The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
unused and blanked Frietjes ( talk) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"This template is meant to be transcluded into the relevant section of various articles."As we don't write the content of encyclopedia articles by cobbling together identical pre-written chunks of text into multiple articles, this template is not useful on Wikipedia. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac ( talk) 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
As per discussion, this template is no more useful with deletion of the page List of cricket batting averages. Also, 40 number is arbitrary. Greenbörg (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Split. Go ahead! (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 06:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Propose splitting
Template:Myeloid blood tests.
Proposing to SPLIT the template into 2 templates, one relating to clotting, and one relating to RBCs and Hb. It's unusual to have these two topics grouped together, and I don't think the fact that RBCs and platelets are of myeloid lineage justifies this. Thoughts?
Tom (LT) (
talk)
01:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:8TeamBracket-with third-fifth-seventh per the rather thorough breakdown of the differences in the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 14:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:8TeamBracket-with third-fifth-seventh and
Template:Round8-with play-offs.
Nearly the same, only excluding the seedings.
333
-blue
10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There are definitely some valid concerns regarding this template, and the OR/SYNTH possibilities of "what do we include here". There are also valid reasons for keeping, namely the navigation aspect. The actual vote counts are almost split. Compounding the issue is the presence of two templates, of which comments either pertained to one or the other (but rarely both).
I recommend that a discussion take place to determine the "rules" for including wikilinks in these templates. If this can be sorted out (and possibly also a name change discussion) then I suspect many of the issues regarding these templates will be solved. However, iff these changes are made and there are still valid concerns for deleting the templates, there is no prejudice against renomination, though waiting 2-3 months would be ideal (if only to allow for discussions to start/finish appropriately). Primefac ( talk) 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This template is highly selective and relies on individual points of view as to what is and is not included in this. This template will also easily and unstoppably fall foul of the rules on original research due to the very nature of what is and is not terrorism. The template will also fall foul of recent-ism and pure news coverage, due to the nature of this topic. Finally and fatally in my opinion for this template, there is no need for this unnecessary duplication of information which is already included in list format on the page which this article takes all of its information on. This is a redundant template of duplication. Sport and politics ( talk) 10:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
European security and legal authorities designate which acts are Islamic terrorism(we could, and sometimes do, use Europol as a source), what counts as "Europe" is neither obvious nor uncontroversial (should Russia and Turkey be included? Should it perhaps be limited to the EU or Western Europe?) – and more to the point does not really reflect WP:Reliable sources, which as I pointed out in the RfC mentioned above refer to terrorist activity in the West.
Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.That is simply not the case here. TompaDompa ( talk) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment - This re-listing is unnecessary. Delete consensus based in policy is clear. Remember this is not a vote. The keep arguments simply amount to WP:LIKE therefore keep, with statements which are. It's convenient, or It's helpful, all of which is hogwash. The delete arguments are policy based. There is no counter to the policy that this is WP:OR WP:SYNTH and WP:YESPOV. I personally think the re-lister was having a TL:DR moment, and that is why this was re-listed. The arguments for keep are nothing more that simply, votes and preferences. To all the users who are going to go mad at me for pointing out this, my talk page can be found here, replies anywhere else shall not be responded to. Sport and politics ( talk) 06:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 06:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
unused, needlessly wordy/confusing, replaceable by {{
PD-old-70}}
FASTILY
06:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
PD-old-70}}
, in that this one clarifies that an additional tag is needed for the photograph itself?
CapitalSasha ~
talk
18:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
PD-art-70-3d}}
is a reminder about specifying a license for the photograph (derivative work); note that photographer attribution should be done regardless of whether a template calls for it or not. -
FASTILY
08:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
unused template Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 23:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
With 348 medical colleges in India, a navbox is not a useful navigation tool for such a list. For this we have List of medical colleges in India and Category:Schools of medicine in India as well as other lists, categories and navigation templates for sub-groups of this huge list. This one is always going to be pointless, partial, and as such, misleading. Muhandes ( talk) 12:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Navigates too little content--all of which is well inter-linked. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
unused and blanked Frietjes ( talk) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"This template is meant to be transcluded into the relevant section of various articles."As we don't write the content of encyclopedia articles by cobbling together identical pre-written chunks of text into multiple articles, this template is not useful on Wikipedia. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac ( talk) 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
As per discussion, this template is no more useful with deletion of the page List of cricket batting averages. Also, 40 number is arbitrary. Greenbörg (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Split. Go ahead! (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 06:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Propose splitting
Template:Myeloid blood tests.
