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) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Martial arts by country of origin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been problematic for a long time (see its talk page). It has become totally unmanageable and deviated from its original intent. There is no selection of articles with organization better served by the main martial arts template, categories and lists. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...

I like the purpose of the template, but... Now that I look at it, it's simply too big and unwieldy ...and the "Modern or hybrid"-part, rather goes against the whole "by country of origin" idea, by categorizing by style/time instead.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The envisioned purpose is to delete so that it gets removed from all the articles after which a nested template inside the main martial arts template can be created.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the Martial Arts Info box, I disagree with the deletion of this template. The Martial Arts template is extremely problematic as multiple martial arts fall into multiple subcategories listed in the template. Migrating all the martial arts listed in the Martial Arts by region template to Martial Arts is going to be extremely problematic. For example, Wing Chun also includes weapons training with Butterfly Knives and the long pole. Arnis/Eskrima/Kali also include empty hands striking, locking, trapping and takedowns (thus occupying the Weapons, Striking and Grappling categories simultaneously. Where do you place it?). The same with Silat which makes heavy use of empty hands striking, grappling and weapons. The Martial Arts by Country/Region of origin template may duplicate many entries in the Martial Arts template, but it serves a very important and informative purpose which is to display regions of origin at a glance. You may find it a mess, but that's the nature of Martial Arts and it will get more complex if it gets more comprehensive and exhaustive. Do not delete unless you can create an expandable section in the Martial Arts template where all the existing by region/country of origin info can be migrated. The Modern/Hybrid section also belongs and should not be removed as they are composed of martial arts from multiple countries of origin. Aside from this, the "at a glance" information about "pure" and "hybrid" martial arts is very useful stuff, especially for scholars and historians (and generally anyone who wants to learn martial arts). -Object404 (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are supposed to be aids to navigation not exhaustive lists.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Can you provide a policy reference for that statement? Can you also elaborate what "its original intent" intent is? This is not meant as sarcasm, but as genuine concern as the list by region template has been very informative in learning about different martial arts. -Object404 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please just take a look at the template documentation - go to the template and scroll down.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, one major problem with this template is that it encourages nationalism in the sense of more articles according to national origin. And yes, I say national rather than regional. A case in point being the unnecessary articles on Bangladeshi martial arts, Irish martial arts, etc. As has been said, a template is not meant to be an exhaustive list. If someone does want a to see the martial arts by regional origin, they can easily look at the list of martial arts. Besides, as the template becomes larger and longer it's hardly "at a glance" anymore. The first row of the martial arts template should suffice. Morinae (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Actually, the Martial Arts template also suffers from "nationalism" and favoritism. Who gets to choose which particular martial arts get their own entry on the Martial Arts template, and which martial arts get taken out? As it is, it already suffers from edit tug-of-wars with items being added and deleted. The martial arts by region template is more democratic and equitable for scholarly information. -Object404 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, massively over formatted. navboxes are for navigation, not for indented multicolumn flagged lists. that's what List of martial arts is for. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I think the emphasis with the "This template is for navigation, not for the purposes of exhaustively listing martial arts" is "do not add martial arts for which an article has not been created". As for the guideline itself, is it a general guideline for all wikipedia templates, or just one placed here by the article originator User:Jdcollins13? Can't an article's scope and use evolve beyond its orginator's original purpose as it now belongs to the global community? As it is, it's good for navigating the wide range of martial arts articles and good for reading up on the different styles from regions and countries. Its breadth is actually pretty useful. If the template is to be deleted, a link to the "list of martial arts by region/country" article should be placed on every single martial art page to mimic its functionality, and even then, doing that wouldn't. What you're basically doing here is a form of martial arts "racism" or exclusivity by deleting this template - there are more martial arts in the world than just the most popular ones in the everyday layperson's awareness, and you'll be killing awareness of the existence of these regional martial arts because all the martial arts pages will be left with is Template:Martial arts which suffers from A LOT of bias and favoritism. -Object404 (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exhaustive listing of martial arts with articles is given in the List of Martial arts. Even now the template does not cover all martial arts and if it did it would be even worse.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2014 (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) 22:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Derived Planck units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is only used in one article. I recommend substituting it there and then deleting Ego White Tray (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• substitute and delete. Frietjes (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2014 (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.