Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 9

< September 8	September 10 >

September 9

Template:Infobox artifact

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox artifact (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox artwork}}; the exam\p\kkes given in its documentation being a statue an a mosaic. (A redirect could be kept, for objects which are technically not artworks like some archaeological finds). Has only 216 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm unable to tag this protected (why?) template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as an artifact any archaeological find that was man-made (like a pottery shard, axe head, etc? ) So, being that artifact is the more comprehensive name, shouldn't the final template, whichever coding it uses, reside at "infobox artifact" ? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally this provides comparative features for archaeology, not artwork. As .248 suggests, there is abundant potential for this to be used for archaological finds which are mundane in nature (but which are still notable as artefacts). I don't think a merge is a good fit, as there is little comparative value (many of the key attributes have very different values, such as date or author). Lack of deployment more likely indicates a lack of advertisement amongst editors who work on archaeology articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comments, but the uses of this infobox include many artworks (I suspect it was created when {{Infobox artwork}} was used primarily for paintings). Also, the distinction between artworks and archaeological finds is a continuum, not binary; and many objects are both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - All artworks might be described as artifacts, though it is an odd way to describe a Victorian watercolour for example. The vast majority of artifacts are not artworks, though most notable ones probably are - but not for example the Rosetta Stone. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would indeed be an odd thing to do; so I didn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many might be both, but that doesn't make them the same thing. The infoboxes should emphasise different aspects of the subject, and comparative details which are important to one are probably not important to the other (or are important in different ways). A well-intentioned proposal, but the best outcome would be wider deployment of the artefact infobox (including in cases where it is perhaps currently being overlooked in favour of the artwork infobox, which is less suited to works whose precise circumstances of creation are hazy or unknown). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Most artifacts are not artworks, although most individual ones with articles are, and the fields are very different. Infobox fillers tend to try to fill all available fields whether they are appropriate or not, and this will make the information in infoboxes even more misleading than it already is as, for example, people try to say where paintings were discovered. Or were you just going to omit this archaeologically vital field altogether? The template should arguably be expanded with fields like "archaeological culture". The two most relevant projects should have been notified, which the ISP has now done - people cannot be expected to watch this obscure spot. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- People can be expected to watch templates which are relevant to their editing interests. Your claim that "Infobox fillers tend to try to fill all available fields whether they are appropriate or not" looks like FUD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most archaelogy, anthropology and related articles require distinctive artifact indicators. Artworks and artifacts are not the same thing...Modernist (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has argued that they are they same thing (though many objects are both). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Absolutely not, Andy. There's a major difference. I agree with Chris, "the best outcome would be wider deployment of the artefact infobox (including in cases where it is perhaps currently being overlooked in favour of the artwork infobox, which is less suited to works whose precise circumstances of creation are hazy or unknown)". Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Although there isn't much in the current template to distinguish it from {{Infobox artwork}}, keeping it separate offers a window for future modification, including addition of fields more specific to archaeology (e.g., map showing origin and/or current location, stratum and grid coordinates of the find within an excavation, etc.). Perhaps merging might spur those changes sooner, and result in a cleaner, more archaeology-specific template, but on the whole I think it would be more productive to create an updated artifact-specific template into which the current template could be merged. • Astynax ^talk 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An architectural find is any product of humanity discovered, not just art. While some may loosly refer to any work as art, I'm sure many wouldn't find an art template suitable for an ancient weapon.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Do list

