Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 28



Template:SNP MPs

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SNP MPs

Redundant to Template:SNP, which also includes a full list of MPs. I am not a fan of any of this type of large-set navbox, but whatever the case for such templates in general, it's daft for the 56 articles on SNP MPs to have 2 such navboxes, each containing the full list of the 56. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Merge. No objection to a list article of all (not merely sitting SNP Westminster MPs). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Query - Is this typical to combine all members of the Westminster and devolved national parliaments in a single navbox by political party?  To my way of thinking it would make more sense to have two separate navboxes, one for the Westminster MPs and a second one for the Holyrood MSPs.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now The template that needs work here is Template:SNP, which should be brought more into line with other UK/Scottish political parties; in particular, the full lists of MSPs and MPs should be removed and replaced by links to their respective list articles. This then defeats the "redundant" argument. The size of SNP MPs, in my opinion, is (just) within the maximum that would normally be allowed by WP:NAVBOX, and will remain so even if the SNP win every single Scottish seat at Westminster. Provided SNP is modified as I've suggested, there remains no strong reason to delete this one. However, if Template:Conservative Party UK MPs and Template:Labour Party MPs are deleted, or modified, on grounds of excessive size (which I would agree with), then this one should be treated the same. --NSH002 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would second all of that. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and renominate for deletion, along with all of the other British party MP navboxes. Alakzi (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Labour and Tory MP navboxes are kinda pushing the limits in terms of numbers, but I have seen larger navboxes when they are well-organized and/or subdivided. What's your alternative, a "List of current members . . ." article with "see also" links in the individual MP articles?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We've got a sortable table of MPs here, plus several other sublists. The Tory MP navbox is actually used in only one article and the Labour one is used in none. Alakzi (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep and renominate for deletion, together with Labour and Tory MP navboxes, per Alakzi's comment, explanation and inescapable logic above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 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:Ref name added

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref name added

Unused. NSH002 (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep used 592 times. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC).


 * What is its purpose? Alakzi (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes it simple to display the details of an edit that added a reference name. For example  displays as


 * In particular the purpose is to allow the documentation of problems and solutions arising when a named ref is used in an article without a definition.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC).


 * "used 592 times"? Not that I can see. Is it intended to be subst'd? If so, why isn't it documented? In any case, as Alakzi mentions, I can't see the purpose or value of this template. NSH002 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Use the "what links here" function. No, subt'ing it would defeat the point.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC).


 * "What links here" shows nothing, other than the usual tiny handful of stuff in User and Wikipedia space. (later) Ah, I see, it's used only on User:Rich Farmbrough/temp7, but is used there 592 times. Nothing substantial has been added there since 2009. If it's still of use to you, then I suggest it be userfied. --NSH002 (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe userfy? It seems somewhat unlikely that anybody else will have a use for this. Alakzi (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * userfy Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 9 June 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:Uw-dls
Relisted at Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 8. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 17:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Melbourne Renegades Inaugural Team

 * 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) 04:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Melbourne Renegades Inaugural Team

Overkill, I don't think that the "inaugural" team of a cricket club is notable enough to warrant a template, it just creates clutter. Harrias talk 12:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Over, as Harrias says, kill.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 28 May 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:Pronoun
Relisted at Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 8. Alakzi (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:TVN Chile 2014 telenovelas

 * 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) 04:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * TVN Chile 2014 telenovelas

I think that this kind of templates should not exist, since wikipedia is not a programming guide. For that there are already articles such as: List of programs broadcast by Telemundo, or you could also create templates as you are: Template:TV Azteca telenovelas. But this kind of templates seem to be unnecessary.--  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 01:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also ask that they erased are others
 * TVN Chile 2010 telenovelas
 * TVN Chile 2011 telenovelas
 * TVN Chile 2012 telenovelas
 * TVN Chile 2013 telenovelas
 * TVN Chile 2015 telenovelas

<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.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would be more supportive of these if there was a clear relation between calender years and television programmes. But you could arguably end up with dozens of these types of navbox on, say, The Archers.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 28 May 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.