdf (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Questions/Comments
 * I am assuming that:
 * the primary template will be "Military Operation",
 * "Operational Plan" will be the redirect,
 * the title on the infobox will be "Military Operation", and
 * the "|commanded_by" field may be missing, (if the operation was never executed).
 * Under what circumstances may the "|planned_by" field be missing?
 * For example, many operations are planned by the J5's staff - what do you put in the "|planned_by" field in that situation?
 * Under what circumstances may both fields be missing? (If "none", is it possible to enforce that at least one of the two fields be present?)


 * At this point I just proposed merging the two almost-identical templates. My proposal was to fully merge the templates meaning that both parameters should be available independently. Intricate details may then be discussed on the Talk page. --PanchoS (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies User:PanchoS - I somehow missed your reply.
 * My proposal was to fully merge the templates meaning that both parameters should be available independently. - So far, so good.
 * Intricate details may then be discussed on the Talk page. - To me, that sounds like a good plan that I'm quite happy/comfortable supporting. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge seems sensible to me, as these are very close to each other —PC-XT+ 08:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you think that, then I think you've missed some of the major points. It's too late here now - more later at a more social Time-of-Day. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the following three things:
 * The above discussion seems reasonable, and recommends a merge agreement I feel comfortable supporting. (I am confused that you seem to be in support, as well, so I do seem to be missing something.)
 * The diff could be handled either by a switch or by adding either parameter to the other template, so a merge is technically feasible.
 * The documentation appears to be similar.
 * If future plans would make them very different, I am open to discussion. I only !voted on the information I found. Please reply. —PC-XT+ 13:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I am confused ...  - Yes, I think I am confused, too. I think I must have misunderstood what you are saying - certainly, what I thought I understood is NOT the same as what you have said in your clarifications! I have the feeling that we all agree with each other. However, to be honest, I must admit I'm not sure just what it is we are all agreeing upon. I have the impression that we all agree on "the big picture" and that we all feel that the details can be clarified later. Is that the same impression that others have? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposal is sufficiently clear: merge back the two templates preserving both |planned_by and |commanded_by parameters. If we agree on that, then we agree on what this proposal is all about. Everything else may be discussed on the template's talk page. --PanchoS (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good! So I interpret that as consensus having been reached. Does anyone disagree? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:56, 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:Undent

 * 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. People seem to be roughly split between don't merge but delete, merge, and keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Undent (281 transclusions)
 * Outdent (31,947 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Undent with Template:Outdent.

These two template share the exact same purpose (to start again with indentation in talk pages when it gets too long). The outdent template is more useful and intutive as it clearly indicates the continuation of the conversation with a line, whereas this this more subtle template only makes sense if you know what someone means by "undent". SFB 18:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not merge The purpose of Undent appears to be closer to that of Outdent2 than of Outdent. That said,, I don't see any real utility to be gained from insisting that people use the same style here. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to merge, but delete Undent. When that's done, nominate Outdent and Outdent2 (which has 387 transclusions) for merging. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Outdent. People use it a lot. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not merge, rather, delete Undent. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Outdent in its current form. I (and others) use it a lot. I don't really care what happens with the other templates, they don't look particularly valuable to me, but, then again, they could be useful to others. --JorisvS (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep outdent. It is extremely useful. Also very disruptive to have this appearing in discussions here there and everywhere. For this reason, even though it's not standard, I suggest removal of the 'merge proposal' template for outdent while discussions on the other templates take place. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the TFD tag has been incorrectly applied to the template, causing it to be appear on every instance it is being used. Someone should really take a look af this and try to fix this. Tvx1 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete undent as redundant to simple markup: . Speedy removal per Tom; the notice appears to be confusing almost everyone as to the nature of this discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please exclude the discussion templates from pages on which these templates are trancluded, as including the discussion box it is messing up talk page conversations. -- PBS (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As others have already asked, I have bracketed the two notices of this discussion with  which removes the notices from the discussions on talk pages. -- PBS (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Who cares? This template is only used on talk pages, where the people who use it obviously find it useful, and it has no effect on the mainspace so, er, what's the problem? Redundancy is not an inherently bad thing, and honestly I'd have thought people would have better things to do than debate a template that only affects meta-meta-meta aspects of the project. It's the sort of thing that can wait til after the encyclopaedia is finished and we're scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to do. And even then... HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Question - does "something" depending on the value of something. But od, od2 and undent all look like the do the same thing. Or have I missed something? Pdfpdf (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - added for the benefit of the ignorant like me. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 colons followed by "odxxx" gives:

