The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:NENAN for not having five relevant links The Banner talk 21:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This template is used on roughly 300 redirects, but is heavily misused, probably due to the confusing intent of it. In my survey of its use, it's highly redundant with {{ R to section}}, {{ R from alternative name}}, and other much better ones from Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. The whole "without possibilities" angle is also pretty questionable and misleading (we have {{ R with possibilities}}, but that is to encourage/inspire rather than discourage). -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
{{R to section}}
and {{R from alternative name}}
is a mis-characterization. These templates are complementary of each other, and that is by design. This template should always coexist with either {{R to section}}
or {{R to list entry}}
with {{R to anchor}}
being often included as well. Because it is a title "without possibilities", it will never be target-able to an article and will depend on aligning with some specific content within an article to be clearly understood. These concise topics that lack enough depth to become an article should not be discounted as unimportant. For example, we couldn't write an entire article about a golf course "green", or a duelers "second", but we can link to its meaning with
Greens (golf), or
Second (duel); improving overall understanding. Give me a few days and I'll have the category cleaned up, and you will see a few hundred solid examples.—
John Cline (
talk)
13:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC){{R to section}}
or {{R to list entry}}
(just as "printworthy" is a parameter). Also, what about other redirect templates? Should we have a "{{
R from alternative name without possibilities}}" or "{{
R from misspelling without possibilities}}"? Seems like ridiculous bloat. P.S. Never say "we couldn't write an entire article about a golf course 'green', or a duelers 'second'", because I might be forced to prove you wrong on that. There is no topic in the cosmos that couldn't be made into an article, given enough time and research. --
Netoholic
@
18:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
{{R with limited possibilities}}
. I would support moving every category that uses "without possibilities" into its similar form using "limited possibilities" instead.—
John Cline (
talk)
03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
{{R from subtopic without possibilities}}
to the new name. --
Netoholic
@
05:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
Redr|
R from alternate name|
R to section}}
instead. This template is just too unclear and narrow (and to editors its highly misleading with the "without possibilities" bit when used wrong). --
Netoholic
@
02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
{{Redr|from subtopic|with possibilities}}
to create this notion we would be consistent using {{Redr|from subtopic|without possibilities}}
instead of what we now have; and as it turns out, "without possibilities" is a bit too confusing, almost inviting subjectivity which I don't think is conducive to the category segregation being sought. I agree that some titles are precluded from being developed into an article's live title but I think this is a restriction of some form or another and would think {{R with restrictions}}
might be more clear. Also as pointed out, other rcats could otherwise be as restricted, or as possible, so separating them is simply better all around, in my opinion. Then you can have {{Redr|from subtopic|to section|with possibilities}}
, {{Redr|from subtopic|to anchor|with restrictions}}
, or a plethora of other appropriate combinations.—
John Cline (
talk)
05:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned template. Seems to have been replaced with Template:Macedonia topics linking to the various lists. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned template that hasn't been used to list AfDs for years it seems. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
With this, now an orphaned specific source template. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned specific-source template Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Last discussed in 2012 but looking only at hydrogen, I think it's time for this infoboxes to be returned to the articles. While there are still concerns about the complexity of the markup due to the infoboxes, there are more complex ones I'm certain already in the articles. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll also note that at this point, I don't believe these template infoboxen can/should ever be deleted. At most, I think we'd redirect Template:Infobox hydrogen back to Hydrogen and make a clear note of the template history when merging the infobox content back into the main article. Deleting the attribution doesn't really make much sense in this case as it's needlessly harmful, so any template discussion should probably focus on keep v. redirect/merge, with delete not being an option. (Though, to be fair, nobody has voted delete here so I'm really addressing a non-issue. Oh well.) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 14:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of date with the new 2010 census but this template is used in a single article as a singular graph. I'm not even sure this graphic is needed when a table would be equally as clear and less complicated to deal with. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Template is used only once. Text-block can easily been added to the article Amash-Conyers Amendment. The Banner talk 21:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Template without a backlink to a parent article. Is this "Advisory Board" important enough to warrant a navigation template? If so, where is the article about the "Ripon Society Congressional Advisory Board"? The Banner talk 21:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Excluding its usage Template:Periodic table templates and the various links from there, I don't see where this template is actually being used in articles. While I can imagine the use of a chart that keeps track of the images for each element, it's only usage remains for editors alone. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
Periodic table by article quality}}
.
