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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Branches of the People's Liberation Army (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, with information at better developed template Template:People's Liberation Army. Garuda28 (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete; noticed both on Militia (China). Though more compact I can’t think of a place you would use Template:Branches of the People's Liberation Army but not Template:People's Liberation Army, so yes it’s redundant.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A place like People's_Liberation_Army#Service_branches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1142:7300:A5AC:CBBA:C791:270C (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wrong place for a navigation footer template. They go at the end of articles. I moved two in that article to the end, but removed Template:Branches of the People's Liberation Army as there’s already a Template:People's Liberation Army.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:38, 2 May 2018 (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 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Taiwan's Top 100 surnames (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don’t think this would provide appropriate navigation since the inclusion criteria are arbitrary and the surnames themselves have no more in common than being Chinese. Note also that no such navboxes exist for other countries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a suitable topic for a navbox. --woodensuperman 15:32, 30 April 2018 (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 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. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Scientists whose names are used as non SI units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 29

Fails WP:NAVBOX. People included in the navbox do not have anything in common with each other, other than than this intersection. --woodensuperman 14:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a random intersection like bus stops near mulberry bushes, but a high honour for physicists of major importance in the development of physics. SpinningSpark 16:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because WP:IINFO. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, according to WP:NAVBOX "good templates generally follow some of these guidelines", it does not require that all of them are met.
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. This is a group of physicists that are so important in the history of the field that it was felt they deserved to be honoured in this way. Similarly Nobel laureates and Copley Medallists also have templates. Units of measure are a coherent subject. Units named after scientists are a subset of this. Furthermore, SI units are a widespread coherent set of units and the non-SI template is mostly a previously widespread coherent sets of units.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. Every article mentions (or should mention) that the scientist has a unit named after them.
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. Yes, the SI ones all refer to the SI article and most of the non-SI ones refer to the article on the CGS system.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. Yes, there is.
  5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. Very possible.

  Further, WP:NAVBOX says Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles. This group of scientists is extremely small, not to say exclusive and it is certainly well-defined. Precisely defined in fact.

  Besides the minutae of the guidelines, we can ask is this actually useful to an encyclopaedia reader? Well, I can think of two questions I have personally tried to answer in the past that this template quickly finds the information. One was how many scientists of great importance in electrical science used to have units named after them but no longer do? Maxwell immediately springs to mind, but there is also Gilbert. The other one was what electromagnetic units were named after well known scientists. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to answer readers' questions. I am sure that if I have been asking these questions other have been too. SpinningSpark 16:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You seem to miss the point on nearly all of the points in the list:

    1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. They don't. They aren't about the units. It's an intersection of people who have had something named after them, and if this were this a category it would struggle with WP:OCAT.
    2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. They aren't. Each article does not refer to the topic of the navbox, i.e. the naming of units after people, just the individual unit for that person.
    3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. No, they don't. Each article does not refer to the other people on the list, or the units named after them.
    4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. Okay, this one does exist, but this alone is not sufficient to have a navbox.
    5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. Absolutely not. Why would you link from one person to the other in a "See also" section? You might consider adding the topic of the navbox to a "See also" section, but not all of the other articles therein.

