November 21
- 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).
The result of the discussion was merge to ((Western name order)) by making the (({1))} parameter in ((Eastern name order)) optional. ~ Rob13Talk 04:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose merging Template:Eastern name order with Template:Western name order.
Redundant and ultimately confusing: a template called "Eastern name order" points out that the article uses "Western name order". Seems to only be used for Hungarian names; for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Hmong names, the Western order template plus a Chinese/Japanese/etc. template is used.
The Chinese etc. templates might be worth merging as well, since they all have different styling/wording, but I'll leave that for another TFD.--Father Goose (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge. I think the contents of ((Eastern name order)) would be better served at ((Western name order)) (particularly the mention of the native name), which could then serve as the basis for the merger of the other templates. IMO, a single generic name order template would be best, if possible. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge through the use of parser functions if needed. This advertising of TfD is doing more harm than good since such templates are widely used. I propose we do not advertise this time since this is more of a common sense measure. I can perform the merging without a need of editing pages (rather the bot would introduce one parameter of east vs west). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, no "east" parameter is needed, as the few pages that do use Eastern name order – such as Mao Zedong – do so because the Eastern order for that specific name is familiar in the West. And in such cases, no template at all is used.
The "eastern order" template seems to only be in use for Hungarian names, and it is redundant with the Western template because it states that the article uses Western order.
There still remains the question of how the text of the templates should be merged. Perhaps the least disruptive approach would be to rename template:eastern name order to template:Hungarian name and have the Hungarian name template read something like:
The native form of this personal name is (({1))}. This article uses Western name order when mentioning individuals.
- with the second sentence simply being a call to template:western name order.
That still leaves the wording/formatting of each of the Chinese/Japanese/Hungarian templates inconsistent, but it's a start.--Father Goose (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment. Template:Hungarian name is a redirect to Template:Eastern name order, so the proposal to "rename" it really is one of reversing the redirect, which technically is a page move. Si Trew (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge, making parameter 1 (the native name) optional in the resulting template. Its absence should prevent emission of the "first sentence". I prefer the additional wording "when mentioning individuals" in that
((Western name order)) has in the "second sentence", that ((Eastern name order)) currently doesn't. I don't see how "this advertising of TfD is doing more harm than good": I'd have been unaware of it otherwise, and I edit lots of articles on Hungarian subjects. Si Trew (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[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:India's ODI head-to-head records
- 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).
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template were none of the articles exist. Any of those proposed articles would be deleted per WP:NOTSTATS Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[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 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 2016 November 29 ~ Rob13Talk 03:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[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:Cockerell family tree
- 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).
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 03:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no article Cockerell family, nor other sources to verify the tree. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete, no supporting article and Wikipedia is not a memorial of trivia. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[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).