Double sharp (
talk)
02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the purpose of a template that only lists other templates. According to the guidelines, a template that only provides information only of service to editors belongs on a talk page or alternatively, all these templates belong at Category:Periodic table maintenance templates but there is no need for a navigational page for editors. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It should be merged with Template:Food and Drug Administration
This template is only used in one article. It should be merged with and replaced by Template:Food and Drug Administration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The contents of this template were duplicated into Template:Food and Drug Administration by Remember, who also created this template. It is better to only use the main more comprehensive template about the FDA organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (G7) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Entirely redundant to Template:Jct. Unused. Reason for the template's creation (slow load times for {{ Jct}}) is no longer valid as Jct is now converted to Lua. Rs chen 7754 08:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This is regional tournament only. Numerous previous discussions confirmed to delete the regional competition navboxes. JackHoang ( talk) 03:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The other(s):
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Fails WP:NENAN for not having five relevant links The Banner talk 21:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This template is used on roughly 300 redirects, but is heavily misused, probably due to the confusing intent of it. In my survey of its use, it's highly redundant with {{ R to section}}, {{ R from alternative name}}, and other much better ones from Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. The whole "without possibilities" angle is also pretty questionable and misleading (we have {{ R with possibilities}}, but that is to encourage/inspire rather than discourage). -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
{{R to section}}
and {{R from alternative name}}
is a mis-characterization. These templates are complementary of each other, and that is by design. This template should always coexist with either {{R to section}}
or {{R to list entry}}
with {{R to anchor}}
being often included as well. Because it is a title "without possibilities", it will never be target-able to an article and will depend on aligning with some specific content within an article to be clearly understood. These concise topics that lack enough depth to become an article should not be discounted as unimportant. For example, we couldn't write an entire article about a golf course "green", or a duelers "second", but we can link to its meaning with
Greens (golf), or
Second (duel); improving overall understanding. Give me a few days and I'll have the category cleaned up, and you will see a few hundred solid examples.—
John Cline (
talk)
13:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC){{R to section}}
or {{R to list entry}}
(just as "printworthy" is a parameter). Also, what about other redirect templates? Should we have a "{{
R from alternative name without possibilities}}" or "{{
R from misspelling without possibilities}}"? Seems like ridiculous bloat. P.S. Never say "we couldn't write an entire article about a golf course 'green', or a duelers 'second'", because I might be forced to prove you wrong on that. There is no topic in the cosmos that couldn't be made into an article, given enough time and research. --
Netoholic
@
18:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
{{R with limited possibilities}}
. I would support moving every category that uses "without possibilities" into its similar form using "limited possibilities" instead.—
John Cline (
talk)
03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
{{R from subtopic without possibilities}}
to the new name. --
Netoholic
@
05:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
Redr|
R from alternate name|
R to section}}
instead. This template is just too unclear and narrow (and to editors its highly misleading with the "without possibilities" bit when used wrong). --
Netoholic
@
02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
{{Redr|from subtopic|with possibilities}}
to create this notion we would be consistent using {{Redr|from subtopic|without possibilities}}
instead of what we now have; and as it turns out, "without possibilities" is a bit too confusing, almost inviting subjectivity which I don't think is conducive to the category segregation being sought. I agree that some titles are precluded from being developed into an article's live title but I think this is a restriction of some form or another and would think {{R with restrictions}}
might be more clear. Also as pointed out, other rcats could otherwise be as restricted, or as possible, so separating them is simply better all around, in my opinion. Then you can have {{Redr|from subtopic|to section|with possibilities}}
, {{Redr|from subtopic|to anchor|with restrictions}}
, or a plethora of other appropriate combinations.—
John Cline (
talk)
05:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned template. Seems to have been replaced with Template:Macedonia topics linking to the various lists. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned template that hasn't been used to list AfDs for years it seems. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
With this, now an orphaned specific source template. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned specific-source template Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Last discussed in 2012 but looking only at hydrogen, I think it's time for this infoboxes to be returned to the articles. While there are still concerns about the complexity of the markup due to the infoboxes, there are more complex ones I'm certain already in the articles. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll also note that at this point, I don't believe these template infoboxen can/should ever be deleted. At most, I think we'd redirect Template:Infobox hydrogen back to Hydrogen and make a clear note of the template history when merging the infobox content back into the main article. Deleting the attribution doesn't really make much sense in this case as it's needlessly harmful, so any template discussion should probably focus on keep v. redirect/merge, with delete not being an option. (Though, to be fair, nobody has voted delete here so I'm really addressing a non-issue. Oh well.) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 14:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of date with the new 2010 census but this template is used in a single article as a singular graph. I'm not even sure this graphic is needed when a table would be equally as clear and less complicated to deal with. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Template is used only once. Text-block can easily been added to the article Amash-Conyers Amendment. The Banner talk 21:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Template without a backlink to a parent article. Is this "Advisory Board" important enough to warrant a navigation template? If so, where is the article about the "Ripon Society Congressional Advisory Board"? The Banner talk 21:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Excluding its usage Template:Periodic table templates and the various links from there, I don't see where this template is actually being used in articles. While I can imagine the use of a chart that keeps track of the images for each element, it's only usage remains for editors alone. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
Periodic table by article quality}}
.
Double sharp (
talk)
02:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the purpose of a template that only lists other templates. According to the guidelines, a template that only provides information only of service to editors belongs on a talk page or alternatively, all these templates belong at Category:Periodic table maintenance templates but there is no need for a navigational page for editors. Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It should be merged with Template:Food and Drug Administration
This template is only used in one article. It should be merged with and replaced by Template:Food and Drug Administration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The contents of this template were duplicated into Template:Food and Drug Administration by Remember, who also created this template. It is better to only use the main more comprehensive template about the FDA organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (G7) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Entirely redundant to Template:Jct. Unused. Reason for the template's creation (slow load times for {{ Jct}}) is no longer valid as Jct is now converted to Lua. Rs chen 7754 08:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This is regional tournament only. Numerous previous discussions confirmed to delete the regional competition navboxes. JackHoang ( talk) 03:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The other(s):