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Do list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Despite the name, this does not "do lists", in the HTML sense, but makes pseudo-lists, which are neither semantically correct nor accessible. It is now redundant to the recently-improved {{Flatlist}}, which uses proper list markup (and can accommodate ordered lists, too). Previous objections to deletion are now resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this template is now obsolete, now that there are superior alternatives. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A clever hack back in the day, but now obviated by far more elegant solutions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Genus navboxes (2)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus for mass deletion. Individual templates may be dealt with separately. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baccharis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Inula (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vernonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pluchea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Carallia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Carallia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Cerobasis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Agonum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Clytra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Dorcadion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Recilia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Eburia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Lachnaia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Cheilotoma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Anastrangalia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Cassida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Artemisia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Stenodema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Altica (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Lebia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Chenopodium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Dysphania (plant) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Dysphania (moth) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Xylodromus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Carabus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Elipsocus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Lachesilla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Anabarilius (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Hynobius (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Myrmica (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Chalepoxenus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Stygodiaptomus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Strongylognathus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Agapanthia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Agonum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Bombus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Elasmostethus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Chaetocnema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Asterocampa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Apolygus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Chrysolina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Orthotylus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Opsilia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Echium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Oxyrhopus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Cychrus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Oxyptilus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Nippoptilia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Sphenarches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Amblyptilia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Leptodeuterocopus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Paracapperia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Inferuncus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Vietteilus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Crombrugghia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Stenodacma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Gillmeria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Trichoptilus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Dejongia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Buckleria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Megalorhipida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Stangeia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Michaelophorus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Pselnophorus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Phelsuma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Gypsochares (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Merrifieldia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Navbox Wheeleria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See previous round of deletion of this type of genus navbox template here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 23#Genus navboxes. There I argued in an uncontested nomination that these navigation templates were performing no function not already performed by the genus categories or lists of species found usually on the genus article or separate lists. Additionally, the navboxes there, as here, only included blue links, giving the mistaken impression that the genus Baccharis, for example, only includes about 17 species when the genus article states it includes anywhere from 250 to 400 (or over 500, depending on whether you read the text or the taxobox). If done correctly where each species was included even if a red link (which takes time and decent sources), a navbox template for many of these large genera would be almost useless. In addition, there's almost never any reason why a user would want to skip around directly from species article to species article within a genus without the context of taxonomy or geography that a well-thought-out list can manage, e.g. List of Drosera species or Taxonomy of Drosera. The above in this list should be deleted as inferior to other navigation avenues. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Ryan Vesey before doing it. It was his idea. Plus, my opinion is to keep due to the fact that not everyone would be interested in reading an article with a huge list of species. It will be convenient for certain readers to read one by one. Different readers have different ways of readiung stuff. Deleting it will cause a reader to be forced to read genus article instead of skipping it. Sertain readers might not care if the article have a genus article or not, and would be interested in reading other articles on the same genus without reading the whole article on the genus. Confusing? Let me know.--Mishae (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From discussions I have had, it seems that those navboxes are appropriate for small genera, but are not appropriate for large genera. A navbox should not contain red links. If subgenera exist, it can be beneficial to organize the navbox by subgenera. In either case, if the genus is very large, or of moderately large length that can't be split into subgenera, it is less useful than the list article for navigation. If the navbox is not too large it can be a useful tool that doesn't require the reader to navigate to another page to see the list. I've got no opinion on these specifically, I don't know enough about botany. Ryan Vesey 15:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan, it is not about botany, its first and foremost about navboxes, 2 of which are now on the verge of being deleted, just because one user thinks its O.K. to delete.--Mishae (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Rkitko: If your arms are itching to delete something, then please delete this ones: Template:Navbox Apolygus, Template:Navbox Carallia, Template:Navbox Altica, Template:Navbox Oxyrhopus, Template:Navbox Stenodema, Template:Navbox Dejongia, Template:Navbox Chaetocnema, Template:Navbox Asterocampa, Template:Navbox Stangeia, Template:Navbox Dorcadion, Template:Navbox Crombrugghia, Template:Navbox Stenodacma, and Template:Navbox Xylodromus--Mishae (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per nomination of {{Navbox Crombrugghia}} and {{Navbox Stenodacma}} both of which would be small enough to be useful navigation tools and were added after my initial comment. These nominations are being made without though and instead are nominations of any navbox. I do not have time to check all of the templates to discover which are worthy of deletion and which are not in this massive nomination. Should Rkitko care to focus on specific nav templates that he feels are not useful, I would not be !voting in the same manner. I also encourage him to discontinue adding templates after commenting has started. Ryan Vesey 16:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First let me say I didn't realize how many template this would encompass when I started the nomination, so please accept my apologies for the delay in getting the complete list together. It appears you began the discussion before I was able to even get the first few compiled in this multiple nomination. Second, I'd also like to note that this is not in any way personal and I recognize that you've done a massive amount of work on these. I just don't think that navigation templates for genera, large or small, are appropriate. If we only have a few articles on a handful of species in a genus of hundreds or even just dozens, a template at the bottom of each article is misleading in that it is implying these are the only species in that genus. I'd say that navigation templates of this sort would only make sense in the case where all species for that genus have an article and the template also includes other topics that don't make it redundant to a genus category or list ({{Nepenthes}} is one of the acceptable cases, in my opinion, because it not only includes all of the species, but natural hybrids, a link to other topics including cultivars, a list of literature, the infauna, a common chemical compound found in the plants, taxonomy links, list by geography link, etc.). Here, above, we only have partial lists of species in each genus, which as I said is inferior to other lists - or at bare minimum is redundant to the genus category. I'm not itching to delete anything, but I noticed the templates, not a novel idea since a similar implementation had been deleted before, and thought I'd bring them to discussion. Another admin will evaluate the discussion here and there may be three outcomes: 1) To delete if the reason to are compelling enough and if consensus is to do so 2) No consensus, so they remain or 3) To keep if the arguments are compelling and if consensus is to do so. So let's discuss - why should these be kept in the face of my arguments above? Why should we keep potentially misleading templates on species articles for navigation purposes when, I contend, that very few (if any) users will actually use them for navigation from one species to the next. (I suggest people want context for navigating among species - lists by geography or taxonomy are most popular.) Rkitko ^(talk) 16:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its sounds like that all my hard work went for nothing. Another thing to mention, people on Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Serbian and other Wikipedias are O.K. with it. So why should Enlish one be so hostile to their "family members"?