Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 10

August 10Edit

Football squads templatesEdit

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Clubs no longer exist so don't have squad.

Empty templates.

No links to player articles.

Plays in amateur competitions. Template not updated since 2012.

Club dissolved recently. Phoenix club with another name will play in amateur competitions.

Club currently either not exists or plays in amateur competitions. Template not updated since 2012.

Club expelled last season. Template not updated for 3 years, only 2 links to articles.

Clubs dissolved. Phoenix clubs with another names were created.

Only 1 link to player articles.

Alex (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom, for reasons of emptiness, lack of use, linked once (can be subst / deleted) or club dissolution.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all - none links, empty tables, dissolved clubs - all these should not have a template. --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom - either out-of-date or for dissolved clubs. GiantSnowman 16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all for all the appropriate reasons mentioned by the nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2020 (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:TldEdit

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 relisted on 2020 August 24. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2020 (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).

Former Royal FamiliesEdit

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

All these templates have five or less individuals, severely limiting their usefulness. Albanian Former Royal Family isn't in the template namespace for some reason, but I propose it with the rest. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete them all. Useless and silly. Smeat75 (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The point of a navbox, which is what these are, is to provide links between related articles. I see no point in having a navbox with three names and a huge coat of arms. It is nothing but intrusive in the layout. The titles of the templates being fantastically misleading is a special concern. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all, somewhere between useless and misleading fantasies. —Kusma (t·c) 19:57, 17 August 2020 (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:RuPaul's Drag Race SeasonsEdit

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicates Template:RuPaul's Drag Race --Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as duplicate (as I think there is nothing to merge). --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Gonnym, Correct. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Purely redundant material; nothing to merge. Armadillopteryx 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is nothing to be merged here. Nihlus 20:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is so unclear from the current page of the show and from the other template to understand the timeline of all editions and spino-offs. I found this template very useful and finally clear. --Sailko (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, even if it wasn't being nominated for deletion, I'd strongly oppose it's inclusion at the TOP OF THE PAGE. I've seen thousand of articles and none used a navigation template like this. --Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
      Agreed, I've never seen a template at the top of the page like this. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per ... well ... anyone above who has said "delete" because I have nothing to add. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2020 (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:TWN local forecast systemsEdit

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought I was a hot shot in 2008 making navboxes like this. It's unneeded and only used in one article, which now links to the other two anyway. Delete. Raymie (tc) 20:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2020 (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:LAT TVEdit

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This is now a non-defining characteristic of its remaining member articles as a former network. I created this 14 years ago—its time has long since passed. Raymie (tc) 20:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2020 (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).

Scottish League Cup templatesEdit

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Templates have been merged into parent articles at 2019–20 Scottish League Cup group stage and 2019–20 Scottish League Cup group stage and are no longer used. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 122#An issue with templates and a suggestion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom, once they've all been transcluded into the club season articles. Boothy m (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Subts and delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Subst (if still needed) and delete. --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:30, 11 August 2020 (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:Archive bannerEdit

