The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2022 (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).
Template:Dresden S-Bahn
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete as unused and superseded. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2022 (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).
Template:Philippines–South Korea relations
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 July 18. ✗plicit 23:34, 18 July 2022 (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).
Template:SS seasons
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2018 Summer Series and its parent league have been deleted per PROD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:50, 12 July 2022 (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).
Template:Summer Series
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Main article and all associated articles deleted by PROD, only remaining blue links are all educational institutions that happen to have teams in this non-notable league. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:09, 11 July 2022 (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).
Template:Assala Nasri
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template lists a series of links, all of which redirect to the main subject's article. Thus, it serves no purpose and can be deleted. Keivan.fTalk 11:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I created the template ten years ago in 2012, back then the links were alive. If they were replaced by redirects the template is pointless. --Muhandes (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2022 (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).
Template:Ukrainian armed forces
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 18 July 2022 (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).
Template:UK Coastguard rank insignia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 18 July 2022 (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).
Template:UK Parliament bills
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 18 July 2022 (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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what there is to merge, this is a "pass through" wrapper that sets the various categories needed for a themed area. Per WP:TEMPLATECAT, having the infobox set the categories may not be the best solution. I could see removing all the automatic categorization from Template:Infobox amusement park, but until that happens, I don't see a better solution for keeping themed areas out of the amusement park categories. So for now, I think keeping the wrapper is the best solution. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 12:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A Keep argument turned up. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Plastikspork said, this is just a wrapper to correctly categorize themed areas separately from entire amusement parks. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 06:34, 11 July 2022 (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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:RegentsPark, should this nomination be removed since the nom is a sock or should it move forward? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to content editors in this area to decide whether this should be deleted or not. Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE anyone can remove this (since they're appear to be no comments on it) or decide to let the discussion proceed.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is very similar to ((Abu Bakr Abdullah)), ((Umar)), ((Uthman)), ((Ali)), etc.: a sidebar-type template on an important early Muslim figure (Hasan ibn Ali is the third most important figure in Shia Islam after Muhammad and Ali). None of these templates are incredibly useful in my view, but as long as they are actually used in articles there seems to be no reason to delete them (better to leave the decision on whether to use them to local consensus or to something like WT:ISLAM). Also note that the OP here is a LTA who regularly pushes anti-Shia POV. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉) 17:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the reasons for deletion unconvincing. It is useful to readers. If people write more articles related to Hasan, it is a good place to list them. Hasan is an important figure in early Muslim history; his comments about some of his contemporaries show great wisdom.
The proposer claimed: The template was already deleted in a discussion of 5 November 2020 - but that was a deletion of Category:Hasan ibn Ali, not the template. That is actually an argument to keep the template - because there is no longer a category linking the related articles. -- Toddy1(talk) 14:11, 15 July 2022 (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).
Template:Infobox Negro League franchise
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Infobox Negro League franchise with Template:Infobox baseball team.
No reason for Negro league teams to have a separate infobox than other baseball teams. Will help with consistency of infoboxes on baseball team pages. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly agree, this template is very restricted on information options. Consistency in infoboxes would provide consistent information and a uniform look for all baseball team pages.Skilgis1900 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great points, thanks for the information on the recent redesign. Collaboration on infoboxes is essential and the current Template:Infobox baseball team redesign deserves further input before becoming universal. Skilgis1900 (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as Template:Infobox baseball team was recently redesigned without input from WP:BASELL & therefore without consent. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until further input from the Baseball project warrants such a change. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Disputed changes to ((Infobox baseball team)) are irrelevant to this proposal and that matter can and should be resolved on the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On reading the linked discussion, it appears that the disputed changes have in any case been reverted, rendering any objections on that basis effectively void. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2022 (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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have too many birth day templates, with the main ones being Template:Birth date and Template:Birth-date. The fact that this adds an abbreviation for the word "born" is not sufficient in creating a new template. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a birth day template; it is an abbreviation template that happens to work with birth dates. It is also complimentary to the long-standing and much-used ((died-in)) template. The templates you suggest are not a substitute for ((born-in))'s purpose, which is to visually denote a birth year in situations where a year alone would be otherwise ambiguous. Yes, the abbreviation could be done in other ways, eg, using markup like so d. 1995 (((abbr|d.|died)) 1995) but on the complex family tree templates these are commonly used on that extra bit of clutter is really unwanted compared to the simplicity of d. 1995 (((died-in|1995))). It would make a difficult task even more difficult and I doubt anybody would question the value of ((born-in)) or ((died-in)) over the longer mark-up after creating just a few large family trees.
Considering your proposal, ((Birth date))'s documentation suggests not to use it when only the year is given, which is the typical intended case for ((born-in)), because the template uses microformats. The only alternative then is ((Birth-date)).
One solution might be to add an optional parameter to both ((Birth-date)) and ((Death-date)) to add the "b." or "d." abbreviation, respectively. This however presents a problem. It is desirable to keep the ability to allow the ((circa)) template to be used between the abbreviation and the date. This would start to be cumbersome to add to the template. Maybe it should be done. Maybe not. But here's the key thing: ((Birth-date)) and ((Death-date)) are adding semantic meaning to the dates. That's their role. But that's not what ((born-in)) and ((Died-in)) do. They merely add presentation. The crux is that you can do both by combining the templates. For example, d. c. 1995 (1996) (((died-in|((circa|((Death-date|1995))))))) does everything desired. It includes both the presentational aspects and the semantics if wanted.
It'd actually be nice if a new parameter would be added to ((Birth-date)) and ((Death-date)). But not having ((born-in)) and ((Died-in)) would limit us in our expressive ability unless somebody really wants (and can) extend the other templates to include "b." and "d." along with an optional "c.". Jason Quinn (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Died in was created only a few months ago and has 49 transclusions so not sure how it is long-standing and much-used. It should probably go to TfD right after this. Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless this is used by bots, in my view its much easier to just type in "b. 1234". As the Op states we already have so many templates focused on birth/death dates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I discussed above, this is not a birth data template but an abbreviation template that happens to work with birth dates. This is a subtle but crucial difference as the proposed birth-date template substitutes do not duplicate the desired functionality yet do extra undesired things related to hCard microformats. The suggested ((Birth date)) template is not intended for year-only dates as per its documentation and so must be removed from consideration. This leaves only the ((Birth-date)) template, whose main purpose is to add hCard info but does not perform the nominated template's function. The nominator's two proposed solutions are both fatally flawed. This could have been discussed and discovered prior to nomination. The other proposed alternative ("b. 1234") by Knowledgekid87 was considered but, as already discussed above, the desired markup is "((abbr|b.|born)) 1234" so it fails to meet the specifications. Both the abbreviation tag and thin space serve a purpose and are wanted so that proposal must be declined. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2022 (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).