--Mishae (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't see this as a hostile action. I brought the templates for discussion on my opinion alone. I left a neutral message at WT:TOL (the tree of life project) for other editors to leave their opinions. As I explained, we'll reach a consensus on the merits of these templates. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand your argument on the large and incomplete templates; however, the two I pointed to are small and seem complete (per the respective articles for the genera). My preference would be to keep those templates because in a genus of 20 or less this is a better tool than going to the genus article. A similar method of navigation is used in templates for counties which contain a list of municipalities and communities in the county. They could be sent to the county article instead, but the navbox is more effective. In some cases, the genus article doesn't exist and should be created (consider {{Navbox Cerobasis}}). My mistake was in saying the best way to deorphan some newly created species articles would be to create a navbox. This is effective for small genera but not large ones. Instead, the best deorphan method should always be to create an article for the genus (or expand that article if it is lacking species). Navboxes should only be created for those that are small enough or that can be subcategorized for easy navigation. Ryan Vesey 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting you should draw the comparison to county navigation. I once tried to add an article on a historic location (Roscoe Village, Ohio, now incorporated into a larger city) to {{Coshocton County, Ohio}} but was reverted because apparently that's not that project's vision for how to use those navboxes. That was ok, I suppose, but here we need to develop similar guidelines on what's acceptable. Based on the previous uncontested TfD (a weak example because there was almost no input) and already some comments here, I think we can start developing these. And actually, I think the best deorphan method, which I don't think is necessarily so important for species articles, is to describe the similarities and differences between the species in their articles, e.g. when I wrote Levenhookia chippendalei I used the references to describe how it's related to other species and got to link to two of them. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (some). I think a well-thought out list article, and a "See also" link to that list article in the individual species articles is a preferable method of navigation for large genera, IMO. As Ritko said, these templates give the (sometimes) incorrect impression that the list of species in the navbox is complete. See for example Template:Amanitas for an example. There's about 500 species in the genus, so the navbox is very incomplete (and doesn't even list all of the Wikipedia Amanita articles we have), and the only reason I can see for its existence is to save the reader a single click, so they don't have to first go to List of Amanita species (which is also incomplete, but at least it tells the reader that). Is that enough reason to add this bulky, misleading template to every species article? On the other hand, I also agree with Ryan's argument that they may be appropriate for genera with fewer species that do not warrant a separate list article. Perhaps there should be some consensus as to how many species are required to justify a separate stand-alone list (maybe 40–50?), and recommend that navboxes only be used for genera with fewer species than this? Sasata (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with some of this is a majority of the possible list of articles are just included in the article for the genus instead. Then a see also section would be inappropriate. That being said, my argument stands that all of these should be kept per a lack of deep thought by Rkitko. I suggest that he create a new nomination with a smaller grouping of the most blatant offenders. Nominating 68 templates does not help discussion, especially when there is diversity within the quality of the templates. Ryan Vesey 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point that I'll take into consideration. My original thought was to nominate all of the templates in one large nomination as I did last time, but I misjudged the number of them when I began. And if you'll grant me that this discussion has already produced some worthwhile comments (e.g. Sasata and Curtis Clark) that could result in the development of a guideline based on consensus here for many of these to remain, then I think we'll have a civil, thoughtful discussion. I was quick to action, yes, but please don't suggest I didn't properly think this through. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't mean to suggest that you didn't properly think the nomination through. I only meant to suggest that your nomination included templates that could be deleted and templates that shouldn't. The large number of templates and the fact that it contains templates that (at least some) people believe shouldn't be deleted makes it hard to discuss. On another note, I don't follow TFD so if you renominate any can you leave me a note? Ryan Vesey 22:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, that's the point of discussion. I rather think all of these could be deleted, even those with 10 species and all 10 species have articles on Wikipedia. In that case it is a stronger argument to keep, but the navboxes still would be redundant to categories, lists, or the genus article if there is one since they don't have anything else to incorporate the way {[tl|Nepenthes}} does with all the extra genus-related content that one editor has been very busy working on. And in making the nomination, I was incapable of evaluating whether the genera were complete on Wikipedia in some circumstances because the genus article was absent or because it failed to mention how many species there were (or provided multiple estimates). And of course, regardless of the outcome, even if I withdraw and renominate just certain ones, I will notify anyone who commented in this discussion. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Forgot to mention (and maybe its not relevant), but Russian Wikipedia for example have navboxes for movie directors and Ukrainian uses them for sports (which player belongs to which team, etc). Sure, it mighty me anoying considering if the player will quit the team entierly, or moved to another one, but genuses are different, they will stay the same, with only new ones be added over time. Besides, you can always hide them, that way the users might get curious: What's this?, and they would be eager to read all the species without refering to the genus page. I will use an example with directors: People who look for movies that person directed will be shocked by the amound of (in their opinion) useless information (considering how long some articles are. Yes, they are still interesting to read, but not everyone would like to spend that time. Some people prefer something concrete, such as what I am doing.--Mishae (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To Ryan, I fixed the small navboxes, if anybody wants to delete the ones that I put out on this discussion page, feel free to do so.--Mishae (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: {{Nepenthes}} makes sense to me. A lot of the rest don't. My biggest concern is those that don't list all the known species, since they can be positively misleading. Perhaps some of them have a disclaimer, such as "Species with Wikipedia articles (out of about 350 total)"? I didn't click through to all of them to see. I'm also concerned with maintenance--it's already difficult to keep text and taxobox aligned for genera with many species, and this adds another level. I'd be interested in some use cases for these before deciding whether I think they should be deleted.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Curtis, speak for yourself not others. If you don't want to deal with aligning, I will.--Mishae (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which will you align with when taxobox and text differ? And have I missed use cases somewhere?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which cases? Probably you missed the spell checker (see word when), I don't blame you though.--Mishae (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't blame you, either. Shall we move on?--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody mentioned of See also, maybe, if its O.K. instead of putting Navboxes I will put this tag on???--Mishae (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Biochemical reaction

