The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a VERY MINOR tournament. It's not known worldwide even continentally. This navbox should be extinct. Banhtrung1 ( talk) 15:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Recently created sidebar navbox, not yet in use in any articles. Redundant with long-established near-identical {{ History of Iran}}. The only differences are that the new template omits a few entries about ethnically non-Iranian topics such as the Proto-Elamites, but adds a handful of articles on presumed ethnically Iranian entities that are geographically elsewhere, such as Alania. These very few non-overlap articles would therefore be the only ones on which this template would be likely to be used, as the two templates are of course too large and too similar to use them together. The new template also suffers from poor definition of scope; e.g. why does it list all the modern dynasties of Shahs of Iran including the 20th-century Pahlavis, but then stops and omits all entries about post-revolutionary modern Iran? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they were of Turkic origin but they were Iranian dynasties, take a look on this about the Afsharids: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/afsharids-dynasty And i haven't putted the template on anything yet.
I have removed the Pahlavi dynasty and putted written it as Pre-19th century, so i see no reason to delete it. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 10:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it would sound better and less confusing if i changed it to Iranian dynasties? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 11:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Folantin is taking a wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in August, so i guess i just have to wait for someone else to answer me. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
"Iranian dynasties" means Iranian states, they don't have exactly to be of Iranian origin, like the Afsharids and Qajars for example, they are Iranian dynasties but of Turkic origin.
I think this template is useful because it shows other Iranian dynasties that was not in Iran. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 12:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
What i am trying to say is that this template is meant to show Iranian dynasties, and two of those Iranian dynasties are of Turkic origin but they represented an Iranian dynasty/state/whatever. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 13:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyone?? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 10:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess i have to wait then. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 08:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Since no is answering me i guess we are done with this, i have explained with good reasons why this should not be removed. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 14:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Please read my comments up above, i see no reason for it to be deleted. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:S.C. Olhanense squad. -- BDD ( talk) 23:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Double and identical to Template:S.C. Olhanense squad The Banner talk 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No parent article for the band "Tremonti". The albums and singles claim to be credited to Mark himself. Even including only his solo work, this fails WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was do not merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to the more richly-featured {{
Infobox rail line}}, with which it appears to be used interchangeably. Some articles even use both. Note the presence of |predecessor_line=
and |successor_line=
in the nominated template.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox rail}}
was for rail companies, whereas {{
infobox rail line}}
was for individual lines. For small rail companies with just one line (e.g.
Midland and South Western Junction Railway), they are pretty much interchangeable. However, a number of railway companies had more than one line, and some of these systems were quite extensive - see for example
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (and the second image in its infobox); by contrast, a number of rail lines were built by more than one company - see for example
East Coast Main Line. Rail companies and rail lines are not synonymous. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
conduction system, owner, coordinates, train number
(from "rail line") with hq_city, marks, predecessor_line
into one infobox template. Inclusion of any element in the template's code is not optional in the sense that we either have a component or we don't — you're proposing that we create a single infobox with each element of either template getting put into the single infobox or getting discarded, and I disagree because it will mean that we have numerous irrelevant parameters for every use. Your observation that they are used interchangeably is good evidence for merging to the rail company infobox per Zzyzx and for moving in order to get rid of the current ambiguous name, but not good evidence for getting rid of the distinction entirely. Imagine that we used the generic infobox company for rail company articles: would that be a good reason for getting rid of the rail company infobox, or would that be a good reason for changing the infoboxes on the articles in question?
Nyttend (
talk)
11:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
Infobox rail company}}
is for post-privatisation TOCs. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
|open=
vs |start_year=
, for example).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Note The only parameters in {{ Infobox rail}} which are not in {{ Infobox rail line}} are:
Other than the undocumented "marks" (what is that for?), it's not clear why any of these would not be useful, or would overcomplicate, the later template; much less how they justify the existence of a separate template. Also, the rail template has only |length=
, while rail line has separate parameters for track and line lengths, in both imperial and metric units. Finally, the line template wrapper {{
Infobox SG rail}} is unnecessary, and should be replaced by a |standard_guage=y
switch in the merged template.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
|marks=
parameter is for the
reporting mark. If you fill in that parameter - as was done at
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway - the label gets a suitable wikilink. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused table template rejected for wide use by the Olympics WikiProject. Include also {{ MedalCountryBottom}}, {{ MedalCountryGold}}, {{ MedalCountrySilver}} and {{ MedalCountryBronze}}. SFB 18:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:The Powerpuff Girls with
Template:Genndy Tartakovsky.
