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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why have ((Pa)) when we have [[Pa]]? Magioladitis (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is one template for every chemical element. The category (Category:Chemical element symbol templates) says "This category contains chemical element symbol templates that are used to simplify the entry of chemical formulae." This is in fact the case for more common elements, like ((carbon)), with 82 transclusions. But I question the utility of these templates, especially for rare, volatile, and mostly useless elements like protactinium. The reason my keep is weak is because it seems odd to link elements from chemical formulae; the linking should instead be done from prose, where the full element name is visible. Still, I'm sure WP:CHEMS has had this discussion before. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the templates exist for common elements, they should exist for rare elements too, otherwise it will be very confusing for users to see some elements working and others not working. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not only Pa, it is also ((Protactinium|2)) (giving Pa2; useful for e.g. Pa2O3), and even ((Protactinium|2|3|132)) (giving 132Pa3+2 - a non-existing conglomerate of 2 of the 132 isotope of Protactinium with a total charge of 3+). Actually, ((Pa)) should also exist, as a redirect to ((Protactinium)) (sorry, but the deletion template now makes displaying this a bit difficult). --Dirk BeetstraTC 10:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this: I agree, This, that and the other - I would also prefer that the elements are linked from prose. --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - (i) template transclusion slows article loading (ii) only dedicated users would know this template exists and how to use it (iii) redundancy - wlinks and subscripts can be easily coded usual way. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re (i): Huh? So lets file a bug to disable all forms of transclusion? and (iii): sure, but templates are made to make life easy (see my response to (i)). --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transclusion is not a significant impact on the servers, so this is not a valid reason to delete the template. See WP:PERF. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you want to delete this template (which is a bad idea), the entire category Category:Chemical_element_symbol_templates should be group nominated to be deleted as the templates are identical, only for different elements. It makes no sense whatsoever for some elements to have templates and others not. Anyway I personally see no advantage whatsoever in deleting this template, and it would make entering certain chemical formulas harder. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this template will confuse new users who see articles using related templates for other elements, later attempt to use corresponding template for protactinium, and then it will not work and the user will be confused. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete substitution template for boilerplate text, and promotes overlinkage of Proactinium. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinkage could be avoided with thoughtful programming of the template .. I do agree that CH3CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH3 should be strictly discouraged (and I am now wikitrouting myself for doing something silly like this - though for the non-chemists, linking C and H once would help with the understanding of the formula). --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for just boilerplate text, it can also be used to specify the atomic mass, ionization, and number of atoms. It is much more useful than the nominator seems to think it is. The only thing wrong with it currently is that the tfd notice breaks the template. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It is part of a series of many templates, see Category:Chemical_element_symbol_templates, it has greater functionality than just a link (adds subscript and superscript optinally), is cleaner than plain wikitext, some of the other templates are heavily used (and this one could see more use in the future), and it is useful. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to closing administrator: the related template Template:Ytterbium (another element template, exactly the same as this one but for a different element) was kept in a previous tfd, see [1]. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone please give a good reason why this template should be deleted and all the other element templates kept? I can't think of any. It is very confusing to users who use the other templates and suddenly this one will stop working. Please name one advantage of having this template deleted. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish I had known about this kind of template when I helped rewrite Jerrygibbsite. It saves a lot of time when writing chemical formulas. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beetstra clearly proved usefulness. But the template documentation should explain these parameters and use. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Either keep this one or delete them all. Just removing this one is pointless. Phatom87(talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 April 2011 (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.
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.
Redirect to "Phoenix Union High School District Template" - Honestly, I don't think we need a TfD entry for this. The redirect is needed, so that way "Phoenix Union High School District Template" and "G" do the same thing. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2011 (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:Pekanbaru
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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after moving content to article, and adding Template:Pandeglang, which is the same situation. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most cities don't require their own navbox. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2011 (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:Merrover
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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navigation box for two Mars rover missions (MER-A and MER-B, hence Merrover) that is only used in those articles and does the same thing as a well-placed wiki-link. Useless (and unused). Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2011 (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:Metro Dadiangas
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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, links are the same, and the "South Cotabato" one is the same as others. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Department of Redundancy Department. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2011 (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:Joe Davola (TV producer)
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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Useless template was created years ago, but is not linked to any articles. Also this television producer is notable for their own template like say a David E. Kelley or Joss Whedon. QuasyBoy 00:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, typically we don't navigate based on producer. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a useful categorization. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2011 (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.