Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 26 September 28 >

September 27 edit

Template:GFDL-tutorialCT 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 01:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created to tag pictures for Wikipedia:Graphics in two modes, which was deleted a decade ago. Redundant to {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}, and an implausible redirect. HouseBlastertalk 21:42, 27 September 2022 (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:Bolívar Department 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/delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Subregions of Bolívar and Template:Example with Template:Bolívar Department.
The latter template has just been created, but only contains one link, rendering it useless as a navbox. Propose merging the two templates under "Bolívar Department" and eliminating all the red links of the latter template... if any of these articles are ever created, they can be added as and when they are made. Richard3120 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Bolivar Department navbox. I'm not sure I see what there is to merge. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WikiCleanerMan: simply that the one article in that navbox has some relevance to the other navbox, in that it refers to the historical version of the modern-day department (state) in Colombia, and everything related to the current Bolívar Department could be collected together in one navbox. But if you feel it's not relevant, I have no objection to its deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That one link is covered by another navbox. There is no need to merge into Subregions of Bolivar because this covers the current subdivison of Colombia. The one link in Bolivar Department is covered by another navbox which is about the historical subdivisions of Colombia. There is nothing to merge. Just delete Bolivar Department. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair enough argument. Richard3120 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2022 (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:Conf01 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 01:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17-year-old block of text that was used on half a dozen talk pages to coordinate a meeting. Contains no template code. Probably safe and more sensical for archive viewers and editors to subst and delete at this point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2022 (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:Ciołek-varieties 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 01:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no blue links in the body. Transcluded in only one article; not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2022 (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:CIEC merge history 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 01:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article content with no template parameters, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it made the article easier to edit to not have all that dumped in but I don't really care. I moved the text, go for deletion. Banaticus (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2022 (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:Cairo Monorail 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 01:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with one transclusion (in the main article) and zero blue links in the body. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2022 (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:Big Stage 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 01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No main article for this navbox, and only three blue links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2022 (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:Age-ymwd 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 2022 October 5. ✗plicit 01:08, 5 October 2022 (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).

Forked/expanded college football standings 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 00:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These college football standings templates are expanded forks of pre-existing standings templates, e.g. Template:2022 Pac-12 football overall standings is a fork of Template:2022 Pac-12 Conference football standings. The pre-existing standard templates follow a standard form used on several thousands of templates, while these new forks introduce a bunch of new formatting. I have begun discussions with Aidan721 and others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Expanded standings templates broken down by division about whether the standard templates should be modified. In the meantime, we should eliminate the forks are they can cause redundancy and confusion. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and the extended discussion at the CFB talk page: redundant and unnecessary at present. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (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:Simple 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 01:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template, which promotes a link to the Simple English Wikipedia version of an article, is not currently used in mainspace. I also don't think it ought to be used — there are established pathways for interproject linking, and those should be used instead of arbitrarily (there's no documentation) choosing some articles to attach this to. Because Simple English is about language choice, not complexity, it's not clear what those would be — {{Introductory article}} exists for inherently complex subjects, and articles that needlessly use advanced language can be tagged with {{Technical}}. In both cases, we can handle the issue here on English Wikipedia without pushing readers to a different language version. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Simple English will appear in the interwiki links of any relevant articles, that is sufficient as a pointer. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 3 October 2022 (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:Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame members 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) 14:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox template provides navigation between members of Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame. This is a hall of fame of relatively minor note. Induction is not defining for the subjects, and the connections between various members is tenuous. In 2018, we deleted several similar hall of game navboxes; see ]Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 17. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those templates, neither of which I've ever seen before, should probably be deleted as well, certainly the Lebanon County (Pennsylvania) one, in which every single honoree is a red link. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of other similar templates at Category:State halls of fame in the United States navigational boxes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if the consensus is in favor of deletion, could the deleting admin please move the content to User:BeanieFan11/Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Userfy comment If consensus ends up being to delete, what would be the rationale to userfy? It seem that improvement would need to be possible. The page Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame would still remain with the list's content.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My rationale to userfy is that it would serve as my personal to-do list. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support userfication. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Move to a subpage of the creator per his request. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many red links, against WP:EXISTING. Many sport WikiProjects are against mentioning local hall of fames in infoboxes as they are not defining. As such, this is unnecessary per WP:TCREEP, which also states: "Just because a template can be created doesn't automatically mean that it should be."—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2022 (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:Really Useful 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 14:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template completely duplicates Template:Theatres in London, as per WP:DEL-REASON #10. All eight article links in this template are listed in the Theatres in London template, including seven in a single row. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2022 (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:Nimax 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 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template completely duplicates Template:Theatres in London, as per WP:DEL-REASON #10. All nine article links in this template are listed in the Theatres in London template, including eight in the same row. Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2022 (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:(D) 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 14:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I get the point of this template, it is unused, oddly named (though obviously this can be fixed if kept), and does not appear to provide any functionality that isn't already in many of the hatnote templates that I suspect this was created to help with. Outwith hatnotes, we don't link to dab pages, so I cannot see any real use cases. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No transclusions, no incoming links from discussions. Created in 2010 and has not been adopted, or has been superseded by more useful templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2022 (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:AM&SPHR 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 06:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A single-use template used on the Raising Steam article, its content is overly specific and detailed, with no pivotal role in accompanying the article's "Plot synopsis" section. Such content seems more suitable for a wiki dedicated to Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. Removing the template from the page would not make the article more confusing / difficult to understand. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It is standard practice for such rail diagrams to be stored in template space, even if there is only one transclusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without substing as unsourced fancruft. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 3 October 2022 (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/2022_September_27&oldid=1114642394"