Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 28



Template:California cities and mayors of 100,000 population

 * 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Per WP:REDNOT, which states "Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template."
 * California cities and mayors of 100,000 population

The purpose of a template is to enable navigation. Of the 72 mayors listed on the template, just 22 have articles. A little over a year ago, in April 2017, just 23 mayors listed on the template had articles. This indicates this template is likely to remain mostly redlinks.

Discussions of this and similar templates have occurred at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 33, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 8, and Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 29. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, The main prior debate was held at Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 19 (with other isolated discussions at Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 12, Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24 and Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27). Like in that discussion, I think all states should be tagged. No one state should be discussed separately from the others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep P.S. Templates like this are discussed based on number of bluelinks not redlinks. Over 20 is sufficient to justify the template.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but removing the redlinks would make the template fairly useless, just as keeping the template--mostly just redlinks--makes the template fairly useless. A link to a list would be far more useful to the everyday Wikipedia user.  The template also clutters the articles it has been placed on.  Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * keep, part of a series; or increase the threshold. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 7 June 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).

Module:Broader

 * 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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Unnecessary luafication (wikitext version: )  &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Broader

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric  07:38, 28 May 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:Shaye

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC) While each of the members have articles, none of the albums or singles do, giving this little navigational benefit. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Shaye
 * Weak keep - the three performers are independently notable, and one of the albums does have an article but the template was pointing to a redirect which itself was not targeted properly (I've fixed it). All of the links are former articles which perhaps could be expanded. I may have a COI on this topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 *  Keep or merge - Keep or merge with Template:Tara MacLean. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric  07:36, 28 May 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).

Module:Librivox book

 * 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 June 7. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Librivox_book
 * 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:Colonial empires

 * 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 June 7. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Colonial_empires
 * Empires
 * 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:Roman colonies in ancient Levant

 * 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 to Template:Roman colonies in Europe. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Roman colonies in ancient Levant with Template:Roman colonies in Europe.
 * Roman colonies in ancient Levant
 * Roman colonies in Europe

Should conveniently fit well enough into the one and same template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Roman colonies were not separated at the time by Europe/Levant criteria, thus Wikipedia should not as well.GreyShark (dibra) 10:51, 30 May 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:Magna Graecia

 * 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 to Template:Ancient Greece Topics. No opposition to merge. There is another discussion below with a merge proposal between Template:Magna Graecia and some other templates, which also closed as merge, so if the final merge name makes more sense to be "Magna Graecia" there's no issue renaming it there. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Magna Graecia with Template:Ancient Greece topics.
 * Magna Graecia
 * Ancient Greece topics

To try the idea. Please see below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that this discussion is slightly different than the group below.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 28 May 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:Pontic colonies

 * 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 to Template:Magna Graecia. No opposition to merge. There is another discussion above with a merge proposal between Template:Magna Graecia and Template:Ancient Greece Topics which also closed, so if the final merge name makes more sense to be "Ancient Greece Topics" there's no issue renaming it there. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Pontic colonies with Template:Magna Graecia.
 * Ancient Greek cities of the Iberian peninsula
 * Greek Pentapolis
 * Pontic colonies
 * Magna Graecia

Should well fit into one single template, which could then be called perhaps "Colonies of Ancient Greece" or similar. If more of a radical change, the contents could even be incorporated into Template:Ancient Greece topics. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that this is the combination of three separate mergers (on May 17) with identical statements.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:27, 28 May 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:Food Network specials

 * 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. If someone wants to add specials to the main template they're welcome to, but there's no consensus to do so here. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Not enough links to warrant a navbox. Could be merged to Food Network series if content must really be kept. -- wooden superman  11:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Food Network specials
 * Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not just merge it then? You don’t have to delete something first in order to merge it.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I favour deletion in this case. -- wooden  superman  08:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You said "could be merged..." right above. Which one is it?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 17:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note my second clause: if content must really be kept... -- wooden  superman  08:00, 10 May 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. Relisting comment: Mainly to get opinions on the merger thing.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:31, 16 May 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) 00:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 7 June 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).