Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16

[edit]

Template:Clade and Template:Cladex

[edit]
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 April 24. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:50, 24 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).

Template:3gen

[edit]
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 April 24. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:49, 24 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).

Template:Ancestors

[edit]
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:Ahnentafel. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ancestors with Template:Ahnentafel.
Please see below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:24, 16 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).

Template:Pedigree

[edit]
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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Pedigree with Template:Ahnentafel.
Please see below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:24, 16 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).

Template:S-anc

[edit]
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 April 24. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:48, 24 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).

Template:Ahnentafel-tree

[edit]
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 April 24. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:49, 24 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).

Template:Abm

[edit]
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 Procedural close. Moved to correct venue. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correlation of the abbreviation "abm" with albums (see abm), especially when the just as simple to use {{album}} template exists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars WP:RFD is the correct place to nominate a template redirect Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wrong venue. Additionally, "Abm" are three letters in the word "album". This TfD is extremely similar to the 2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the 2014 RfD about Template:wprk, which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity. There are several templates like this, such as {{Tb}} which is not about tuburculosis, {{pot}} which is not about cannabis, {{hat}} which is not about headwear, etc. WP:R#D8 does not apply as this is not an article space redirect. WP:R#D2 does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
  1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{abm}} has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. "Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete."
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it confused. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:06, 16 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).

Module:DigitLocalizer

[edit]
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⚡ 06:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unnecessary as enwiki only uses one numeral system. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:29, 16 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).

Module:Plain text

[edit]
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 April 27. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 27 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).

Template:San Diego Padres retired numbers

[edit]
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 April 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:57, 28 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).

Template:Hera Pheri series

[edit]
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. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 13:52, 16 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).

Template:Shiva Rajkumar

[edit]
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) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an actor's filmography it fails WP:FILMNAV --woodensuperman 13:50, 16 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).

Template:Infobox military award

[edit]
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. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox military award with Template:Infobox award.
Worth evaluating since much overlapping. Perhaps the final resulting template should be named Template:Infobox distinction. If not, then perhaps a merge with Template:Infobox order could be an alternative. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:INFOCOL User:Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 14:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose I am plus minus on merging into infobox award because military awards tend to be for military action of some sort, which you'd be hard press to capture correctly in a generic infobox award template. That being said, there is some merit to infobox order since order captures some military awards, however again the problem of military specific criteria emerges in that most military awards you get for having been in combat of some kind. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging – I do NOT support the merger of Template:Infobox military award with Template:Infobox award. The former template is for specific military awards like medals (see military awards and decorations), whereas the latter template is for awards such as the Academy Awards, so they are different concepts. I edit a number of articles that use Template:Infobox military award, and I find that template to be very useful. After looking at the two templates, I note that Template:Infobox military award has many parameters that do not appear in Template:Infobox award, and vice versa. Most of the Template:Infobox military award parameters display very specific wording that is highly relevant for articles about military decorations, but this particular wording is usually not suitable at all for non-military awards. Because of these concerns, I feel that it would be much better to keep these as separate templates. That way, each template can serve its specific purpose, with the parameters that are the most appropriate ones. With regard to Template:Infobox order, that is very useful for every order of chivalry, which is generally quite different than a military award like a medal, so I would NOT support the merger of Template:Infobox military award with Template:Infobox order. -- Blairall (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger - The Awards template focuses, in usage, on civilian awards ceremonies like the Grammy Awards, or the Emmy Awards where the military awards template will inherently track vastly different fields of information. Keep them separate and let them be improved to their own ends.--John Cline (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger - Orders and National Hero titles are very different from trophies and olympic medals.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - they are are too different and have too many parameters that aren't shared. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:42, 22 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).

Template:Nazi Germany occupations

[edit]
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 April 25. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:28, 25 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).

Template:German administrative territories

[edit]
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 April 25. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:28, 25 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).

Template:Administrative divisions of Nazi Germany

[edit]
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 April 25. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:28, 25 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).

Template:Super Dancer

[edit]
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) 02:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to navigate --woodensuperman 10:11, 16 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).

Template:Zara Nachke Dikha

[edit]
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 April 24. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:33, 24 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).

Mass Fb team templates Japan (3)

[edit]
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) 02:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old style, no need, even some of are redlinks, should be subst or replaced by other template or style, such as using Module:Sports results and Module:Sports table. Previous discussions plaese see WT:FOOTY. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:37, 16 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).

