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 with NPASR. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Split section portions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A barely-used wrapper for ((split portions|section=y)), with which it can simply be replaced in the few transclusions. We don't need ((foo section)) redirects for every template with a |section=y (though a few widely used ones like ((unreferenced section)) should probably be retained).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's a wrapper, so there's no extraneous extra full templates. I see no reason why we can't have wrappers for section-specific template forms. This suggests splitting portions of a section and not an entire section -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a wrapper because I just converted it into one from being an extraneous full template. There are not enough uses of this particular one to retain a wrapper for it to pass a single parameter. The use of ((split section portions)) saves a grand total of three characters over use of ((split portions|section=y)). I have not yet gone through the small number of uses of this template, but I'd bet good money that many of them should be converted to another template anyway. More often than not, people actually want ((split section)); it's quite rare to need to do a formal split of content that is only a portion of a section (and with the content in question not also forming a subsection – i.e. a section that can be tagged with ((split section))). PS: The majority of transclusions of ((split section portions)) are actually using the mal-named redirects ((move section portions)) and ((move section portions to)) ("Move" mean "article rename" in WP jargon, so these redir names are confusing). Thus, this template is not being used consistently, and no one appears to be wedded to its continued existence (which is not the case with a widely used wrapper like ((split section)) [note the singular], also a wrapper for ((split portions)) but one that is widely and consistently used and should thus be retained).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is not identical to the ((split sections)) but the rationale indicates the same coding, this cannot be, since they have different text. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination has nothing to do with ((split sections)) (see nom below), but ((split section)), which is a different template (for which ((split sections)) is an even more pointless wrapper). And that wouldn't be a valid rationale against the merge/redirect anyway; we routinely do away with redundant templates that do not functionally differ, but are divergent only in presentation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:48, 10 November 2015 (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).

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 with NPASR. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Split sections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A barely-used wrapper for ((split portions|sections=y)), with which it can simply be replaced in the few transclusions, though it would be better to replace it with something more appropriate. This one in particular is pointless, as the resultant output is not actually helpful, amounting to "some sections, that I refuse to bother to identify, should be split." If any entire section(s) should be split, the template to use is ((Split section)) in the section(s) to be split. If content diffused across multiple sections needs to be split out, the template to use is ((Split portions|portion=description of the material in question)), at the top of the article. I'm going down the list of transclusions and so far have not found one that is appropriate, and have been replacing it with something more useful in each case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep it's a wrapper, so there's no extraneous extra full templates. I see no reason why we can't have wrappers for section-specific template forms. This suggests splitting sections off instead of other portions of articles, like paragraphs. It would provide a top-banner to go along with ((split section)) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a wrapper because I just converted it into one from being an extraneous full template. And as noted, its output is not helpful. The |sections=y parameter of the parent template can actually be "retired", and the documentation now notes that it is usually not a helpful parameter to use. In going through uses of ((split section)) in articles and converting inappropriate ones to more appropriate, more specific templates, it ended up that a grand total of zero of them were useful instances of this template (now wrapper). It has never had any reason to exist, as far as I can tell, and seems to have been created because someone wasn't sure what pre-existing template to use. If anyone believes that a section should be split off, but has no idea what an appropriate name for the new article could be, they can use ((Split section)) with no parameters. If they think that some material in an article should be split, but they can't narrow it to a specific section because of how it's integrated into the article, but they can narrow it topically, they can use ((tlx|Split portions|portion=topical description of material to split out|Proposed title for new article. If someone just has a vague sense that the article should be split somehow, they can use ((Split)) with no parameters. And so on. There are no use cases for this template/wrapper that are not covered by pre-existing templates, and more specific options of them, than the vague "some sections", nor were there enough uses of this particular one to retain a wrapper for it just to pass a single parameter, especially since none of them turned out to be proper uses of it to begin with, just lazy/imprecise ones that were easily made more specific with other templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:45, 10 November 2015 (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).

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 ((Age in years, months and days)). Functionality is duplicated, and the concerns regarding the leap years is valid (since there is no requirement for this to be used in a particular location or timeframe). Primefac (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:How long ago (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should be deleted for 3 main reasons:

1. The code is a mess
2. It doesn't take into account 100- and 400-year leap-year rules
3. its function is better served by ((For_year_month_day)), to which reasons 1 and 2 do not apply

A bot could be used to handle current instances of the template's use, and at that point, I wouldn't see any reason to keep this template. Esszet (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why do we care about 100- and 400-year leap-year rules? This is a userspace template meant to express how long ago it was that you joined Wikipedia; the last non-leap-and-end-of-century year was more than one hundred years before Wikipedia was established, and we have more than eighty years before the next one. The other template is meant for mainspace; having separate templates for separate purposes makes the metadata more clearly separated. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is for that ((User Wikipedian for)) and several others, none of which appear to be based on this one. Its main use appears to be in ((Missing for)) and similar templates, which could easily be edited to use a different age calculation template. Esszet (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with ((age in years, months and days))? updated the documentation to show that they are identical? 98.230.192.179 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's redundant to another template which actually works properly. There's no need for it, so, get rid of it. I don't see the point of discussing which space it is meant for; users aren't going to conform to this. Jimp 07:48, 26 November 2015 (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).

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 relist at Nov 30. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Leaders of the Australian Labor Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Leaders of the Liberal Party of Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Leaders of the National Party of Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These navboxes are redundant to Template:Australian Labor Party, Template:Liberal Party of Australia, and Template:National Party of Australia, respectively. Graham (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tend to disagree I'm no friend of these huge all-encompassing navboxes like Template:Australian Labor Party. I'd rather split these into separate topics like Template:Leaders of the Australian Labor Party. But let's collect some more opinions. PanchoS (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I should also have noted that the practice of having separate navboxes for party leaders appears to be non-standard when looking at other Commonwealth countries such as Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (excepting the Conservative Party of Canada; the main navbox includes their leaders post–2003 merger and their leaders navbox includes the leaders of all of the antecedent parties from 1867). I don't know of any other country for which we have separate navboxes for both parties and party leaders. Graham (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then these huge navboxes should possibly be split for the other parties you mentioned, too. With more than 50 links on different subtopics, navboxes are no more a navigational help, but substantially add to cluttering any article. PanchoS (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2015 (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).

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Halifax Rainmen current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Halifax Rainmen basketball franchise is defunct and the template is no longer in use. TempleM (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No current transclusions.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, defunct navigation. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. PanchoS (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2015 (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).

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mississauga Power current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Mississauga Power basketball franchise is defunct and the template is no longer in use. TempleM (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No current transclusions.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, defunct navigation. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. PanchoS (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2015 (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).