Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 6

< April 5	April 7 >

April 6

Template:Whitney family of Connecticut

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 April 15. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Whitney_family_of_Connecticut (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
).

Template:Coats of arms of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics

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 April 15. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coats_of_arms_of_the_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Coats_of_arms_of_the_Soviet_Republics (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
).

Template:Coats of arms of the krais of Russia

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 Template:Coats of arms of the krais of Russia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coats of arms of the krais of Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

Propose merging

Template:Coats of arms of the republics of Russia

.
Please see below. PPEMES (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A navbox is supposed to link between articles - non of CoAs at {{Coats of arms of the autonomous okrugs of Russia}} have an article. The only links there are to the images. If a gallery is wanted for the images then it should be used correctly. As this is used only on Armorial of Russia there is not even a need for a template. Just create an image gallery. --Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 6 April 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:Coats of arms of the oblasts of Russia

Template:Coats of arms of the autonomous oblasts of Russia

Template:Coats of arms of the autonomous okrugs of Russia

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 Template:Coats of arms of the autonomous okrugs of Russia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coats of arms of the autonomous okrugs of Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

Propose merging

Template:Coats of arms of the republics of Russia

.
Perhaps with final name "Coats of arms of federal subjects of Russia" (c.f.

Subdivisions of Russia). PPEMES (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. A navbox is supposed to link between articles - non of CoAs at {{Coats of arms of the autonomous okrugs of Russia}} have an article. The only links there are to the images. If a gallery is wanted for the images then it should be used correctly. As this is used only on Armorial of Russia there is not even a need for a template. Just create an image gallery. --Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 06:47, 11 April 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:Infobox heraldic knot

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) 14:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox heraldic knot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox knot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox heraldic knot with Template:Infobox knot.

WP:INFOCOL: would perhaps heraldic apsects be interesting, where relevant, for knots in general? What the general knot details, including image where available, be interesting for heraldic knots? PPEMES (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose. The nominator fails to establish any benefit of this merge. Templates are here to support readers and editors. Both are quite well targeted and specific in scope. This proposed merge appears to do neither. By merging these two dissimilar templates, we are likely to deter editors, and result in worse articles for readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't want to know more about actual details of knots that are used in heradlry, and we absolutely must not let people who are looking up knots know about their heraldic aspects and application? Verboten? PPEMES (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "See also" would be more than adequate. Manannan67 (talk) 06:39, 10 April 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:Infobox heraldic tincture

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) 14:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox heraldic tincture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox heraldic tincture with Template:Infobox color.

WP:INFOCOL: Heraldic aspects could be interesting, where relevant, for plain colours. Plain colour details could be interesting for heraldic tinctures. PPEMES (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose how on earth does combining these templates improve either articles or editing? Heraldic tinctures have a very clearly defined scope and is very well targeted, as well as being specific for a subset of articles. How will adding new fields to the widely used color, or trying to smush heraldic tincture into the very different color infobox, going to improve the experience of editors or readers? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as argued above? PPEMES (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how "could be interesting" is a persuasive argument. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As in helpful and relevant information to the readers. PPEMES (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The heraldic bit would drown entirely in a common template. Tinctures is a distinct topic. -

Ssolbergj (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose: Per Tom (LT). Tincture is a targeted, distinct, and much narrower scope than color. I don't think it makes sense to add fields that will very rarely be used to the very widely used color template. Goodnightmush ^Talk 13:54, 6 April 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:Hatching table

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 April 15. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hatching_table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tinctures (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
).