Template:LGBT films list lead

[edit]
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) 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Templates should not be used to store article text — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (template creator): The relevant guideline is in Wikipedia:Template namespace § guidelines: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content (emphasis mine). All of the affected text was (and were previously) identical aside from the year, so the template doesn't change the article text, and standardizes the phrasing of the leads. I think this raises two questions:

  1. Should the lead text be basically identical across the List of LGBT-related films by year lists?
  2. And if basically identical text is deemed acceptable, is template use justified?

For question 1, I am uncertain, and have already raised this concern at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Boilerplate leads in lists. For question 2, if identical lead phrasing across articles is deemed acceptable, the templates are meant to standardize the text.

If this deletion discussion is in favor of removing the lead templates, do not remove them by undoing each of the edits, as a few of the edits fixed some erronious text. Instead, I can quickly remove them in a semi-automated way by changing each template to {{subst:LGBT films list lead}}. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst (neutral on deletion versus keeping as subst-only) as more unnecessary use of templates for article text. I was going to suggest LST-ifying, but that doesn't work when the template takes parameters, forcing a simple substitution and duplication. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion about LST and Pppery's subst vote
@Pppery: What is "LST-ifying"? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is a jargony term. It means converting to use labeled section transclusion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: The template only takes one parameter that's important, and I can easily modify that to pre-check and fill it in. The template mainly functions through page title parsing; would that work with LST? I'm admittedly unfamiliar with LST, and am currently reading the page to try to understand it. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: (Fixing ping.) E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably would technically work, but I'd oppose it anyway on the grounds of needless pollution of articles with template coding (yes, I am aware there's a fine line between this) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: The thing is, I don't see this template as needless, because the leads are all identical, and standard phrasing is not necessarily negative for a set of lists because lists are defined based on fixed criteria; my opinion is if the leads are not customized, the template is a recognition of that. This is not the exclude future variation if it has a point (e.g. "the 60's were a time when LGBT related film releases began to increase in frequency, and were defined by X and Y.) Even with variation, this template could simply serve as a basis for standardizing the lists' inclusion criteria.
I am probably missing some of your concerns, and I invite you to express them if I am. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have two related but distinct beliefs here. 1: Templates should not be articles -- no text that can be stored in mainspace should be stored in templates 2: Articles should not be templates and should not contain markup like {{PAGENAME}} or {{#if}}. Given that the leads of the lists are not exactly identical (some numbers change), it is impossible to satisfy both of these goals without duplicating the text. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I suspect it may come down to a difference in values then. #1 makes sense as a general rule, but I think specific exceptions can be made, and I think this case warrants an exception. I completely agree with #2. I'm unsure what you meant when you said "Given that the leads of the lists are not exactly identical (some numbers change), it is impossible to satisfy both of these goals without duplicating the text." By those beliefs, wouldn't you still oppose the use of templates even if the leads were (hypothetically) completely identical, because of belief #1? Also, I suspect I already know the answer, but what is the rationale for belief #1? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 13:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Were the leads completely identical, I would !vote LST-ify. To the second question, that belief is an extrapolation from the relevant paragraph of WP:TMPG quoted above. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Template creator): After reviewing the history of that guideline, I continue to think this template should be kept. The template is an extrapolation of all the leads being functionally identical. I don't find the triviality of the different years, which prevents LST, as a convincing argument for preventing template transclusion. I think the template should be kept unless the specific list have custom phrasing (I gave a potential example above in the collapsed part); I see no reason for allowing divergence in the criteria or grammer to occur within individual list articles. However, I recognize that I am biased in favor of my own template. Because I want to understand the general consensus on this issue, I have notified those who participated in the most recent discussion on the scope of templates at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. @Pppery: you are welcome to reply to this comment. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 20:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a misuse of the template namespace to store what amounts to an extremely narrow bit of article text. If editors wish to keep this text consistent, it should be done in other ways. This use sets a bad precedent for other lists which group topics by year. In theory, the slippery slope could extend not only to list leads but other parts of the page as well. SUBST it. Kill it. With fire. -- Netoholic @ 20:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: Just a note on your "If editors wish to keep this text consistent, it should be done in other ways" comment, this is the most viable on-wiki way to maintain this. I suppose a bot task could check the article text across articles and report on it, but it would be more difficult to maintain, and overall ensure less consistency. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're attempting to use a template to make one particular line of text conform across several article. I think you need to remember that this is a wiki. If people change the line on one particular list, then maybe its a reasonable change. You should not be putting barriers up. -- Netoholic @ 09:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: I have no problem with the text being changed; this is a wiki after all. What I do see as problematic is non-specific changes to a particular list, i.e. unrelated to the list's year or decade, because these changes should be treated as proposed changes to the set of lists' criteria. Currently, the lead text reads "This is a list of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films released in year or decade. It contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device." If someone wanted to, for example, remove the word "important", it wouldn't make sense for that one individual article's criteria to be inconsistent with every other article.
Regarding the argument that "You should not be putting barriers up.", this "barrier"'s purpose is to ensure list criteria consistency across as set of related pages, as I elaborated in the previous paragraph. It does make it more difficult to edit the content, but no one has proposed individualized phrasing for the leads. Even a new editor could likely figure out the basics of template transclusion by trial-and-error. They may not be able to edit the template text, but they could probably figure out to delete and replace the template transclusion for an individualized phrasing, and that could be evaluated as appropriate. There are plenty of other things new editors cannot edit if they don't understand template transclusion like navboxes and sidebar formatting; unless you have an individualized format to recommend for the list leads, I am of the opinion they should be in templates for cross-article consistency. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't have a problem with templates being used for consistency of (small) amounts of article content in this manner; I don't feel that it contravenes the principle of the guidelines. I'm not convinced that the text needs to be identical and invariant between lists in this manner, but I don't have a problem with it being the case so long as further context could be added — for example (with ‡‡ added here to make the divide between the template text and the additional context more obvious for this discussion):

