Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 24



Template:Al

 * 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 relisted on 2018 September 2. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Al
 * La
 * 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:Trilogy 2017 BIG3 champions

 * 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC) The BIG3, a fledgling 3x3 basketball league, has consistently been considered non-defining for bios, with previous discussions here and here being that's the league is not worth mentioning in either the opening sentence or in infoboxes. As such, this is unnecessary per WP:TCREEP, which also states: "Just because a template can be created doesn't automatically mean that it should be." —Bagumba (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Trilogy 2017 BIG3 champions


 * Keep I don't see it hurting having a template for the champions there is obviously going to be more seasons to come. This is the sport of basketball with big name players competing, it airs on a huge sports network. I also feel as its in its second season it should have a presence on the players pages. Eerie Holiday (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Big3 isn’t that big a deal and we don’t need templates for everything. Rikster2 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2018 (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:Braxton Family Values

 * 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 relisted on 2018 September 2. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Braxton_Family_Values
 * The_Braxtons
 * 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:US Dax squad

 * 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 relisted on 2018 September 2. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * US_Dax_squad
 * 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:RC Narbonne squad

 * 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC) This navbox is for a French rugby union team, but now have a vast majority of red links (with just 2 blue links at present), and as RC Narbonne no longer participate in a fully professional rugby union competition, current or new players won't automatically be deemed notable as per WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RC Narbonne squad
 * delete per nom. does not provide significant navigation between existing articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The purpose of a navbox is essentially to provide links between existing articles. Not enough bluelinks on this one. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2018 (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).

Miscellaneous border templates

 * 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 no consensus. A bit of a WP:TRAINWRECK, with different criteria such as having a parent article, combining with another navbox to link more than 3 articles, or total links, red or blue, being more than 3, being suggested for for keeping some of the navboxes. No prejudice to speedily renominating a subset of these (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC) All of these templates violate WP:EXISTING and link three or less existing articles. -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 05:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Borders of Austria
 * Borders of Belgium
 * Borders of Bolivia
 * Borders of Bulgaria
 * Borders of Chile
 * Borders of the Czech Republic
 * Borders of Denmark
 * Borders of Honduras
 * Borders of Iran
 * Borders of Italy
 * Borders of Kazakhstan
 * Borders of Latvia
 * Borders of the Netherlands
 * Borders of North Korea
 * Borders of Paraguay
 * Borders of Peru
 * Borders of the Philippines
 * Borders of Saudi Arabia
 * Borders of Venezuela
 * Borders of Vietnam
 * Don't delete all of them. Functionally, two of these are used on each border article, one for each country (and obviously each article would use a different combination), which means that e.g. in Guatemala–Honduras border the two navboxes combined do link to five other existing articles. Jc86035 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete any with no parent article; weak keep if they have a parent article. Frietjes (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: added a fourth link to Borders of North Korea – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * which still has no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep some Those that have more than three links including red links (excluding water only borders) should be kept, because we need the templates to create the missing articles and when they are created. Keep Template:Borders of Austria, Template:Borders of Belgium, Template:Borders of Bulgaria, Template:Borders of the Czech Republic, Template:Borders of Italy, Template:Borders of Latvia. OK to delete Template:Borders of Denmark, Template:Borders of the Netherlands. I have only listed European templates, but a similar policy could apply outside Europe.--BIL (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2018 (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:Greentext

 * 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 redirect to Template:Green. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Substantially duplicates tq for no obvious reason pertinent to Wikipedia. Izno (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Greentext
 * Weak merge to tq (maybe or something), since I think the added punctuation mark would help with accessibility. It's also a well-known convention from the earlier days of email. I don't feel very strongly about this, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the punctuation is a well-known convention from email for people of a certain age (I guess there's markdown--notably reddit, which uses it also) but we're not using either of those formats here. I don't really understand why you think the > might help with accessibility. It seems to add noise to whatever is quoted. As for the green text, that's almost 0 value whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete not useful. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Template:Green. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:23, 1 September 2018 (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:Syrian opposition topics

 * 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. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Very few (if any) of these articles actually relate directly to the Syrian opposition, instead just link to general Syria articles. -- wooden superman  10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Syrian opposition topics
 * Oppose - of course they are dealing with the opposition. The proposal is misleading and seems to be influenced by WP:RECENTism (Syrian opposition is on the decline). The fact the southern Syrian opposition areas were conquered by Baa'thist Syria, doesn't change the fact they have existed for years, and continue to hold large territories in Northern Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 11:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The majority of the live links are nearly identical to Syria topics. How are topics such as Smoking in Syria and Scouts of Syria, etc, etc "dealing with the opposition"?  It seems someone has just copied this navbox and made slight amendments.  I think this may even fall foul of WP:NPOV.  Syrian opposition topics is only transcluded on 3-4 articles so it is pretty useless.  We could strip it down to the articles that really are specifically about Syrian opposition and not the general Syria topics, but I don't think there are enough to warrant a navbox.  -- wooden  superman  11:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With such logic, why don't you propose to merge also template:South Korea topics and Template:North Korea topics, as well as Template:Cyprus topics and Template:Northern Cyprus topics.GreyShark (dibra) 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Whilst those have issues, they generally contain topics that are relevant to the subject and are not a wholesale duplicate of each other. We could merge the non-duplicates into the Syria topic navbox.  Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.  -- wooden  superman  08:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I only looked at the Cyprus ones, the Korean ones actually are merged already. -- wooden  superman  08:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the author of the template,, wants to treat "Syrian Opposition" as a country (and not multiple unrelated groups), with such redlinks as Foreign relations of Syrian opposition and Vice President of Syrian opposition and links to Syria-wide topics such as Health in Syria. Existing templates on Syria, the Syrian Civil War, or individual groups such as ISIS are far better than using this one anywhere. power~enwiki ( π ,  ν ) 20:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First, ISIS is not part of the opposition. Second, the opposition now controls much of northern Syria (in Idlib and Turkish-occupied territories). Such oppositional government named Syrian Interim Government is based in the Turkish-controlled enclave. Note that the Syrian Interim Government issues their own passports and have government offices for running the civil affairs with Syrian National Army functioning as the military force (under Turkish protectorate).GreyShark (dibra) 08:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

<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, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC) <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, Primefac (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not sure what all the historical topics have to do with Syrian Opposition; of all the blue links that exist, they are covered in Syria topics Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:01, 2 September 2018 (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).