xxx
 * 2 colons followed by "od2xxx" gives:

xxx
 * 2 colons followed by "undentxxx" gives:

xxx
 *  useful inclusion above modified. GregKaye 09:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. 2 colons followed by "xxx" gives:

xxx


 * Oppose - a) "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". b) Similary, oppose doing anything to od2 c) If 281 people want to use it, why stop them? As User:HJ Mitchell says: i) "people who use it obviously find it useful" ii) "what's the problem?" iii) "honestly, I'd have thought people would have better things to do". Pdfpdf (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to outdent, GregKaye 09:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this was in article space, I'd say delete or merge to avoid confusion, but people seem to like having different ways to talk, which may help to spur our creativity. The confusion seems to last for a very short term per editor, and the creativity it spurs hopefully lasts longer, and may be contagious. (This is not a !vote, as I used the word hopefully, which is too weak.) —PC-XT+ 10:23, 17 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:नेपाली विकिपीडिया प्रवन्धकहरू

 * 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 speedy delete g6. Non-admin closure.--333-blue 00:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * नेपाली विकिपीडिया प्रवन्धकहरू

delete or userfy. Appears to be a navbox for admins/bureaucrats on the Nepali wikipedia. Might be appropriate in the author's user space, but nowhere else. NSH002 (talk) 11:52, 16 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:TED

 * 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 to delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TED

Per reasoning given by others at Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 31. Same reason applies regarding external links to Prager University video lectures applies to the external links to TED video lectures. Per WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADV, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:BALASPS. If a mention of the subject's TED or Prager University video lectures have received secondary or tertiary notice from reliable sources, it can be definitely added to the body of the article, but it need not have its own external link at the bottom of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Farcical and pointy nomination of a useful and needed template. It is not "promotional", not "advertising" and not "unbalanced", nor does it breach WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, which is about the subject's own, official websites. Instead, it serves to aid both editors and readers. Further, its deletion without substitution would remove content from articles without notification to concerned editors, on the articles' talk pages. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For purposes of directing readers to a video lecture Template:PragerU does the exact same thing as the subject of this TfD, yet it is OK for one template to remain, and another to be deleted. If one must remain, all must remain, who share a similar purpose of directing readers to an externally hosted video lecture; or all must be deleted. Otherwise what the community is saying is that it is OK to not provide an external link to one type of video lecture, educational in its purpose, and not another.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Where do you imagine that I argue that the PragerU template should be deleted? Regardless of that, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy, you seem pointy and overly obsessed with ensuring that our policies are uniformly applied to two separate things. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS principle is that yes, we should aim to apply our policies and guidelines uniformly, but uniformity isn't the be-all-end-all. If it were then nothing could get done without everything getting done all at once. If you sincerely believe that the TED Talks template should be removed then you need to provide some additional explanation beyond pointing your fellow readers to a discussion about something else. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If these templates are found to be similar enough, arguments from that discussion, and its outcome, could be used as a precedent in this one, but this is sort of forking the discussion. Forking has already been a matter of contention in this issue, so it might be better to withdraw and renominate if that one is deleted. —PC-XT+ 10:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reasoning given is " 'TED or A' is undesired, so delete TED". No. It would be better to figure out 'why is A undesired?'. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 11:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (subst or find a better template where used in a reference) - when the fact that someone has given a TED-talk is notable enough, it will be mentioned in the text, and likely has the primary reference to the talk on there (that reference should not use this template but one of the cite-templates). For the rest, it is not that often appropriate in the external links sections, and the few occasions which are appropriate can be linked normally (that does not need the 'convenience' of a template).  Seeing a subject talk is informative for a reader, but it is hardly ever the case that the subject can not be understood without hearing or seeing the subject speak (See WP:ELNO #1).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:44, 21 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.