Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< August 4 August 6 >

August 5

edit

Template:Dpnom

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 per the discussion as well as nominator requesting deletion. –Davey2010Talk 20:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template - Editors shouldn't be lazy and they should write their !votes in a full meaningful way..., As per WP:PERNOM these types of !votes are strongly discouraged and are usually ignored (when no other comment is provided) so we shouldn't be encouraging a use of a template that is heavily discouraged here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be userfied so I can use it, please? I agree that it might encourage lazy driveby !voting, but for someone like me who does many AfDs a day it is of great use. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Without sounding like a dick you can write a full !vote list the 100% of other editors here, Also the other issue is that if it's userfied newbs may well copy and paste it assuming it's the correct template when it's not - You're not going to monitor usage and neither are we so with all respect it's better if it's deleted, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 02:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it can be userfied. Plenty of people have subpages for substituted text/templates. Whether it's a good idea is a different question, of course (I don't think that it is). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:22, 6 August 2017 (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).

Merging of indoor football templates

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 merge to Template:Infobox Arena Football League team. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the NAL, IFL and af2 team infoboxes be merged into Template:Infobox Arena Football League team, since that is the oldest template. There aren't really any differences among the infoboxes that would warrant having four different ones. The Arena Football League team template could then be renamed Template:Infobox indoor American football team. The main thing I'm trying to accomplish here is making sure that there's only one infobox for all the leagues. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge - All the templates in question have a similar purpose. Once merged, I also propose adding a "type" parameter indicating the current league or if a team is no longer in operation. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – A less specific infobox is easier to edit on pages for less experienced editors. Would also rather decrease the specific usage of "league_end_yr" etc, to a more generalized "league" parameter and let the editors enter the league name, start, and end years manually, similar to Template:Pro hockey team. That would allow for the many failed one season teams and for teams that switched leagues several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosemiter (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of entering the leagues manually. Having the start and end years is more complicated than helpful. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2017 (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:Neighbourhoods in Santa Cruz, Chile

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 2017 August 14. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 14 August 2017 (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:Col-break/examples

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) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no longer needed now that the col-* templates use a unified documentation page Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2017 (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:Taxonomy/"Palaeornis"

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) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, misnamed taxonomy template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's not a straightforward issue. There are two ways to handle genus names that are in use but are invalid under the nomenclature codes. One is to put the taxonomy template at the invalid name, here Template:Taxonomy/Palaeornis, but then fix the displayed text for the genus name to show "...", which is what I've done (but this doesn't display the quotes at the species name line nor in the binomial name box). The other, which I think is more transparent, is to put the taxonomy template at the quoted name, i.e. Template:Taxonomy/"Palaeornis", and then make the automated taxobox pick up this template. I'd like to know what others think, but it's not correct to say that it's a "misnamed" taxonomy template; it's correctly named but currently not used in favour of the taxonomy template using the invalid name. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the concerns of the lone co-participant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:01, 5 August 2017 (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:Famines in India

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. but feel free to create a redirect if you think it's useful Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to Timeline of major famines in India during British rule Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you will—This template includes three subtemplates. If they aren't deleted, I have no opinion either way on this one.--Carwil (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:01, 5 August 2017 (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:Family tree of House Arryn and similar

