Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 26



Template:Nyakallosebotsa/sandbox

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  06:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Not a template but an unfinished article - looks like copy of User:Nyakallosebotsa/sandbox KylieTastic (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nyakallosebotsa/sandbox
 * Speedily delete as test page in wrong namespace.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:04, 1 March 2016 (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:Pay TV Networks in Sri Lanka

 * 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, although there's nothing unique in the Pay TV navbox, so this is equivalent to delete. I agree that sub-templating would be a good idea, but that goes beyond TfD, and in any event it wasn't discussed much here. Boldly sub-templating would be appropriate. ~ RobTalk 19:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Redundant to Template:Media of Sri Lanka.  obi2canibe talk contr 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Pay TV Networks in Sri Lanka

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and sub-template: This should merge with the larger infobox, which should be subtemplated so that specific parts of it can be called as individual navboxes. The main thing is too large for most uses, and most of what it contains will not be relevant on most Sri Lankan media articles; rather, the TV-related stuff will be relevant on the TV-related articles, etc. There is no need, however, for a specific "pay TV" box.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. Having checked both Templates, one is indeed redundant to the other. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2016 (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:Railway Stations in Kollam District

 * 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. The arguments for keeping boil down to potential for growth in the Kollam district and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the Kollam district grows to the point where it justifies a fork, then it can always be undeleted or recreated at that time. Speculative forking is rarely a good idea. In the case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it might be worth looking at the linked templates to determine if they warrant a deletion discussion. ~ RobTalk 19:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Redundant of Template:Railway stations in Kerala. Seems like a little repetetive information. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 12:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Railway Stations in Kollam District
 * Hey βα£α, What is wrong if we wish to have a separate template for Kollam district's railway stations and other facilities? It is for guiding the viewers to all the railway stations coming under Kollam district. Moreover, Kollam district is having maximum number of railway stations in Kerala. So the number of stations in that template will start increasing, once the gauge conversion of Kollam–Sengottai branch line get finished. If you think that this is a repetition, then I would like to know the purpose of having Template:Thiruvananthapuram railway division and Template:Railways in Southern India templates. Both are displaying almost similar articles. -- Arunvrparavur (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant. Plus, Kollam is not one of the six divisions of Southern Railways and hence there is no need to fork out this content. District level division has nothing to do with the administrative divisions within the Railways. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:25, 18 March 2016 (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:Infobox Romanian political party

 * 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. I agree that more general parameters would be preferable, but that discussion should be conducted at Template talk:Infobox political party or somewhere else with a higher traffic, preferably after notifying the relevant WikiProjects. A small discussion at TfD isn't really the appropriate place to make a large decision that will affect many content creators. ~ RobTalk 19:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox Romanian political party with Template:Infobox political party.
 * Infobox Romanian political party
 * Infobox political party

Apart from hard-coded chambers and leader titles, this is mostly redundant to Template:Infobox political party. In fact, because of the hard-coded leader titles, it is not used in quite a number of articles on Romanian parties. I propose adding some more sophisticated mechanism to streamline seats and leaders per chamber, something that would be helpful for parties in other countries, too, see for example Republican Party (United States) and Spanish Socialist Workers' Party.

To accomplish this, I propose adding the parameters, , and to gradually replace the current usage of , , ,  for these applications. If there's no consensus at this point, a simple subst would be the second best approach. PanchoS (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and adjust per nom. It would be useful to have sufficiently detailed parameters that the main template can handle more cases, so we can merge more forked templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:08, 1 March 2016 (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:GamesSport2

 * 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. There is nothing to merge, as the functionality of GS2 is found by adding an existing parameter in GS. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Propose merging Template:GamesSport2 with Template:GamesSport.
 * GamesSport2
 * GamesSport

1) not used; 2) full analog of GamesSport template with parameter Format=d; i.e. =. Nitobus (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The implementation is not the same, as GamesSport2 just delivers a link straight to the sub-article (no link to the sport itself). That said, it isn't in use and GamesSport works better in terms of the principal of least surprise for the where the links go. SFB 00:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge if the parameter is needed, otherwise just delete it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:08, 1 March 2016 (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:Roads of Austin, Texas

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Per past precedent as exemplified here and several other discussions, this template is unneeded because categories can better handle the need and the template pollutes the What Links Here function in the articles included.  Dough   4872   02:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Roads of Austin, Texas
 * delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete—as stated, per precedent.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:09, 1 March 2016 (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:Roads of the Laredo Metropolitan Area

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Per past precedent as exemplified here and several other discussions, this template is unneeded because categories can better handle the need and the template pollutes the What Links Here function in the articles included.  Dough   4872   02:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Roads of the Laredo Metropolitan Area
 * delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete—as stated, per precedent.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:09, 1 March 2016 (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).