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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, after substitution Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Glastonbury Festival 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Glastonbury Festival 2009 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

suggest merging with the article, then deleting. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, after substitution Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Glastonbury Festival 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Glastonbury Festival 2010 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

suggest merging with the article, then deleting. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TVF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

was only being used in one article, seems to be borderline linkspam. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the linked to maps seems like it could be useful on all US/Canada TV station articles. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or better yet userfy unless userfy until it is actually used. The basic contour map is redundant to the FCC contour map which can be found through((FCC-TV-Station-profile)). This template provides details including signal strength an approximate range through an indoor antenna. I've already added the URL this template uses to Template talk:FCC-TV-Station-profile so it won't get lost. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC) updated in light of 70.24.247.66's comments below. I would prefer a "smart" template that went to official government-agency data if it was available then defaulted to commercially-provided data as a backup. Official data is, well, more official. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the FCC doesn't regulate Canadian TV stations, so how does that work? The TVF template works for Canadian stations. As for not currently used, we could roll it out across all stations if it's kept, and it's pretty pointless to roll it out only for it to be deleted. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canadian station CFTO: ((TVF|CFTO))
• TV Fool map of analog - digital - other signal strength for CFTO on a Google map

((FCC-TV-Station-profile|CFTO)) [1]

Clearly the FCC template does not work for Canadian stations while TVF does. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Contour maps, regardless of which source one chooses to use, are not a critical feature of a Wikipedia article at all. Regardless of whether one uses the FCC or TVFool versions, they're approximations that are arrived at by applying default propagation assumptions to a set of transmitter data and then sticking lines on a Google Map to depict what should happen to a station's signal (which, given the sheer number of factors that can affect signal propagation one way or another, is not necessarily what actually does happen.) They are not authoritative technical documents that an encyclopedia should be relying on for any purpose -- although it's true that one can see a contour map from an American TV station's FCC profile, the contour map is not the principally relevant aspect of the profile for our purposes, and there's no valid reason for us to provide a direct link to one, regardless of the provider, as it's not a properly encyclopedic feature. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Minutes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for a band with an article for only a single album. WP:NENAN - fails to aid navigation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With only one link beyond the band's main article, navbox does not seem warranted at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 15:43, 23 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus here, but feel free to continue the discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Research participant rights (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is a proposal for a three-template merge that was posted at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers - to merge Template:Research participant rights, Template:Medical ethics cases and Template:Medical ethics into a single template. This was proposed by Niels Olson (talk · contribs) and I'm bringing discussion her on his behalf. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the original post at Proposed Merges:

Template:Medical_ethics and Template:Research_participant_rights should be merged and Template:Medical_ethics_cases should probably be merged in as well. IF this merge is accepted by the community, I'm happy to do the work. A draft is available here: User:Niels_Olson/Template:Medical_ethics. Niels Olson (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I do not like overly broad navigational boxes. The medical ethics cases box has about 30 entries and no one would ever think to put it on articles like religion, [[etiquette], Health equity, Gifts, or many of the other articles in the very broad template:medical ethics. People interested in research participant rights are not usually interested in the entire field of medical ethics and from professional, academic, or practical standpoints, health research ethics and healthcare ethics are distinct. I would support multiple templates being put on the same page, but just as it would not be right to put all three of these templates on every article to which they link, it would not be right to merge them into one template and put them on everything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see you are the author of the research participant rights template! Thank you for your insight. I think I understand you are concerned about something one might describe as feature creep? While I agree that is a possibility, I think the Pareto principle also applies: anyone interested in any of these three topics will be interested in 80% of the other content, yet only 20% of the people arriving at these articles have sufficient interest to be aware of these broader contextual issues. As a biomedical reasearcher, for example, I was deeply affected that research participants felt obligated to have their own template: of course their physicians should be concerned and knowledgable about their ethical concerns, we should have seen this need first! Further, it is an inherent problem of medicine that the sets usually have many, many elements (as a physics major who went into medicine, I strove valiantly to overcome this, but have accepted reality). Perhaps a short navbox with columns would be a reasonable compromise, as we see at the bottom of many medical templates, eg Template:Gram-positive_bacterial_diseases? Niels Olson (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both have in mind two proposals - one is "Should there be a merge?", and the other is "Should these two existing templates be merged into the existing medical ethics template?". For the latter case, I still have to unequivocally say no. The medical ethics template is low-quality because it links to many articles which are not obviously related to the concept of medical ethics. The other two templates, while they have more narrow scope, actually all link to information in the same topic field. If these two working navboxes get merged into a non-functional navbox, no good is done. At least the medical ethics box should be fixed for what it does before considering whether it should subsume other content.

To the more general question of could a good medical ethics box be created, and then have other boxes merge into it, I would say maybe. It is unusual to see something as particular as a list of case studies in a box with such a broad scope. Biomedical articles often have large templates, like the gram-postive one you shared, but in that case the box is still only covering a single field, and not combining biomedical science, philosophy, applied ethics, history, and case studies. If a single navbox were to be made containing so much information in so many fields in a such a mix of highly-specific and very general, then that would be unusual and likely without precedent.

I have no objection to the creation of a new navbox with columns. I think all of these articles could use more interconnection. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

navbox with columns then. I suppose we should let this gestate for a bit before executing, but I'll put it on my to-do list. Feel free to beat me to it :-) Niels Olson (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning both about clinial research and about wikipedia, but still I think that I should share my thoughts. I think that research participants rights should be grouped together but the new suggestion of merging it with other things will clutter the information and will be confusing. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.