Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 4 December 6 >

December 5 edit

Template:12,449 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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; deleted as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a template if it contains just an external link to Twitter. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As nothing but a link to a random tweet, it's not used in any articles and is unlikely to ever be. I'd almost argue that this one could be speedy deleted, but I'm not sure what the exact criterion would be in this case. --Zander251 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2021 (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).

Template:Communist Refoundation Party factions edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 relisted on 2021 December 13. ✗plicit 00:11, 13 December 2021 (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).

Template:Zpadmiddle edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template which carries out a rather niche string operation. Personally, if I needed an operation like this inside another template, I'd just build it up out of {{padleft:}} and {{#invoke:string|match}} in situ. User:GKFXtalk 20:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

can't recall, but it's almost certain that it was created per someone's request. please delete. peace קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Villa-Lobos symphonies edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Heitor Villa-Lobos. The symphonies one was created first, but now that the general template exists there's no need for this one. Aza24 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Chávez symphonies edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Carlos Chávez. The symphonies one was created first, but now that the general template exists there's no need for this one. Aza24 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

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).

Template:MacMillan symphonies edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:James MacMillan. The symphonies one was created first, but now that the general template exists there's no need for this one. Aza24 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Shizuka edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 valid blue links here and another valid link (Shizuka discography) which isn't in this template. 3 links which are already properly linked from each article to the other don't really met the minimum for a navbox. Gonnym (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the blue links add nothing... the PSF Records article is completely unsourced and only mentions the band in a list of artists who have recorded for the label, and the Mason Jones article doesn't mention the band at all. So there is no point in having a navbox which links to nothing that provides information further to that already in the band article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i can edit this template to accommodate the content of Template:Shizuka discography and Template:Shizuka videography.talk@TRANSviada 18:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But neither of those templates have any articles within them – the articles either don't exist, or are redirects, so neither of them are needed. Richard3120 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant with "see also" or other "in article" links. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2021 (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).

Template:Shizuka videography edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All blue links lead to Shizuka discography so there is nothing to navigate to or from. Gonnym (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: redundant due to lack of independent entries. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No navigation is presented with these templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2021 (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).

Template:Shizuka edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate storage of article text in templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: I asked the creator of these templates on their talk page what they planned to use them for, but received no reply. All of them are simply blocks of text copied from the main article for the artist, and not proper templates... they also have no potential use on any other pages so they are redundant. I suspect this is a case of a new editor not understanding how Wikipedia templates work, so I am prepared to assume good faith,but either way, these are not templates, and they are not needed. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delets and subst as follows: Delete Template:Shizuka/Section/External links as the Myspace link is dead; delete Template:Shizuka/Module/Navboxes as a pointless wrapper of other navigation templates; subst Template:Shizuka/Section/Discography to Shizuka (band); subst Template:Shizuka/Section/Further reading to where it is relevant. Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: for info, there is no need to substitute the last two templates, because the text in all the templates was copied and pasted out of the band article in order to create the templates in the first place, so it already exists in the band article in its current form. Richard3120 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: @Pppery: @Richard3120: @Gonnym: I created those templates for eliminating redundancy and reducing maintenance because they are used cross-article (Shizuka (band), Shizuka discography, Shizuka Miura). I'm using them for text transclusion. No policy or guideline was provided by the proposer, but anyway in Wikipedia:Template namespace it says "not normally", and this isn't a normal situation, but a special situation because as I mentioned the text is redundant and will only increase maintenance burden (I know this because I've been maintaining these articles for almost 5 years now). The transclusion functionality through templates was already discussed and had support [1] [2] [3]. And the Myspace link is not dead, it is alive.talk@TRANSviada 16:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subst and delete all. This is clearly article content that belongs on article space and should be on the respective articles where these templates are currently used on. The creator is stating that no policy or guideline was provided. The nominator is stating the first guideline on the Wikipedia:Template namespace where it reads "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader." The templates are in complete violation of this and the creator is misstating the page in a nutshell banner where he excludes "Such content belongs in the article pages themselves." And there is no special situation that requires such form of text transclusion for these articles. I'm unable to see what burden there is that required the templates to exist in the first place. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan:: Having to copy/paste increases maintenance burden and is error prone. See how I use Template:Cite Q across all Shizuka articles instead of copy pasting whole references? Because it eliminates redundancy and maintenance just the same way. That's why.talk@TRANSviada 17:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These don't fit under the criteria of the discussions you cite or under the Cite Q usage. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw Help:Transclusion. Can anyone guarantee I can get the same result using this?talk@TRANSviada 18:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any transclusion is even needed here. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2021 (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).

Template:Fixcaps edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated to use template that is intended to be substed with arguments like TEXT TO/TITLECASE to produce “Text to Titlecase”. It is slightly broken in that it has started outputting HTML entities &#32; which we do not want to see in article source code. The lack of complaints on the talk page about this makes me suspect no-one has used it since that breakage occurred. Depending on the desired result, editors should instead substitute {{lc:}} or {{title case}} to get the same result, without needing to intersperse the template arguments with slashes and pluses to specify what operation they want. I have removed the few mainspace transclusions since the template was never intended to be permanantly transcluded there. User:GKFXtalk 09:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Election box inline new seat edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above election table templates are each used only in their creator's sandbox. These aren't recent creations, the most recent was created in 2012, so their non-usage status is probably not going to change. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Election box candidate unopposed edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above are unused election table templates. Grouping them up for ease of discussion, but if needed will split. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:YearInCountryPortalBox/decadePortal edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above are all unused sub-pages of Template:YearInCountryPortalBox. Gonnym (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:StateestdecadeBC edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:StateestcenturyBC edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Slovenian border dispute agreement referendum, 2010 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as 2010 Slovenian border dispute agreement referendum uses another table. Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Size/backup edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to create a page to host backup code for the template as it is all found in the revision history. Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Liberal International edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template was used in one category which I've removed and is not used in any article. Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:AwamiGS edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All entries are already listed at Template:Bangladesh Awami League. Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Nobe edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see anyone using the template. Q28 (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Location map many/old edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that this template is not used. Q28 (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin note combined duplicate nominations. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all page history exists for a reason. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this was useful for debugging when the template was changed to use LUA, but the debugging is done, so this can be deleted. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2021 (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).

Template:Temp/POTD protected/2018-08-17/3 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, it is probably scrapped. Q28 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Talkback/manual editintro edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 relisted on 2021 December 12. ✗plicit 04:53, 12 December 2021 (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).

Template:Taxonbar/styles.css edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the script is not used. Q28 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused, although I wouldn't describe CSS pages as scripts. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Talkback/preload page edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 relisted on 2021 December 12. ✗plicit 04:53, 12 December 2021 (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).

Template:Talkback/undo editintro edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is no longer in use. Please let me know if someone else is using it. Q28 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Articles by Quality/check edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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; deleted as G7 by MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, this is no longer used. Q28 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2021 (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).

Template:Archives/Archive index edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 keep. ✗plicit 04:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the board is no longer in use, so we should delete it. Q28 (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, as it says in the template, "This is a dummy archive index page. It exists here to allow for the examples at the parent page, Template:Archives, to have something to link to." Is that a problem? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, per the page's documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonesey95. I considered closing this as speedy keep per WP:SK#3, but decided that it didn't quite meet that threshold. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 5 December 2021 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_5&oldid=1060280883"