< January 17 | January 19 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This template is using very similar codes like {{ Infobox legislation}} and should be merged. This is a similar case to {{ Infobox AU Legislation}} (see TfD). mabdul 21:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. It is clear that there is no consensus to delete this template, nor will there be. Also, the argument that discussion should not be in articles is flawed, as this is a template and not a discussion. In addition, I think editors should understand that nominating longstanding and widely used maintenance templates for deletion should not be done until after some preliminary discussion on that template's talkpage. Debresser ( talk) 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of an article belongs in Talk or Wikipedia space and not in the article itself. A single prod or specific template (e.g., notability) is sufficient to note concerns and advance discussion without needlessly cluttering the article itself. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
{{prod2}}
was left by an editor I trust to be thorough -- it saves me the 5-10 minutes of looking for sources etc. to validate the PROD reason. Moving it to the talk page would be much less helpful, or rather, would result in yet another place I have to look/verify before performing the deletion. Almost all editors who want to "discuss" a PROD are going to remove it, not comment on the talk page. I'd support making it slightly smaller or something so it's less obtrusive, if that would ease the nominator's aesthetic concerns. —
Darkwind (
talk)
22:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC){{
prod2}}
and said "I was also unable to find any sources," then I can save myself that time. Putting it on the talk page means I'm much less likely to see it before I've expended the effort. —
Darkwind (
talk)
03:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Per discussion at Template talk:Shared IP edu test:
What is the point of this template? There's only one contributor and 80 transclusions ( [1]), it's not in Twinkle, and also not (AFAIK) a standard user warning either. Should it be obsoleted and redirected to the standard Template:Shared IP edu? ⁓ Hello 71 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
⁓ Hello 71 13:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
Shared IP edu}}
. However, the template concept is useful, for example when coming across a high school or local school district or some such that hasn't yet been tagged. We have by no means tagged anywhere near the sum of the educational institution IPs that are out there. —
Darkwind (
talk)
22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Pointless template, I fail to see how {{csoc link|2011|sex=men|team=Maryland Terrapins|school=University of Maryland|title=Maryland}}
is any more useful or efficient than simply writing [[Maryland Terrapins men's soccer|Maryland]]
(which is what would be produced.
Giant
Snowman
10:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was rename. It appears there may be some consensus for simply renaming the template. If this is not a solution, please feel free to renominate the template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The template suffers from a lack of clear scope and probably NPOV & OR problems. At present, it seems to list rather arbitrarily the capital of any major Arab Muslim state. "Arab Empire" is indeed a term used for the early Caliphate under the Rashidun and Umayyads, but it is very questionable whether the heavily Persianized Abbasids can be labelled that, and even more whether the capitals of regional states like the Fatimids, Ayyubids, or al-Andalus can be called "capitals of the Arab Empire"... The template should either be re-focused on the "Capitals of the Caliphate", in which case most cities should go and Istanbul too should be included, or to something along the lines of "Capitals of medieval Arab Muslim realms". Constantine ✍ 09:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
-- Arab League User ( talk) 19:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
absurdly short sidebar which doesn't provide any navigational aid over that of an adequately-linked article on its subject matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 12:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deprecated, <300 uses. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deprecated, 110 transclusions. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep after reducing detail. If you still think it should be deleted, feel free to renominate it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
unused and redundant to Blair ministry#May 1997 to June 2001. Frietjes ( talk) 22:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
< January 17 | January 19 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This template is using very similar codes like {{ Infobox legislation}} and should be merged. This is a similar case to {{ Infobox AU Legislation}} (see TfD). mabdul 21:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. It is clear that there is no consensus to delete this template, nor will there be. Also, the argument that discussion should not be in articles is flawed, as this is a template and not a discussion. In addition, I think editors should understand that nominating longstanding and widely used maintenance templates for deletion should not be done until after some preliminary discussion on that template's talkpage. Debresser ( talk) 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of an article belongs in Talk or Wikipedia space and not in the article itself. A single prod or specific template (e.g., notability) is sufficient to note concerns and advance discussion without needlessly cluttering the article itself. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
{{prod2}}
was left by an editor I trust to be thorough -- it saves me the 5-10 minutes of looking for sources etc. to validate the PROD reason. Moving it to the talk page would be much less helpful, or rather, would result in yet another place I have to look/verify before performing the deletion. Almost all editors who want to "discuss" a PROD are going to remove it, not comment on the talk page. I'd support making it slightly smaller or something so it's less obtrusive, if that would ease the nominator's aesthetic concerns. —
Darkwind (
talk)
22:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC){{
prod2}}
and said "I was also unable to find any sources," then I can save myself that time. Putting it on the talk page means I'm much less likely to see it before I've expended the effort. —
Darkwind (
talk)
03:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Per discussion at Template talk:Shared IP edu test:
What is the point of this template? There's only one contributor and 80 transclusions ( [1]), it's not in Twinkle, and also not (AFAIK) a standard user warning either. Should it be obsoleted and redirected to the standard Template:Shared IP edu? ⁓ Hello 71 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
⁓ Hello 71 13:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
Shared IP edu}}
. However, the template concept is useful, for example when coming across a high school or local school district or some such that hasn't yet been tagged. We have by no means tagged anywhere near the sum of the educational institution IPs that are out there. —
Darkwind (
talk)
22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Pointless template, I fail to see how {{csoc link|2011|sex=men|team=Maryland Terrapins|school=University of Maryland|title=Maryland}}
is any more useful or efficient than simply writing [[Maryland Terrapins men's soccer|Maryland]]
(which is what would be produced.
Giant
Snowman
10:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was rename. It appears there may be some consensus for simply renaming the template. If this is not a solution, please feel free to renominate the template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The template suffers from a lack of clear scope and probably NPOV & OR problems. At present, it seems to list rather arbitrarily the capital of any major Arab Muslim state. "Arab Empire" is indeed a term used for the early Caliphate under the Rashidun and Umayyads, but it is very questionable whether the heavily Persianized Abbasids can be labelled that, and even more whether the capitals of regional states like the Fatimids, Ayyubids, or al-Andalus can be called "capitals of the Arab Empire"... The template should either be re-focused on the "Capitals of the Caliphate", in which case most cities should go and Istanbul too should be included, or to something along the lines of "Capitals of medieval Arab Muslim realms". Constantine ✍ 09:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
-- Arab League User ( talk) 19:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
absurdly short sidebar which doesn't provide any navigational aid over that of an adequately-linked article on its subject matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 12:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deprecated, <300 uses. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deprecated, 110 transclusions. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep after reducing detail. If you still think it should be deleted, feel free to renominate it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
unused and redundant to Blair ministry#May 1997 to June 2001. Frietjes ( talk) 22:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)