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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sri Lankan Civil War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sri Lankan Conflict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Sri Lankan Conflict with Template:Sri Lankan Civil War.
I'm making this nomination on behalf of User:༆ . His reason was that they are "duplicate templates". This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge ((Sri Lankan Conflict)) to ((Sri Lankan Civil War)), same topic. ༆ (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Agree. But not everything on ((Sri Lankan Civil War)) needs to be included, it has links that are far too incidental. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:29, 31 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) 00:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tudor Years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created by a user with history of "non-constructive" editing and apparently vandal tendencies: serves no apparent useful purpose. There is a historian John Lotherington who wrote a book "Tudor Years" but this does not justify a template. Jpacobb (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but not for any ad hominem reason given by nominator (frequently unhelpful editors are not 100% unhelpful, and the alleged fact that the creator of this template has been such an editor is completely irrelevant). Nom is correct in the unwritten implication that the work this template references is not cited enough to need a template. Furthermore, the template does not conform to any WP citation style, so it's effectively useless twice over. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per SMcCandlish. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:30, 31 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 Withdrawn. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Palestine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:History of the Levant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:History of Palestine with Template:History of the Levant.
Don't these templates cover pretty much the same thing? There is a significant difference between the words "Palestine" and "Levant" but I wouldn't think that it would be enough to justify two different templates that would have pretty much the same list of articles in them if they were maintained. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose On second thought, the History of the Levant template would also cover Syria (the Northern Levant), not just Palestine (the Southern Levant). I'm not going to withdraw this because the question of if these should be merged should be raised, but I'm against merging them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn The more I think about this the more it seems like a bad idea. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:50, 27 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) 01:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redundant to HTML markup; contrary to the documentation, it is neither faster nor easier, since the editor must understand the HTML markup. Both templates are used in only one article each. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep: Contrary to Gadget850 above, users do not have to understand the HTML markup, which has been replaced with intuitive and well-documented template parameters. (Some of them require some CSS knowledge, but that's true regardless what markup is ever used on WP to do anything with CSS, and has nothing to do with this template pro or con). It's also obviously faster to type ((span|title=foo|bar)) than <span title="foo">bar</span> (6 characters shorter, to be exact). QED. They're not much used yet, but templates are cheap. These are not the sort of single-use templates that should be substituted and deleted, like an infobox used in only one article; their applicability is entirely general, and they simply haven't been noticed by many editors. Also, we have templates like this for most HTML markup that may be relevant on WP, so that users only need to learn wikimarkup, not also learn HTML. The days when just about everyone writing anything online was already an HTML expert are long, long gone (since around 1997), and it's absurd to expect people to learn HTML (actually XHTML) to edit Wikipedia. So, all four of the reasons nom gives for deletion are bogus. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been rendering HTML5 since mid-September. I stumbled across these templates in an article some months back and took a look at use. In the interest of disclosure, I did remove them from several articles, but did not replace them with the HTML, as neither was needed. Except in one article, where I ended up fixing a template. Neither template is now in use— ((span)) was used in Horus Heresy and ((div)) was used in Horus Heresy (novels). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per SMcCandlish , HTML should be encapsulated in wikicode, since this is a wiki, so people shouldn't need to be familiar with HTML -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, HTML should be abstracted away entirely. I think SMcCandlish has this backwards: this sort of utility template would probably have been far more useful in 1997 2007 when the majority of our templates used raw HTML, but in 2012 we have an extremely pervasive set of meta-templates which already provide pretty much all the building blocks one needs. It is correct to say that we do not want editors to have to learn HTML: it is wrong to suggest that they should therefore be pointed at a ((span)) which requires them to know all about the HTML span element anyway, except for the pointy brackets (which are trivial). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I just can't see much need for the use of div or span in an article. Anywhere it might be needed, it could probably be implemented by some other template. Templates that replicate obsolete markup such as ((big)) or ((strikethrough)) are useful, since the replacements are CSS in a span. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, where markup is actually deprecated it is handy to have templateised shortcuts (I'm thinking ((color)) here). That doesn't mean we need to reimplement every basic HTML element as a template, though. At some level, editors working on templates will have to deal with HTML, and indirecting this one layer up doesn't really benefit anyone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And here is an example of <div> used in an article, where I replaced it with templates. Using ((div)) would not have made it any simpler or more understandable to novices. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: These templates don't offer much. The level of absraction is very little and anyone using them still needs to know about the html attributes to use them. Better to have more abstracted templates used for a single purpose such as ((color)). -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, we should create templates for their function, not for their implementation. for example, the ((small)) template makes text smaller, the ((color)) template colors text, ((nobold)) removes bolding, and ((resize)) resizes text. this is in contrast to ((span)) and ((div)) which are simple templating an existing html tag. the nice thing about ((small)), ((color)), ((nobold)), and ((resize)) is that the implementation can change, but the function remains the same. this is not the case for ((span)) and ((div)). Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 31 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) 01:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Save Mart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

links 2 existing articles, no need for a navbox Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, adding links if necessary to the see also section. Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 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) 01:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

too many red links to make it a useful navigation aid. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. With only one valid blue link (the others all redirect back to the main article), this template navigates you nowhere. Senator2029 • talk 21:31, 28 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) 01:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miracle Bell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox that serves no useful navigational purpose. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - links only to the band's main page; WP:NENAN.  Gongshow ^Talk 12:30, 27 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) 01:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heathers (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox that serves no useful navigational purpose. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. There appear to be some charting albums/singles, so if those have individual articles in the future then a navbox would probably be warranted. In the meantime, it links only to the band's main page.  Gongshow ^Talk 12:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. With only one blue link, this template navigates you nowhere. Senator2029 • talk 22:02, 28 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.