< March 7 March 9 >

March 8

Template:2020 Summer Olympics men's volleyball match A1

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 subst and delete per the discussion below, as well as this discussion at WT:OLYMPICS. Incidentally I've already started converting some of these, and I will be doing the other (similar) ones in the coming days. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; Content has been merged into the main article Volleyball at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament. In place section headings replace the need for endless templates. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

delete after content merge. Frietjes (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason to keep these in templates. --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2020 (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:Keaton Henson

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 2020 March 16. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:01, 16 March 2020 (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:Gold Coast (Baja California)

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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main article for this template, Gold Coast (Baja California) has been deleted, so no use for this template. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:36, 8 March 2020 (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:Di-replaceable fair use disputed

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 keep. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only 14 transclusions, mostly on talk pages, although the template carries a footer saying "This template should only be used on file description pages." Appears to only have been used for brief period in 2013. Purpose is said to be to dispute speedy deletion of non-free images, for which it is non-standard, not needed and not something most editors are aware of. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2020 (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:Issno

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 2020 March 16. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:47, 16 March 2020 (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:Middle-earth races

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 2020 March 16. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:48, 16 March 2020 (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:Inadequate lead

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 Discussion moved
By nominator, to here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_13#Template:Inadequate_lead

Due to my intention no longer being a simple merger due to new information. Couldn't easily incorporate the new plan or info into this discussion; it was just too messy.

I take it that because this is not a talk page, I'm allowed to do this. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to proper closing format by * Pppery * it has begun... 02:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Inadequate lead with Template:Lead too short.
Note from nominator (10 March): do not merge if the discussion succeeds. The nominator is assessing each use of ((Inadequate lead)) and converting to ((Lead too short)) or ((Lead rewrite)) as appropriate (would welcome help). A redirect of ((Inadequate lead)) to ((Lead rewrite)) could then take place (reflecting the name). Merging/redirecting will remove the parameter use case page of ((Inadequate lead)) (because it won't have TemplateData).

Don't quite see the point of having both of these templates exist. The wording is almost identical, and the intention described in the documentation of ((Inadequate lead)) seems to be better covered by ((Lead rewrite)) (which could be edited/expanded to suffice, as mentioned by several editors).

((Lead too short)) is older (2006, vs. ((Inadequate lead))'s 2010) and has about 16x more transclusions (8,326, vs. ((Inadequate lead))'s 527). Those links will also show you some invalid "reason" use cases, which show that the use been practically identical for both templates.

This merger was previously nominated in 2011, and in 2012 the template was boldly merged, reverted then nominated for merging immediately after.

This merger was also previously discussed in 2014 (section "((Lead too short)) vs. ((Inadequate lead)) (2014)", can't link it due to transclusions). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old explanation. The purpose of the lead is to introduce and summarize (i.e., list the main points of) the article. Length is not an issue in itself. If the lead lists all the main points and introduces well the article, while being short, it's even a good thing. Note added: I just learned that there is apparently an expectation of some minimal length. Still, I feel the most important is that it introduces the article and summarizes all its main points.Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note added. I just read the discussion for the previous merge request. The argument in favor of "too short" was that it is an heuristic to avoid a summary that does not cover the key points. My counter argument is that obviously this heuristic is not easily understood because we would not need this discussion otherwise. So I strongly disagree that "too short" is a good heuristic to achieve the goal. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The present proposal is to merge two templates that simply do nt address the same issue. You are raising an additional proposal here. So after this discussion is closed, feel free to propose a merge of inadequate lead and lead rewrite, and I'll consider it. For procedural reasons, this is not the place for that proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: As I'm sure you know, the issue turned out to be more nuanced than I could've expected. I'm trying my best when it comes to sorting out these 3 templates. It's too late for me to radically shift the purpose of this discussion. I'm doing what I can while people continue to give their views on this mess of a discussion. I should probably just close it and start all over. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeNoel:. Yes, perhaps if we read the text, they appear redundant, but the title is very important. If we are going to change the title (and perhaps the text) to emphasize the need for an adequate **summary**, then yes, I would totally agree with a merge. The key point is that too short does not convey the most important. A longer lead is not at all a good objective in itself. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; an article lead can be inadequate in many ways, which makes choosing from a selection of templates designed for specific purposes difficult. Of course, if one is able to correct the problem without having to use the template, that's the preferred option, but a flexible template definitely helps. Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really think that there are essentially two main criteria for a good lead: it must be a summary of the key points and it must be an introduction. In French, we call it the "résumé introductif", which translates as "introductive summary". The "not too short" criteria is implicit in the summary criteria. It's useful to bring out these two different aspects using templates. An introduction is not at all the same thing as a summary. For example, in a business plan, the summary and the introduction are two separate components. I like that Wikipedia has the concept of combining both: we avoid these summaries that nobody understand and are only good for search engines. At the same time, we need to bring out these two aspects clearly with the help of dedicated templates. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also wanted to remind all opposers of ((Lead rewrite)).
Let me reaffirm: I would envision that ((Inadequate lead)) is merged to ((Lead too short)) in the way it reads and is being used now; but that ((Lead rewrite)) take up much of the former intended role (which itself is quite redundant; I probably mean name) of ((Inadequate lead)), which reflects how ((Lead rewrite)) being used now (i.e., it could be expanded/clarified to mention, "This lead may be inadequate or in need of rewriting."). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2020 (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:Arda Realms Age1

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/delete. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Arda Realms Age1 with Template:Middle-earth.
3 links in the template, 2 of which are already in ((Middle-earth)). Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I'm not used to templates-for-deletion. The template was and again now is transcluded only in the three articles (Lothlórien, Moria (Middle-earth), Beleriand) that remain in the template, all the others having been deleted by various editors as redirects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2020 (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:Ethnic groups in the State of Palestine

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 Template:Palestine topics. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ethnic groups in the State of Palestine with Template:Palestine topics.
I was thinking first about merging the two minor templates. But then I thought, why not merge them both with the larger template for a better overview and less duplicate information? PPEMES (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2020 (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:Category navigation television stations established in year

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. Replaced by ((Television channels and stations established or disestablished in year category)). Gonnym (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure: I created the new ((Television channels and stations established or disestablished in year category)) and the old ((Teldisestcat))). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 8 March 2020 (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).
More