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 no consensus at this point in time. Please feel free to renominate if the situation changes, or renominate a smaller subset if you feel there is consensus to delete a subset of these. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research or copyvio and fancruft; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen where the article versions of these family trees were all deleted.  Sandstein  19:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Keep but Trim and Merge- These relatively small trees are used for navigation in character articles; the connections in this franchise are particularly confusing. Some are better cited than others, but the suggestion of copyvio is kind of a joke, as we're talking about character names. The use of the Martin-García-Antonsson source was for ease since it is very complete, but these family connections are explained in the appendices of every single novel in the series. The citations to various works have been implemented to satisfy citation purists, but one could argue that connecting characters this way is essentially plot and may not need citations at all. I could see some trimming if the generations go too far beyond characters actually featured in the novels/series in some cases (which is why I was fine with the deletion of the huge article versions), but otherwise they seem to serve a purpose.— TAnthonyTalk 20:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{Family tree of House Arryn}} itself does not seem to be used in any articles, so I'm fine with that one being deleted. {{Family tree of House Tyrell}} should be reduced to the left portion that includes active characters, etc.— TAnthonyTalk 20:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought and per my comments below, these are probably more appropriate as part of List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters, but trimmed to center on characters who actually appear in the novels, as well as direct connections necessary to not make the tree confusing.— TAnthonyTalk 16:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this recent edit makes me somewhat concerned about User:Keivan.f's understanding of NOR. He created a detailed write-up of all the mutually contradictory statements about the Sand Snakes' family ties in the TV show, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions, even if those conclusions cannot be attributed any secondary sources. I actually suspect there might be reliable secondary sources that do so, but given that I requested one and my tag was removed with a list of references to the self-contradictory primary source I think this is problematic. As far as I am concerned, the SYNTH solution is actually better than nothing, and I don't think it's worth arguing over because I think the article should be deleted/merged, but if Keivan.f doesn't understand why it is not ideal, I have my concerns about whether he fully understands the deletion rationale for these templates. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri 88, you need a secondary source when you're trying to take out a conclusion. You were, somehow, right when you said that I shouldn't have put different parts of plot together and created my own conclusion. That's why I removed that tag from the article myself, and I actually agree on merging the article back to the list of characters. But what you were trying to do seemed to be the same thing. I remember you had said that people might conclude that Obara and Nym could be Ellaria's daughters as well. That's just another statement backed by no reliable source, so I don't even understand what your point of argument was there. Also the very first sentence of NOR is "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It says reliable or published source and not necessarily a secondary source, as material may also be based "to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Do you need a secondary source in order to prove that Ned and Arya are father and daughter? Nope. The family trees are sourced and they have been created primarily for the books and not the TV show. They contain no original research. Keivan.fTalk 22:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic response to off-topic comment. TLDR: it is not OR to request a reliable secondary source for a piece of information inappropriately attributed only to primary sources, or to implicitly request that the information be removed pending such a reliable secondary source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you need a secondary source when you're trying to take out a conclusion This is completely off-topic, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. NO. There is nothing in either WP:V or WP:NOR that implies that reliable secondary sources are required to remove questionable or dubiously-sourced information. The footnote you added is WP:SYNTH, combining a string of apparently mutually contradictory data from four seasons of the show, to draw a conclusion that, yes, is probably the best solution that can be come to and still have the show be internally consistent, but most reviewers seem to have come to the other, more intuitive, conclusion (which nonetheless makes Oberyn's statement about his number of daughters wrong) that in the show there were only three Sand Snakes (four if one includes Ellaria, which a lot of them seem to do either implicitly or explicitly) and that we saw most of them die two weeks ago and the last of them leave the show last week.
The show contains countless little plot holes (like Oberyn's off-handed statement that he had eight daughters) as a result of some episodes being more book-faithful than others. As of season one, Cersei had had four children, but in season five we see her haunted by the prospect of the Maggie the Frog prophecy coming through even though (in the show, not the books) she had already proven it wrong by having the wrong number of children. In season two, who held Moat Cailin was an important plot point as without it travel between the North and the rest was near-impossible like the books, but in season seven Sansa explicitly said that the North had "nothing" protecting them from King's Landing (let alone the shadow army from the Vale that passed through unnoticed by the Bolton bannermen in season six).
We are not allowed detail these plot holes without reliable secondary sources. What you did (doing some fuzzy math and ignore some off-handed comments in favour of others so as to fill in the plot holes without elaborating on them) is not quite as bad as discussing the plot holes as plot holes, but it is still a violation of NOR.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it is really interesting that my response to what you had written is considered off-topic by you, while your own response to the other user's question was primarily about me and had nothing to do with the discussion about the deletion of these templates. You should have discussed this issue on the appropriate talk page in the first place. I brought up this issue on the WikiProject talk page but you simply decided to ignore what I had written, and avoid having a constructive discussion. It isn't my fault that you suddenly decide to make a change to an article and then simply show no interest in engaging in a discussion which is related to your contributions. As I said, I accepted that I shouldn't be the one who draws the conclusions here, thus I made changes that I felt were necessary per our discussion.
By the way, Oberyn's statement of having eight daughters with Ellaria being mother to four of them isn't a contradiction or plot hole. Our main concern was that whether she was mother to Obara and Nym in the show or not, which we now presumably know she was according to the only available sources that could be finded.
Keivan.fTalk 02:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, my original comment was about how you apparently have a questionable understanding of NOR, which is relevant as you are arguing that these templates should not be deleted based on your understanding of NOR. You then honed in on the external example I gave of you misunderstanding NOR and defended your OR on the Ellaria article, without regard to how it relates to the present discussion. I should probably not have responded at all, but like I said you hit on one of my pet peeves by insinuating that I was in violation of either NOR or V by requesting that material cited to primary sources be removed, reworded, or cited to secondary based on my reading of the primary source (and secondary sources, though I didn't specifically cite them because I didn't need to). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You defended your OR on the Ellaria article, without regard to how it relates to the present discussion. I don't know in how many ways I have to repeat "YES, it was a mistake" until you understand that I'm NOT defending my own contributions on that specific article, yet you decided to bring up this issue that is totally unrelated to this discussion. My understanding of NOR, or any other policy, will not influence the results of this discussion in any way, and you can't persuade everyone to agree with you on all of the topics because as you can see all of these users think in different ways. Anyway, this discussion is over, and as you're an experienced user I totally value your opinions, and it was really good of you to make me aware of my mistake on the Ellaria article. