Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 27



Template:Infobox swimming event

 * 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/redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox swimming event

Redundant to Infobox multi-sport competition event; I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. The page can be kept as a redirect. Alakzi (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, with redirect per nom. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, with caveat per nominator's rationale, with the caveats that (a) all functionality is preserved, and (b) we incorporate the best layout and design elements from the several templates for individual events of multi-event sports competitions now under discussion in several different TfDs. Let's have a merged template that is an improvement over those that presently exist.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All functionality will be preserved; Infobox multi-sport competition event has all of this infobox's parameters, plus more. The only design complaint I've heard was about the use of "at the" in the title. Alakzi (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several TfDs regarding these multi-event templates currently pending. You've got several, and Andy has at least one.  From what I have seen so far, they should all be treated the same -- there really is no substantive difference between any of them and the multi-sport competition infobox.  Most of my thoughts on point are outlined in the merge TfD discussion for the athletics competition infobox here: .  Yes, the primary issue is the header, but there are several other elements we can talk about after that discussion closes (it's a logical first step, and I don't want to do anything to extend a discussion that seems to have already run its course).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if you admit that they're identical, why was the first caveat necessary? When somebody says they'll only support a proposal if a certain condition is met, it tends to be that that condition wouldn't otherwise be met. As for the second caveat—should I assume that you do not regard redundancy as adequate justification for deletion? Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alakzi, if we are going to merge these templates (all of the four or five now under discussion), we should incorporate the best design elements of each. Too often we simply merge the functionality, and ignore the design elements.  As for the first caveat, I believe all of the functional elements are the same, but we have four or five different templates under discussion, and I am allowing that they may not all have identical parameters.  If they are, it's an easy caveat to satisfy.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 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 European Games event

 * 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) 10:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox European Games event

Redundant to Infobox multi-sport competition event. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, with caveat per my comments in the discussion immediately above.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 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:InfoboxSubGAC

 * 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. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * InfoboxSubGAC

Unused. Alakzi (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. APerson (talk!) 02:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 28 March 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:Article style

 * 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 April 11. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:20, 11 April 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:Digestives

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Digestives

Unclear what this template links. Enzymes involved in digestion? Anything involved in digestion? Miscellaneous things involved in digestion with no other template? Artificially isolated enzymes? These items do not seem to be linked in any logical fashion and a large number of other navboxes exist to fill the space. Therefore I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This template links pharmaceutical substances that are grouped under the WHO's ATC code A09. It is part of a series of such templates; see Category:Drug templates by ATC. The reason behind these boxes is that WP:PHARM has at some point decided to use the ATC classification scheme for our drug articles. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per ἀνυπόδητος and ATC code A09. Boghog (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your points of view but my question is this: does this navbox actually help readers? If not then I say let's do away with it regardless. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I find it educational to have the ATC classification throughout (the template also links to ATC code A09 from where you can further explore this classification) but of course I'm biased. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:07, 30 March 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:Other metabolic pathology

 * 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 <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 09:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Other metabolic pathology

Pointless template with very few uses that lumps together an odd collection of diseases of inborn metabolism. Because the diseases are not linked the template is called "other" and does not provide any useful navigational value. Therefore I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah...that's basically it...delete--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:02, 27 March 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.

Old Spam Warnings
<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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 09:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Spam → uw-spam1
 * Spam1 This is just a redirect to Spam
 * Spam2 → uw-spam2
 * Spam3 → uw-spam3
 * Spam4 → uw-spam4
 * Spam5 → uw-sblock

These are redundant to the new improved uw-spam1, uw-spam2, uw-spam3, uw-spam4, and uw-sblock. Need deletion, or maybe simpler to simply redirect them to the new versions. They are full-protected so this would still require an admin to complete. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename spam to uw-spam0 for a friendly level-0 non-escalating warning. Add a redirect for uw-spam5 to uw-sblock to match the old naming schema -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * redirect? Frietjes (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically what I want, and I have suggest what to what above in the proposal. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:17, 7 April 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.