Proposing to SPLIT the template into 2 templates, one relating to clotting, and one relating to RBCs and Hb. It's unusual to have these two topics grouped together, and I don't think the fact that RBCs and platelets are of myeloid lineage justifies this. Thoughts?
Tom (LT) (
talk)
01:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:8TeamBracket-with third-fifth-seventh per the rather thorough breakdown of the differences in the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 14:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:8TeamBracket-with third-fifth-seventh and
Template:Round8-with play-offs.
Nearly the same, only excluding the seedings.
333
-blue
10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There are definitely some valid concerns regarding this template, and the OR/SYNTH possibilities of "what do we include here". There are also valid reasons for keeping, namely the navigation aspect. The actual vote counts are almost split. Compounding the issue is the presence of two templates, of which comments either pertained to one or the other (but rarely both).
I recommend that a discussion take place to determine the "rules" for including wikilinks in these templates. If this can be sorted out (and possibly also a name change discussion) then I suspect many of the issues regarding these templates will be solved. However, iff these changes are made and there are still valid concerns for deleting the templates, there is no prejudice against renomination, though waiting 2-3 months would be ideal (if only to allow for discussions to start/finish appropriately). Primefac ( talk) 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This template is highly selective and relies on individual points of view as to what is and is not included in this. This template will also easily and unstoppably fall foul of the rules on original research due to the very nature of what is and is not terrorism. The template will also fall foul of recent-ism and pure news coverage, due to the nature of this topic. Finally and fatally in my opinion for this template, there is no need for this unnecessary duplication of information which is already included in list format on the page which this article takes all of its information on. This is a redundant template of duplication. Sport and politics ( talk) 10:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
European security and legal authorities designate which acts are Islamic terrorism(we could, and sometimes do, use Europol as a source), what counts as "Europe" is neither obvious nor uncontroversial (should Russia and Turkey be included? Should it perhaps be limited to the EU or Western Europe?) – and more to the point does not really reflect WP:Reliable sources, which as I pointed out in the RfC mentioned above refer to terrorist activity in the West.
Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.That is simply not the case here. TompaDompa ( talk) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment - This re-listing is unnecessary. Delete consensus based in policy is clear. Remember this is not a vote. The keep arguments simply amount to WP:LIKE therefore keep, with statements which are. It's convenient, or It's helpful, all of which is hogwash. The delete arguments are policy based. There is no counter to the policy that this is WP:OR WP:SYNTH and WP:YESPOV. I personally think the re-lister was having a TL:DR moment, and that is why this was re-listed. The arguments for keep are nothing more that simply, votes and preferences. To all the users who are going to go mad at me for pointing out this, my talk page can be found here, replies anywhere else shall not be responded to. Sport and politics ( talk) 06:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 06:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
unused, needlessly wordy/confusing, replaceable by {{
PD-old-70}}
FASTILY
06:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
PD-old-70}}
, in that this one clarifies that an additional tag is needed for the photograph itself?
CapitalSasha ~
talk
18:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
PD-art-70-3d}}
is a reminder about specifying a license for the photograph (derivative work); note that photographer attribution should be done regardless of whether a template calls for it or not. -
FASTILY
08:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
unused template Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 23:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
With 348 medical colleges in India, a navbox is not a useful navigation tool for such a list. For this we have List of medical colleges in India and Category:Schools of medicine in India as well as other lists, categories and navigation templates for sub-groups of this huge list. This one is always going to be pointless, partial, and as such, misleading. Muhandes ( talk) 12:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Navigates too little content--all of which is well inter-linked. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)