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 06:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, family trees and lists can't be considered copyright violation as we're not copying something word by word from a source. They're just a list of names. On that basis actual family trees of royal families and famous people have to be deleted as well. On the other hand, there are no family trees at the end of neither of those novels. We have just taken the names from the appendices and turned them into family trees. The World of Ice & Fire is the only novel with three family trees by the end of it, which again are different from those that we currently use here. Keivan.fTalk 10:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long term delete but preferably copy to one or other of the character lists or the like first. TAnthony's point that they are used for navigation is good in theory, but they are OR/show-book-conflation magnets (virtually no major house in Westeros appeared in the HBO show without significantly more or significantly fewer members, the show eliminated a generation of Targaryens, R+L=J is canon in the show, etc.), and their being in the template space rather than in the relevant articles serves no recognizeable purpose except to allow vandals/POV-pushers/whoever to push through edits without anyone noticing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: So what you suggest is moving them to the list of characters or other appropriate articles about the characters that are linked to these fictional families, right? If that's what you want to say, fine, we can do that, but deleting all of them only because they're fictional or don't match the "show storylines" doesn't seem to be reasonable as they're principally about the book characters not GoT characters. Keivan.fTalk 11:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These templates were formed because the trees were seen as useful for navigation, and so are used in multiple character articles. I can admit they are not essential for navigation in this way since we have navboxes, so keeping truncated versions in List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters (and perhaps show-specific ones in List of Game of Thrones characters, as necessary) is a compromise that will probably help in understanding the families. They are pretty strictly book-based, and are used in articles which are primarily book-based. I didn't realize that World of Ice & Fire had actual trees in it, so I do want to reiterate what Keivan.f said: these were created from the descriptions of the families in the novels and appendices, and were created before that book was published, I might add.— TAnthonyTalk 17:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral--Thanks for the ping, but I can see both sides. Game of Thrones is particularly problematic because of the differences in name, lineage, etc. between books and TV. Tolkein's works don't have that problem. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These templates are useful navigation tools, and the trees are adapted from information in published sources. The argument made above by the nominator ("either the trees are original research because the books and the TV show don't match in terms of characters, or they are taken directly from a source and therefore are copyvio") that the trees must be either WP:OR or copyvios is a false dilemma logical fallacy which, if it were true, which it is not, would also make most tables and lists on Wikipedia also either WP:OR or copyvios. The deletion nomination therefore has no valid rationale. —Lowellian (reply) 07:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lowellian: Wait, are you saying that an article that conflates a work of fiction with a separate adaptation of that work that changes major elements (pretty much every element of the templates under discussion) is not OR? Yeah, maybe if a "reliable source" did the conflation it would not technically be OR for us to copy their conflation, but would just be taking false information from a source of questionable reliability (since it got the relevant facts we attribute to it wrong). I don't know enough about fair use to contradict you on whether, if we copy-pasted the entire thing from an external source without inline attribution, it would be a COPYVIO, but Sandstein's view seems to make more sense than you give it credit for. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix the problems. I don't see this as copyvio. Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. established that information is not copywrightable. A family tree is bare information; it would be different if we were copying a distinctive, stylized family tree with creative elements that could be copywrighted. And it's not OR; it's reporting the information from the fictional works. Where I do see a problem is with the many differences between the books and the show. It would be reasonable to confine the templates to book-only topics, or to create variant trees (either within the existing template or as separate templates--by the way, I know very little about templates) for the show, with only those characters included or mentioned on-screen. And if some of the trees are bloated, cut the branches that aren't relevant to understanding character relationships. But those improvements don't require the templates to be deleted. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidK93: How do you propose fixing the problems? It's not like a large number of third-party, reputable scholarly works have covered these fictional family trees. I personally have been unable to find a single reliable source that goes into detail about the differences between the books and show (and early seasons of the show and later seasons of the show, and Blu-Ray extras for early seasons of the show and later seasons of the show). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: We don't need sources detailing the differences. We just need separate sources for each version of a given family tree. If a show character mentions that their family member has a different name than that person had in the books, that's sufficient to show that book sources don't describe the show family tree and vice versa. If no contradictory information has ever been introduced for a given tree, a single tree can stand for that family. When the books have Robb marry a woman named Jeyne and the show has Robb marry a woman named Talisa, we don't need a source stating that the show has a difference from the book on this matter; that's self-evident once we have verifiable sources (i.e., a book chapter or an episode) for each fact. Book family trees have been created; there is no special difficulty in creating show family trees. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The problem is that the show family trees will be combined into the book family trees and no one will notice, which is quite possible, given that most people who have read the books have done so once but have seen each episode of the show multiple times, let alone people who have seen the show but never read the books. Smooshing contradictory primary sources to create one version that says something not supported by any of the sources is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Everything you're saying is in total agreement with what I'm saying, and I'm not sure why you think I disagree with you. In case there was any lack of clarity before, let me restate my thoughts: We cannot have any family tree based on both book and show sources, because book and show family trees are nonidentical. (The only exception would be if there is a family tree where every piece of information was presented in both book and show with no differences.) Family trees based on book sources should be used only in book articles/sections and not in show articles/sections, or at least with a label identifying it as book information when book and show are covered together. The only place where we disagree is in your claim that fixing this is difficult. I think you would notice when the two sources are conflated, so you'd hopefully have valuable corrective edits to make. (I actually haven't read the books, so I probably wouldn't be editing a book topic.) Having a separate book-tree and show-tree for each notable family would probably be very helpful, because it would be easier to check which sources are being used on which tree, and it would be more evident to all editors that the information is supposed to be kept separate. --DavidK93 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Unless the templates or the lists have been copied from somewhere else, or, unless someone is able to explain why the templates are a copyright violation they should remain as they are. I personally find them invaluable. Thanks.l santry (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SantryI: How do you propose fixing the problems? It's not like a large number of third-party, reputable scholarly works have covered these fictional family trees. I personally have been unable to find a single reliable source that goes into detail about the differences between the books and show (and early seasons of the show and later seasons of the show, and Blu-Ray extras for early seasons of the show and later seasons of the show). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

