Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 9



Template:NoPureVandalismBlatantHoax

 * 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 speedy delete per T2 —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Invalid template. There is no policy that outright allows for protection from deletion; even if a page isn't vandalism or a blatant hoax, it may still be eligible for deletion under other criteria. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * NoPureVandalismBlatantHoax
 * Delete agree. Very weird to have a template that promises a page can't be deleted. Would be ignored in any discussion, which would occur on the merits of the article anyway. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with nom. Invalid template. GenuineArt (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete agree. Nigej (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete T2. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2019 (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:DoNotDelete

 * 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 speedy delete per T2 —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Not a valid template for use. There is no policy that allows protection of a page from deletion. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * DoNotDelete
 * Delete agree, as above. Very weird to have a template that states a page can't be deleted. Would be ignored in any discussion, which would occur on the merits of the article anyway. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Makes no sense. GenuineArt (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Plainly ridiculous. Nigej (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2019 (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:Politics of Departments

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Not enough content to justify a navbox cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Politics of Departments
 * Delete per WP:NOT. I'm unclear what this template does as it only links to a single article of election results. We are not a repository of election results. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User: Yaffles1981 it was my intention to develop the politics pages for each department. Happy to take guidance but pages on other countries especially UK and US much more detailed and i didn't want to clutter the main department pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaffles1981 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be better to create this page as a userspace draft at something like User:Yaffles1981/Politics of Departments of France since so many of the pages are redlinks. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 January 2019 (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:European nobility

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Propose merging Template:European nobility with Template:Nobility by nation.
 * European nobility
 * Nobility by nation

Redundancy. Overlap. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose nobility templates should be organized by nation because the variations in usage, titulature, spelling, rank, entitlement, legalities, associated styles and honorifics are enormous even within the same country (for example, contrast English vs. Scottish use of Lord in the UK; Flemish vs. French use of Jonkheer vs. Écuyer in Belgium; Austrian customs on use of Baron vs Freiherr, etc.), and are compounded by conflicting usages between nations in Europe (Prinz and Fürst have very different meanings in German, yet are both translated as "prince" in English; a "countess" may be the wife of a count or of an earl but the latter terms are not interchangeable, whereas the wife of a marquis may be a marquise or a marchioness but the latter terms are not interchangeable; the precedence accorded to those historically entitled to the style of Serene Highness is reversed in Germanic vs. Latin countries; the English language uses different terms, heir apparent vs. heir presumptive to distinguish different types of crown princes, but French makes no such distinction; etc.) Trying to use a single template to capture meaningful differences from one continent to another and across hundreds of cultures is an invitation to confusion and error. Let's not do it. FactStraight (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep In my mind, distinct functions. European monarchies are linked geographically, culturally, and by numerous historical interactions. The template in addition holds information about past monarchies. I think having a distinct template has navigational value and therefore should be kept. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This template is more useful to its topics for its focus. Other more concise templates would serve most articles better too. The full "Nobility by nation" template is a space hog that I think is only suited to articles of a general and worldwide scope. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2019 (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:Lists of monuments and memorials in Russia by federal subject (categories)

 * 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC) delete, the template just contains redlinks, moreover it does not contain any monuments and memorials as the name seems to suggest. Moreover a template is not a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Lists of monuments and memorials in Russia by federal subject (categories)


 * Keep. Hello everyone and happy New Year! This template was created to simplify the management of the specified categories. As you can see the "Lists of monuments and memorials in Russia" topic isn’t developed for enwiki so far. You can delete this template now, but its keeping will help for the further development of the topic. Thank you. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Userify this recently created template serves a useful purpose for Leonid, so it might be useful for him to move it back to user space. In mainspace it seems to just duplicate categories and IMO should be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Question. I found that this method of navigation is quite popular on Wikimedia Commons (an example). So why wouldn't we consider the method as a good practice for enwiki? Leonid Dobrov (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems useful for navigating among categories that contain lists.  Why get confused by the template name?  It's just intended to link Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Moscow, Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara Oblast, and several dozen that haven't yet been created.  It works the same as the template atop Category:Cities in Pennsylvania, whose code is:""The only reason to delete this template, as I see it, is if the existing categories end up being deleted on "we shouldn't have this" grounds; then we can G8 this template because it's totally dependent on deleted pages.  Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS, it's easy to imagine creating an analogous template for the US. It could be called Template:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in the United States by state (categories), it could be placed atop pages like Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in Mississippi, Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in California, and Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in Wyoming, and it would be used for navigating among list-containing categories.  It's a perfectly reasonable idea for a template, and since this template has two bluelinked list-categories so far and the potential for more, why get rid of it?  Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your instructions. In some cases I find that using of the “country topic” templates is a smarter solution than copying of full bulk of code into a binding template (e.g. Template:Environment of the United States by political division). I implemented the technique when creating Template:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in the United States by state (categories). Leonid Dobrov (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:02, 9 January 2019 (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:Common abbreviations (meta)/data

 * 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) 04:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Only used 15 times and does not provide a lot of options. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  02:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Common abbreviations (meta)/data
 * Common abbreviations (meta)
 * Discussion that led to the creation of the template. – Uanfala (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename this template defeats its purpose by being extremely long to type, negating the point of having a template automatically insert a common abbreviation's full form. I don't think this is useful and it adds to clutter and complexity of the editing experience. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The name is not meant to be typed. A exists as a redirect for that purpose. As for "the editing experience", why would you be editing other people's comments? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. More options can be added, if desired. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wrapping jargon in  tags is only slightly better than using it without.  Use piped links and write in regular English instead.  -- N  Y  Kevin   04:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This for use on talk pages, not in articles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 16. This hasn't been used much, but even when it has, it has been used incorrectly. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in the discussion to which you link, the claim that the template is used incorrectly is without evidence. That discussion closed as "keep". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 27 January 2019 (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:Hover title

 * 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 2019 January 17. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hover_title
 * H:swl
 * Span_title
 * 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).