Living presidents & living vice-presidents of the United States[edit]
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).
Discussion & !votes for living POTUS and living VEEP[edit]
keep. (1) The tables are quite complex and single-use templates are an effective way to keep complex formatting from cluttering up article space. (2) Each template depends on subtemplates used dozens or even hundreds of times. Integrating into the article would require eliminating the sub-templates and so a huge amount of repetition. (Full disclosure: I am the author of these templates) YBG (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have advertised this discussion on the talk page of the article that uses the templates. I also repaired the broken format in the two templates by adding a line break after the TfD template so the software will recognize the table-begin syntax. Also, I combined these two items into a single discussion so that they could be discussed together, and re-targeted the TfD discussion to point to the combined discussion. @Koavf: In combining the two discussions, I tried to do the absolute minimum of editing to what you had entered here. I have, however, added comments in the wikitext suggesting that what you might do to de-clutter the discussion header. YBG (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I'm wondering what you propose to do with the subtemplates, which are used multiple times. Should they be retained? Substituted? Perhaps you could create on talk:Living presidents and vice presidents of the United States a one- or two-row example of what you'd like to see to replace the tables. I remain open to changing my !vote, but I'd like to understand your proposed alternative. Thanks! YBG (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Those are also only transcluded into this template and the article in which it appears. Honestly, this should never have been a template: it's just a table. HTML (and wiki markup) can make tables--there is no need for an off-article template for this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:43, 8 October 2018 (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 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 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).
I don't see anything wrong with it as a resource. It does not seem properly used, Its items do not link to articles of those names, but link to articles of other names. Moreover, the other articles give the impression of not being well-designed. I think the problem might be lack of attention on this specialized topic. I don't know how desirable it is to clear the space. Will anyone take an interest in this subject? Will anyone create articles of those names? Is it too early to remove this resource?Botteville (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many instances on our project where there are navbars like this associated with sidebars, in this case the {{Holocene}} sidebar, because sometimes consensus is to use the navbar at the bottom of articles rather than the sidebar at or near the top of articles. Just because this navbar is not presently used in articles does not mean it won't be used in the future. I have redesigned the navbar to make it more like the other similar navbars in template {{Period navbars}}, and I would like to add this template back in if it survives this Tfd. Also, I shall place a notice of this discussion on the talk pages of the associated WikiProjects, Geology and Environment. Paine Ellsworthput'r there11:43, 6 October 2018 (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).