either the trees are original research because the books and the TV show don't match in terms of characters-- I find them very useful and necessary for a better understanding of the content. Ioannes II (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ioannes: How do you propose fixing the problems? It's not like a large number of third-party, reputable scholarly works have covered these fictional family trees. I personally have been unable to find a single reliable source that goes into detail about the differences between the books and show (and early seasons of the show and later seasons of the show, and Blu-Ray extras for early seasons of the show and later seasons of the show). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AlfaRocket: Your comment is a sentence fragment, but seems to imply that you think the trees contain original research. You do realize that that is a bad thing, right? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AlfaRocket: They have been mainly created for the book characters, and they're based on specific info from the appendices. So, yes, they don't match with what we have already seen on the show as they're strictly book-based. Keivan.fTalk 22:02, 5 August 2017 (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:List of great powers by date

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only has one mainspace transclusion (viz. in Great power). As there is no reason for it to be in the template namespace, can easily be substituted and deleted. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It actually has two (List of modern great powers). Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Not clear part of the article.Many times as its history shows people don't agree with this at all.Few people can't decide for many.also everyone wants to delete has in quantity and quality the right references.It's a very original research (or propaganda as you like also against Italy and India that are reported in the article as great powers) to be immediately deleted to avoid that this template becomes a usual wasting time to delay right changes.Benniejets (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing wrong with having a template for this topic, as long as it's properly sourced (use only top-quality sources: print books written by prominent international-relations scholars, published by university presses, and e-books written and published at a similar standard), but having it as a template is unnecessary given its use. Particularly complex content sometimes is good to have as a template because it can overload the page and can accidentally be broken without someone noticing easily (see first discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 29; the template was deleted later, but for an unrelated reason), but once you cut out all the less-than-top-quality sourcing, this would be small enough that it would be reasonable to subst it in the article. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Not clear at all.80.181.134.239 (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template is not a clear part of the article. Also there are no single consensus of a final list of Great Powers.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. this image doesn't show the real things, Russia appears there when lacks of a great SDRs and National wealth, Japan appears there when has 0 nuclear sharing programs as well lacks of an own GNSS, in short this dont even show what contains on the Page "great Power" as well the old EU3 not exist anymore since UK have accepted the Brexit now is Italy the other great of EU3 ( even if Italy has always been a great power but some guys here dont accept that), well at least if someone dont wants to delete , I suggest to add Italy , India and even Brazil ( already these three countries are mentioned in the main Page).--Ivankazz (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – this template should also be transcluded at List_of_modern_great_powers#Timeline. It was removed from that article on 29 May 2017 with no given reason; I'm reinstating it now. As a result, the very reason this TfD discussion was started no longer applies. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And maybe improve when you don't like it. I found the table helpful to gain a quick historical overview. When you read the above points that are pro-deletion, you will see what I think is envy, petty, insecure nationalism, maybe even racism, and false arguments. As a matter of fact, the table doesn't reflect the status quo and the present time. It is meant to show the past. The most recent entry is "circa 2000". It absolutely doesn't matter whether Brazil or India are great powers by now; I'd like to see a single source that shows they were in 2000. And I have to say it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that Italy currently has the same amount of power or even more than Russia or Japan (3rd largest GDP) or an remotely comparable impact on world affairs - but 2017 doesn't matter for the template. It's about history. Please stop demanding cheap censorship because you think it's bad news for your own country. That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Equality 7-2522 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 5 August 2017 (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:Communes and rural communities of Senegal

