Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 31

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< October 30 November 1 >

October 31

edit

Template:OuedEdDahabLagouira-geo-stub

edit
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) 17:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stub category I emptied last month, after the region changed its name to Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab. The stubs are now in Category:Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab geography stubs and this template is unused – per this discussion I am listing it here. Cobblet (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- may well have been better to simply move this to the new name in the first place, but ah well, too late now. No reason to keep after it's been replaced manually. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Citation overkill

edit
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. Low participation, but the balance favors deletion given prior discussions on a similar subject. Note that WP:CITEBUNDLE is an option for cases where a statement is followed by many individual footnotes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of template deleted in TfD 7 October 2011, for reasons given in discussion of {{Too many references}}, a similar template deleted in TfD 2 September 2011. Possible G4, but perhaps it is needed now for reasons that were not apparent in 2011. Favored by whoever writes Wikipedia:Citation overkill, it is currently attached to about 5 articles. edg ☺ ☭ 19:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I use this template and created it because I could not find one that highlights sections of articles that contain too many references, according to the Manual of Style. It has been useful for me and probably should be used more in articles where you see ten or more references after a statement. I would like to request that this discussion be postponed until a later date to see if the template can be more widely used. I use it and would not like to have it deleted. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  18:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Constel

edit
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not scalable. Frietjes (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if this is to be used, they should all go through piped redirects with "xyz (constellation)" as the link target, to make sure any future page renames won't affect the links. And they should have the option of using the constellation name, the genitive, or the abbreviation as the visible link text. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the deletion policy, useless templates shoud be deleted. I don't see how this one is useful at all. Also, the user who created it has an historic of deleted templates created by him Huritisho 07:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Blocked sock. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment well, I could see this used by some of the editors to easily insert constellation names without spelling errors, through the abbreviation, when the source uses the abbreviation but no other terms. It'd be more useful if the output display text could also be the original abbreviation, so that you could link through the abbreviation and genetive forms, instead of linking through the regular name form only. Unlike most of Chermundy's templates, this is potentially useful and actually documented. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The template serves no useful purpose and appears unused. Praemonitus (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no constructive use for this template. Constellation pages can be liked using the standard square brackets ([[ and ]]). Davidbuddy9 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm inclined to agree with the IP that this isn't devoid of usage, and I'd go further and point out that this template might be best used subst-ed. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 07:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Vgrpg-chrono-2

edit
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. Arguments presented and no opposition after almost three weeks. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not used on articles, where {{Video RPG}} and {{Chronology of role-playing video games}} Soetermans. T / C 14:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:PubChemCID

edit
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 November 19.. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:PubChemCID with Template:PubChem.
Possible functionality duplication. Djadjko (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They produce three different results (eg prefix is PubChem or CID, external links). What will that be after the merge? -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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).
edit
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 November 19. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:PubChemLink with Template:PubChem.
Possible functionality duplication. Djadjko (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Royal Jains

edit
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. This would be better as a list, but should probably be written from scratch based on the large number of inaccuracies and referencing issues with the template itself. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template clutter. "Royal" Jains is not a pertinent classification for this mix of mythological and historical figures. The latter group especially needs to be handled with greater care, since their actual religion of the millennia old rulers is often indeterminate and it is only various non-contemporaray, contradictory, and disputed/dubious partisan accounts that claim that the ruler belonged or converted to their religion (see discussion at Talk:Ashoka/Archive1#Religion).

Everything useful in the template is already covered in {{Jainism topics}} (though that too may need a clean up). Also see discussion at user talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: Can you explain how Dundas's writings in the A non-imperial religion? support rather than undermine any justification for this template?! (Justice Tukol is of course not a reliable source on the topic of history). Abecedare (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a more clear source[2] -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As adviced before, can you specify what exactly you are citing Dundas and Sangave as sources for? Also keep in mind, this earlier note about Sangave as a source. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citing these sources for the Kings listed in template to be Jains, not whole dynasty but some kings of that dynasty. The link you refer talks about facets of Jainism the one I shared is shravanabelagola. These are two different books. Sangave talks about Jain patronage citing inscriptions and architecture under their rule. I guess that is considered as archaeological/historical. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Dundas, which is a reliable source, makes no such claim (he instead laments the lack of significant royal patronage for Jainism) and the sociologist Sangave is not a reliable source for history. In any case, instead of trying to present sources for individual entries in the template, can you provide a specific source that "Royal Jains is a pertinent classification for such a mix of mythological and historical figures" ? Abecedare (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tukol, T. K., Jainism in South India
  2. ^ Sangave, Vilas Adinath (1981), The Sacred Sravana-Belagola: A Socio-religious study, Bharatiya Jnanpith
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:VampireProject23Signature

edit
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 Moved to userspace. WOSlinker (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be in the general Template namespace as ist just a single user template that should just be inline on user page/talk or created as a template in user own user area. KylieTastic (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Ten largest towns in Hanumangarh district

edit
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, valid delete reasons. Primefac (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ill defined criteria. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Clement Soj

edit
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) 17:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article for the subject was deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Soj (singer), so this template is no longer needed. North America1000 06:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_31&oldid=1077821851"