This is a list of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films released in year or decade. It contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device. ‡‡ Year or decade was notable in LGBT+ culture because event meant that cultural consequences and Some Film became the first film to depict something or other. At the same time, another event had seemingly unrelated consequence, which led to some other thing that impacted the LGBT+ community in some other more-direct manner.

In nearly 14 years of editing Wikipedias, I had never heard of labelled section transclusion; I'm not sure that's as editor-friendly, particularly for people using VisualEditor and I don't have objections to both technologies (Templates and LST) being used in different places. Certainly LST feels like a much greater barrier than template transclusion, which is handled pretty elegantly in VisualEditor. I don't personally feel that the distinction between article content being in template space is quite so black-and-white as some editors believe. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenBlacker: Interesting use of the ‡. Presumably it would not be formatted in red text if it was included in the article? I've never seen ‡ used in that way, could you provide an example where it is? If separation is desirable, I think a simple paragraph break would suffice for separating the boilerplate criteria text from the more specific significance. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 18:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E to the Pi times i: Sorry, I was only using the daggers to make it clear in this discussion where that division was. I was not intending that the division would be highlighted in articles. I've edited my comment above to make that clearer. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mardu: I have to agree. You may want to revise your comment or clarify it. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete to enable each article to be edited independently. --woodensuperman 11:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An ill-suited technical deep-level editing of conventional list articles which should be avoided for the convenience of any common editor passing by. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a better way to maintain consistency across articles, and I agree that consistency is beneficial. I have voted in favor of forcing substitution of similar templates so each article can establish it's own standards and document standards at the time of list creation. Across multiple articles, I think this is a good practice and agree with WP:TG. However, I consider all the lists linked from List of LGBT-related films by year to be essentially one article with one set of inclusion standards broken up in summary style. (I think all the talk pages should redirect to Talk:List of LGBT-related films by year as well.)
The likely alternative seems to be labeled section transclusion. The only difference experienced by the reader is whether the lead will mention the date, which won't be possible labeled section transclusion. This seems like a loss for the reader due to technical limitations we're imposing for supposed ease of editing. Thus I think this is a reasonable case of WP:IAR.
If the decision is to delete, we could merge the template into List of LGBT-related films by year inside onlyinclude tags. It's a bit of a hack, and probably less editor-friendly, but it might satisfy those determined to move article text out of the template namespace. {{Ping}} me if you need help with this. Daask (talk) 14:27, 20 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).

Template:Yahwistic titles of Jesus in Greek

[edit]
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 April 24. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 24 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_16&oldid=1142562376"