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 2017 August 14. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:07, 14 August 2017 (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:ACC notice

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be unused Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What other templates use this? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the documentation that this template is always substed. --Izno (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, (1) it does not substitute cleanly, and more important (2) per this search it appears that it has been used a grand total of 5 times (last time in February 2016). if someone would like to clean it up so it substitutes correctly, and indicate that they plan to start using it again, then I would be happy to change my view on this template. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral If you deleted this right now, I doubt anyone would notice, as the process of revoking AC rights from inactive users has somewhat fallen out of practice. The question is whether or not we intend to revive that effort. Personally I don't care, but maybe others such as Swarm do. There is no documentation that I'm aware of explaining the procedure and when this template should be used, which is why it's gone unused for so long — MusikAnimal talk 17:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I found this template is that there is a link on the Special pages to Special:UnusedTemplates. I was page patrolling and noticed it and found that there a bunch of unused templates. I checked the 'what links here' tool and noted that nothing was linked and guessed it was probably okay for deletion. This is my first template for deletion nomination and wanted to familiarize myself with the process. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an perfectly valid, reasonable administrative tool that literally serves the purpose of enforcing community consensus. It was created to assist in the process of reviewing and revoking the AC user right from inactive Account Creators in accordance with the right's requirements. This wholesale review of Account Creators is a pretty large, tedious, and relatively unimportant task, and as such it has not yet been taken up by any admin other than myself (a task I never completed but intend to one day as no one else is going to), and that is the reason for the template's sparse usage. However it singularly serves a specific purpose and can theoretically be utilized at any given time whatsoever. The nom was obviously mistaken, and per WP:TFD#REASONS "unclean" substitution (whatever that means) isn't actually a reason to delete a template. Swarm ♠ 06:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • if someone would like to clean it up so it substitutes correctly, and indicate that they plan to start using it again, then I would be happy to change my view on this template Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:26, 5 August 2017 (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:1970 Rugby League World Cup

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) 19:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also nominating:

the only other entry is a red link and a group stage article for deletion. it is not appropriate to have a template for so little entries with no prospect of more entries in future. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:26, 5 August 2017 (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:Body Head Bangerz

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 2017 August 14. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:30, 14 August 2017 (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/2017_August_5&oldid=1146428678"