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biochemical reaction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly-complicated and inaccessible template used only on a handful of pages. Would need to be reimplemented from scratch to make is practical to use anywhere else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, until an alternative is demonstrated, but delete if a suitable alternative is demonstrated. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative is standard wikitable syntax, which allows for additional flexibility in presentation (the present output is not optimal and fixing that is ultimately not worthwhile). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Complex biochemical reaction

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Complex biochemical reaction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

overly-specific template used only on a single page. Can't sensibly be generalised. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, until an alternative is demonstrated, but delete if a suitable alternative is demonstrated. if it is kept, we should consider merging with generic template though. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As a single-use template, substitution into a standard wikitable will have zero impact on the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see; then I have no problem with deleting it. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sfd-t

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd-t (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sfd-r‬ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sfr-t‬ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sfr-r (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Notifications for Stub types for deletion. No longer needed now that SFD is inactive. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and edit. They're not notifications but tags. They serve a unique purpose that cannot be taken over by {{cfd}}, for obvious reasons. Indeed, they are still supposed to be used when stub templates are being discussed at CFD. — This, that, and the other (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these need to be mentioned in the CFD header. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Tarantino, G. Republicanism, Sinophilia and Historical Writing: Thomas Gordon (1691?–1750) and his ‘History of England’ (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tarantino, G. Republicanism, Sinophilia and Historical Writing: Thomas Gordon (1691?–1750) and his ‘History of England’ (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Was formerly used in Thomas Gordon (writer) but has been replaced by text. DH85868993 (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template created by mistake by an unexpert user who was trying to add a footnote to the existing article. Please feel free to delete the template. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliantos (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the template for speedy deletion (db-g7). DH85868993 (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Heart In Hand

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 08:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heart In Hand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN; only links to the band's main article. Gongshow ^Talk 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.