Genndy Tartakovsky's relationship to Dexter's Laboratory and The Powerpuff Girls is the same; these two series should therefore be treated the same way with respect to their navboxes. It would in no way bloat the Genndy Tartakovsky navbox to include a Powerpuff Girls section similar to the Dexter's Laboratory section.
Neelix (
talk)
17:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused template. Redundant to template {{ Medal}} which allows sport-specific links. SFB 17:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Commonwealth Games isn't a major multi-sport event. Templates which similar to this are necessary for Senior Olympics only. Banhtrung1 ( talk) 14:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Unnecessary. Not used. Rezonansowy ( talk) 16:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
A test by Steven (WMF) for comparison. No changes or updates since months. mabdul 16:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
A test by Steven (WMF) for comparison. No changes or updates since months. mabdul 16:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
obsolete template, not used since a few years as the AFC system was changed. mabdul 16:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hatnote tpl used for tagging individual language categories for no apparent reason. Suggest deleting. — Lfdder ( talk) 14:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Little used wrapper for {{ unichar}}. Suggest deleting. — Lfdder ( talk) 11:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
subst-only
template? why? -
DePiep (
talk)
02:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Template is completely redundant. We have a whole tree of categories for nursing journals that is much more detailed than this template (which includes some -possibly non-notable- redlinked journals. Several nursing journals are not in this template, but no selection criteria are given. (And I note that adding them all would make this template even larger than it already is). The template also mixes up medical journals with professional magazines, which in the category tree are carefully kept separated. Finally, we also have a List of nursing journals. All these (more complete and more detailed) navigational aides make this template redundant and unnecessary. Randykitty ( talk) 09:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It don't have enough blue links. It is also a minor multi-sport event only, non-notable. So this templates should be deleted. Banhtrung1 ( talk) 08:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was procedural close - wrong forum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Even it is connected to basketball biography, why not renaming all of the 2600+ articles that include it into Template:Infobox basketball biography. Maybe some bot can do this work? AirWolf ( talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a VERY MINOR tournament. It's not known worldwide even continentally. This navbox should be extinct. Banhtrung1 ( talk) 15:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Recently created sidebar navbox, not yet in use in any articles. Redundant with long-established near-identical {{ History of Iran}}. The only differences are that the new template omits a few entries about ethnically non-Iranian topics such as the Proto-Elamites, but adds a handful of articles on presumed ethnically Iranian entities that are geographically elsewhere, such as Alania. These very few non-overlap articles would therefore be the only ones on which this template would be likely to be used, as the two templates are of course too large and too similar to use them together. The new template also suffers from poor definition of scope; e.g. why does it list all the modern dynasties of Shahs of Iran including the 20th-century Pahlavis, but then stops and omits all entries about post-revolutionary modern Iran? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they were of Turkic origin but they were Iranian dynasties, take a look on this about the Afsharids: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/afsharids-dynasty And i haven't putted the template on anything yet.
I have removed the Pahlavi dynasty and putted written it as Pre-19th century, so i see no reason to delete it. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 10:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it would sound better and less confusing if i changed it to Iranian dynasties? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 11:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Folantin is taking a wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in August, so i guess i just have to wait for someone else to answer me. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
"Iranian dynasties" means Iranian states, they don't have exactly to be of Iranian origin, like the Afsharids and Qajars for example, they are Iranian dynasties but of Turkic origin.
I think this template is useful because it shows other Iranian dynasties that was not in Iran. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 12:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
What i am trying to say is that this template is meant to show Iranian dynasties, and two of those Iranian dynasties are of Turkic origin but they represented an Iranian dynasty/state/whatever. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 13:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyone?? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 10:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess i have to wait then. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 08:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Since no is answering me i guess we are done with this, i have explained with good reasons why this should not be removed. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 14:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Please read my comments up above, i see no reason for it to be deleted. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:S.C. Olhanense squad. -- BDD ( talk) 23:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Double and identical to Template:S.C. Olhanense squad The Banner talk 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No parent article for the band "Tremonti". The albums and singles claim to be credited to Mark himself. Even including only his solo work, this fails WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was do not merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to the more richly-featured {{
Infobox rail line}}, with which it appears to be used interchangeably. Some articles even use both. Note the presence of |predecessor_line=
and |successor_line=
in the nominated template.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
21:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox rail}}
was for rail companies, whereas {{
infobox rail line}}
was for individual lines. For small rail companies with just one line (e.g.
