Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 15



Template:2018 European Athletics Championships Schedule

 * 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 23. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2018_European_Athletics_Championships_Schedule
 * 2013_World_Championships_in_Athletics_Schedule
 * 2012_IAAF_World_Indoor_Championships_Schedule
 * 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:Has value

 * 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Redundant to Module:Yesno and Template:Yesno in goal, unused. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Has value
 * Keep: it's different form yesno because it takes all inputs not only yes and no values and its easier to use. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  19:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be a bad idea for different templates to interpret what counts as "true" and what doesn't differently. To the "easier to use" claim, there is also Template:yesno, which does the same thing in Wikitext. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * delete as pointless and unused – that sort of fine-grained decision making over what is 'true' what not is best handled on a case by case basis in any template/module that needs it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: unused; uses should either use Module:Yesno,, or something more specific. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 18:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * delete, clearly not needed. Frietjes (talk) 22:19, 18 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).

Module:Other uses2

 * 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 23. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Other_uses2
 * 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:Politics of Vatican City

 * 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 procedural close. The merge has not yet been carried out, and the page is still listed at the Holding Cell. Thus, this TFD is unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Politics of Vatican City with Template:Politics of the Holy See.
 * Politics of Vatican City
 * Politics of the Holy See

The templates were previously nominated for merge, and closed but with a merge the other way than intended, please see: Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 5. Thus making a new request for the same reasons as last time: "Largely overlapping, creating confusion. Vatican City is the territory. Holy See is the diplomatic and sovereign entity." Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:45, 15 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:History of Vatican City

 * 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:Vatican City sidebar. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:History of Vatican City with Template:Vatican City sidebar.
 * History of Vatican City
 * Vatican City sidebar

Completely redundant (and uncomplete) duplication of history section in destination template. On top of that, factually-wise, the Vatican City was created as a completely new entity; it was the Holy See that priorly retained sovereignty and diplomatic relations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge as redundant. —  OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 13:23, 16 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:World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka map

 * 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) 17:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) unused and duplicates the map already in World Heritage Sites of Sri Lanka Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka map

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  09:16, 15 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:World European Record

 * 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) 17:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) unused Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * World European Record

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  09:16, 15 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:Year in Serbia and Montenegro

 * 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC) unused Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Year in Serbia and Montenegro

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  09:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:35, 16 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:Year in sports/expr

 * 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) 17:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC) unused Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Year in sports/expr

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  09:15, 15 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:Years in science fiction

 * 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. No objections. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC) unused; articles are using succession links and Category:Science fiction by year instead. Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 7 September 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.
 * Years in science fiction

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  09:15, 15 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:ZambiaProvincialMinisters
<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).

The result of the discussion was delete. REFUND is available iff the redlinked articles are actually written. As it is, the navbox does not navigate and the "keep" votes are heavily discounted under WP:WTAF. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC) unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ZambiaProvincialMinisters
 * Not sure that being out-of-date is an issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC).


 * Updated. We just need the biographies now...  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 10 September 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.
 * Keep Articles will be created in no time. This template will help creation of articles. Orientls (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, navigates between no articles. The list article, List of Ministers of Zambian provinces, is sufficient. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  20:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  09:15, 15 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).

Major League Baseball spring training navboxes
<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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:MLB spring training ballparks. No opposition, reasonable arguments. I chose what appeared to be the most succinct name, but if that's not desired there's no opposition to a rename discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Stadiums of the Cactus League with Template:Stadiums of the Grapefruit League.
 * Stadiums of the Cactus League
 * Stadiums of the Grapefruit League

Cactus League and Grapefruit League can be merged under a new template Template:Major League Baseball spring training (see User:Jameboy/sandbox for draft proposal of new navbox). Cactus League and Grapefruit League don't currently have their own articles and both are part of the topic of Spring training. It makes more sense for the navbox to include a link to spring training (an existing article and the high-level topic that encompasses both leagues) than to the two leagues (sections within the article); if the Cactus League and Grapefruit League do eventually get their own articles, these can simply be added to the navbox. Jameboy (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent about the merge. The stadiums of the Grapefruit and Cactus leagues are geographically separated, and I'm not sure how much navigation between them there is. On the other hand, Template:MLB Ballparks is unified. But I'm certain the name of the proposed merged navbox is wrong. These navboxes only contains articles about stadiums, so I think the name must reflect that. "Ballparks of the Cactus League and Grapefruit League" is more appropriate than "Major League Baseball spring training," particularly as the current navboxes aren't on the Spring training article. --Bsherr (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there are currently no other spring training articles other than the main article or the ballparks, but "MLB spring training ballparks" might be a more succinct name for the template (the template groups show which ballparks are for which league). We probably wouldn't have a "Ballparks of the National League and American League" Template. --Jameboy (talk) 23:16, 30 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, Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:37, 6 September 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, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:17, 15 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:Cc-sa
<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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Unused template for a deprecated license (cc-sa-1.0). We should either repurpose it to say something like "CC-BY-SA-4.0 or any later version" (first choice) or delete it (second choice). (I don't like the idea of simply redirecting it to cc-by-sa-4.0 because 5 years from now, someone is going to get the idea that they should redirect it to cc-by-sa-5.0, which would be incorrect. We should repurpose it or delete it. B (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cc-sa

<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.
 * Strong Keep per Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 28. This license is not forward-compatible. Hence, there are likely files released only under CC-SA that would require this template to maintain the appropriate licensing. I do not see any reason why we would not accept such a file. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 20:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Godsy. I don't really have anything to add to their rationale as they summed it up perfectly. The most I would consider is renaming it to (currently a redirect to the template being discussed) to free up the use of the name  as shorthand for the newer CC-SA licenses, but I'd like to hear Godsy's thoughts on it before I endorse that option since they seem to know more than either of us about image licensing. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This type of license, i.e. share-alike (SA) without the requirement of attribution (BY), was discontinued before a second version was released. Thus, CC-SA, i.e. CreativeCommons-Share-Alike, unambiguously refers to this license; all other creative commons licenses except public domain require attribution, while pubic domain does not require share-alike. I would not necessarily oppose a move to cc-sa-1.0 if that would make this more consistent with other similar templates, but cc-sa would then need to redirect there. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 04:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per . I also support moving to cc-sa-1.0 and redirecting cc-sa there. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 19 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).