    These are not suitable groups for navboxes. The purpose of an encyclopaedia might be to answer readers' questions, and the articles exist to do that, but the purpose of a navbox is not. --woodensuperman 08:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think you can have read the articles very carefully before making those claims. I only checked the first three, but rapidly found a number of points that contradict your claim. Ampere's article crosslinks to Coulomb, Volta, Ohm, and Watt. It also links to the units named after them and discusses naming of units after scientists. Kelvin's article crosslinks to Maxwell, Faraday, Joule, Coulomb, Stokes, and Newton. Becquerel's article crosslinks to Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, and Röntgen. This shouldn't be surprising, these people built their work on those who had gone before. They are all interrelated. The links we have have grown in the articles organically, not with any defence of this template in mind. A concerted effort could probably put in many more. But why do that when we have the template to do it for us. SpinningSpark 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I meant that you wouldn't link to those articles because of this relationship. Any links would be for an existing relationship, not because of this trivial intersection. --woodensuperman 08:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, you still haven't read the articles. Ampere's article crosslinks for precisely that reason. It's only trivial in your opinion. The honour it imparts is far from trivial. The IEC did this as a matter of deliberate policy and the issue is widely discussed in sources. Particularly for electrical units, the link between the various scientists is not accidental or incidental. SpinningSpark 14:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it is only the André-Marie Ampère article that notes this, not the other contemporaries, but if the articles are well-linked where relevant, then that would make the navbox redundant anyway. There is nothing in common between André-Marie Ampère, Rolf Maximilian Sievert, Nikola Tesla, William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, etc, or between Loránd Eötvös, John Dalton, Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet, etc, and there would be no reason to navigate between them, so I'm afraid this does make this a trivial intersection. --woodensuperman 14:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • That you can put Lord Kelvin in that list shows you are utterly ignorant of the subject. Kelvin was a central figure in the standardisation of units and the naming of them after scientists. Consequently, a good many of them (both the scientist and the unit) could legitimately be mentioned in Kelvin's article. Try reading Lord Kelvin: His Influence on Electrical Measurements and Units. SpinningSpark 15:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • He still has nothing whatsoever to do with André-Marie Ampère, Rolf Maximilian Sievert or Nikola Tesla. Grouping them together in a navbox like this is not what navboxes are for. It's like making a navbox for places that have had cheeses named after them. --woodensuperman 15:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • You mean nothing other than being largely responsible for having the unit of current named after Ampere and setting the precedent in the IEC for the others in the future. By the way, he was also a personal friend of Stokes and corresponded with him frequently on scientific matters. I won't respond again. Please, be my guest and have the last word claiming this is trivial again. SpinningSpark 15:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, but no direct connection personally. Stokes and Kelvin appear on different navboxes by the way, so whether they were friends or not is irrelevant to the matter here. --woodensuperman 15:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Spinningspark. The deletion rationale appears to be, "There is no reason to list these people together, except for the reason to list them together." XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Spinningspark. If this template didn't exist, I would create it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a piece of trivia navigation. The units themselves can be encyclopedically grouped together in a navbox, not the scientists that they happen to be named after. And if there's a need to provide a navbox for the pre-eminent scientist of a given field, this will be independent of the happenstance that certain units would have been named after some of those scientists. – Uanfala (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Commentary: Maybe we could integrate the template into Template:SI units. --MaoGo (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SpinningSpark Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is fine to have a list but Navboxes are for navigation and this isn't useful as it is a trivial intersection of mostly unrelated people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No good case for deletion made while Spinningspark makes a good case for keep. ~Kvng (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2018 (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 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 redirect to Template:Rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom ; having already been merged (which is the consensus of this discussion) all that is left is to redirect the templates to the new template (which the closing script handles). Primefac (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Proposed rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Current rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom, Template:Proposed rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom and Template:Rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom.
Propose merging two "Current" and "Proposed" navboxes into one single "Rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom" navbox. Reason: current two navboxes cross-link using a wikilink that takes the user out of the article namespace and breaks the browsing experience. Merging the navboxes will get around this problem. This is an identical proposal to the successful proposal to merge UK TOCs navboxes and should be non-controversial. Cnbrb (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you pre-emptively created Template:Rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom? Why have you not tagged the templates, as directed at WP:TFM#Listing a template? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was being bold. I tagged the templates - apparently incorrectly - on the relevant talk page, which you then reverted. I am now trying to piece it all back together to put them in the right place. The directions are complicated, and it might have been more helpful if you had just moved the tags to the right place instead of removing them. It should be obvious that I am trying to follow directions correctly. Cnbrb (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sidebar, the instructions are far too complicated, it's why I stick to editing articles, templates are for computer programmers I think! I support the template merge, think having one wholesale infrastructure template makes much more sense, it looks much better, and will help with readers 'flowing' from one article to another doktorb _words^deeds 20:25, 1 May 2018 (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 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 2018 May 8. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FourTildes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).