Midland and South Western Junction Railway), they are pretty much interchangeable. However, a number of railway companies had more than one line, and some of these systems were quite extensive - see for example
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (and the second image in its infobox); by contrast, a number of rail lines were built by more than one company - see for example
East Coast Main Line. Rail companies and rail lines are not synonymous. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
conduction system, owner, coordinates, train number
(from "rail line") with hq_city, marks, predecessor_line
into one infobox template. Inclusion of any element in the template's code is not optional in the sense that we either have a component or we don't — you're proposing that we create a single infobox with each element of either template getting put into the single infobox or getting discarded, and I disagree because it will mean that we have numerous irrelevant parameters for every use. Your observation that they are used interchangeably is good evidence for merging to the rail company infobox per Zzyzx and for moving in order to get rid of the current ambiguous name, but not good evidence for getting rid of the distinction entirely. Imagine that we used the generic infobox company for rail company articles: would that be a good reason for getting rid of the rail company infobox, or would that be a good reason for changing the infoboxes on the articles in question?
Nyttend (
talk)
11:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
Infobox rail company}}
is for post-privatisation TOCs. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
|open=
vs |start_year=
, for example).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Note The only parameters in {{ Infobox rail}} which are not in {{ Infobox rail line}} are:
Other than the undocumented "marks" (what is that for?), it's not clear why any of these would not be useful, or would overcomplicate, the later template; much less how they justify the existence of a separate template. Also, the rail template has only |length=
, while rail line has separate parameters for track and line lengths, in both imperial and metric units. Finally, the line template wrapper {{
Infobox SG rail}} is unnecessary, and should be replaced by a |standard_guage=y
switch in the merged template.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
|marks=
parameter is for the
reporting mark. If you fill in that parameter - as was done at
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway - the label gets a suitable wikilink. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused table template rejected for wide use by the Olympics WikiProject. Include also {{ MedalCountryBottom}}, {{ MedalCountryGold}}, {{ MedalCountrySilver}} and {{ MedalCountryBronze}}. SFB 18:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:The Powerpuff Girls with
Template:Genndy Tartakovsky.
Genndy Tartakovsky's relationship to Dexter's Laboratory and The Powerpuff Girls is the same; these two series should therefore be treated the same way with respect to their navboxes. It would in no way bloat the Genndy Tartakovsky navbox to include a Powerpuff Girls section similar to the Dexter's Laboratory section.
Neelix (
talk)
17:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused template. Redundant to template {{ Medal}} which allows sport-specific links. SFB 17:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Commonwealth Games isn't a major multi-sport event. Templates which similar to this are necessary for Senior Olympics only. Banhtrung1 ( talk) 14:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Unnecessary. Not used. Rezonansowy ( talk) 16:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
A test by Steven (WMF) for comparison. No changes or updates since months. mabdul 16:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
A test by Steven (WMF) for comparison. No changes or updates since months. mabdul 16:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
obsolete template, not used since a few years as the AFC system was changed. mabdul 16:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hatnote tpl used for tagging individual language categories for no apparent reason. Suggest deleting. — Lfdder ( talk) 14:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Little used wrapper for {{ unichar}}. Suggest deleting. — Lfdder ( talk) 11:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
subst-only
template? why? -
DePiep (
talk)
02:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Template is completely redundant. We have a whole tree of categories for nursing journals that is much more detailed than this template (which includes some -possibly non-notable- redlinked journals. Several nursing journals are not in this template, but no selection criteria are given. (And I note that adding them all would make this template even larger than it already is). The template also mixes up medical journals with professional magazines, which in the category tree are carefully kept separated. Finally, we also have a List of nursing journals. All these (more complete and more detailed) navigational aides make this template redundant and unnecessary. Randykitty ( talk) 09:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It don't have enough blue links. It is also a minor multi-sport event only, non-notable. So this templates should be deleted. Banhtrung1 ( talk) 08:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was procedural close - wrong forum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Even it is connected to basketball biography, why not renaming all of the 2600+ articles that include it into Template:Infobox basketball biography. Maybe some bot can do this work? AirWolf ( talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)