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 merge to Template:Archives. Consensus to convert {{Archive banner}} into a wrapper, but not to substitute/replace usages. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Close amended following discussion; consensus for a clear merge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Archive banner with Template:Archives.
Didn't realize Template:Archive banner existed until today. Almost redundant to Template:Archives. Add a parameter to Template:Archives such as banner=yes to allow Template:Archives the option to visually appear as Template:Archive banner currently does, and then all the functionality of one is now in the other. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I use {{archives}} on my talk page and am fine with any solution that lets me continue to do so, ideally without setting a parameter. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @BDD: Yes, if the merge occurs in the way I'm stating, the existing transclusions of {{Archives}} should not be affected in any way. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, that's what I thought. Mostly wanted to leave a future-proof comment since I don't plan to watch this discussion (ping me if needed). --BDD (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Does it make sense to merge together templates that work in widely different ways? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Guerillero: It does not, which is why I am requesting this merge ... because the two templates work very similarly. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONSOLIDATE. If we don't want to affect the display of existing instances, then we can turn {{Archive banner}} into a wrapper of {{Archives}}. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I am unsure what the finished product will look like and at present I do not use, or want a banner. So I would oppose a proposal which would cause my talk page archives to change. Wm335td (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Wm335td: That's not what this proposal is for, but the exact opposite. If you are using {{Archives}} on your talk page (which I see you are), nothing will change. This proposal is to merge contents into {{Archives}} that will not affect how any of the uses of {{Archives}} appear, including yours. Nothing of yours will change. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment if merged it should use the name "archives" and not "archive banner" (or perhaps "archives box"). The presentation should be set by a switch. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, which is partially why I'm proposing that {{Archive banner}} be merged into {{Archives}} ... which will retain the "Archives" template name. However, to make the "banner" setting appear, it will need to be done by a switch, as proposed above; having no switch (in other words, the default setting) would make the template appear as {{Archives}} currently does. Also, FWIW, currently, the amount of transclusions of {{Archives}} vs. {{Archive banner}} is about 50 to 1. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Reduce the dozens of archive related templates to make it easier for editors to use and maintain these. --Gonnym (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I'm convinced that having a single template with a parameter is easier to use and maintain than separate templates. I'm all for standardisation with a view to ease of use for this sort of thing.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom & WP:CONSOLIDATE. 0qd (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support only if there is a way - a bot can do this - for editors currently using the banner to have their banner usage automatically converted to the newly merged template with the banner option turned on i.e., editors currently using the banner won't see an aesthetic change. (If a bot does this then it would also be nice to drop a short, friendly note in the same User Talk pages to let those editors know about this rather inconsequential change.) ElKevbo (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @ElKevbo: Of course that would have to happen, possibly by replacing instances of {{Archive banner (or one of its redirects) replaced with {{Archive banner|banner=yes (or one of its redirects) of the "banner=yes" parameter is used as mentioned in my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'd like to point out that I don't archive in a fixed pattern. Personally, I like being able to archive my own messages, so this is a bit troubling. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm confused. This has nothing to do with a bot archiving your messages. Also, both templates in this discussion are already set up to allow custom lists, so I'm not sure what the concern is. Steel1943 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I completely second this. Gug01 (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and WP:CONSOLIDATE — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I'm usually a mergist, and I see no reason to make an exception now. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me with {{U|I dream of horses}} after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as long as we add a new "banner" parameter as specified by Steel1943's first post about this template merger. Friend505 22:16, 15 August 2020 (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:2020 Allsvenskan tableEdit

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

not needed after template moved to 2020 Allsvenskan Boothy m (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do this? All league tables have their own templates. This will also break club season articles linked to template page. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The consensus at WT:FOOTY is to include tables in the season articles (easier to spot vandalism etc). All league tables do not have their own templates - as you'll see from previous seasons, e.g. 2019 Allsvenskan. And don't worry, I've already fixed the club season articles which use the template by transcluding the table :) Boothy m (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete templates not needed as the table can be transcluded from other Wikipedia articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2020 (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:2020–21 Czech First League tableEdit

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

not needed after template moved to 2020–21 Czech First League Boothy m (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete templates not needed as the table can be transcluded from other Wikipedia articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (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:Kusanda FamilyEdit

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 speedy delete. Author blanked, WP:G7'd.. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be a family tree entry with no encyclopedic value. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:06, 10 August 2020 (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:Debbarma FamilyEdit

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; deleted as G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be a family tree entry with no encyclopedic value. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:05, 10 August 2020 (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:LRT Bandar Utama-Klang LineEdit

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 merge to Template:LRT Bandar Utama-Klang Line. Along the lines of Procrastinating. Izno (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:LRT Bandar Utama-Klang Line with Template:Bandar Utama-Klang Line.
same RDT for Bandar Utama–Klang line. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge; keep {{LRT Bandar Utama-Klang Line}}. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Clearly needs a merge, but the question is which template to keep and what to do about the remaining differences (like line numbers, title)–if not resolved here, probably wouldn't get resolved on the dead talk anytime soon. I think keep {{LRT Bandar Utama-Klang Line}}, since it looks much tidier and better designed. Interestingly, this is also the one that has no transclusions. If Bandar Utama–Klang line is at all reliable, the 'line prefix' should be BK, not S (eg BK12, not S12), so the latter template may be more reliable in terms of data. So at a glance, and in summary, I'd say merge into the former copying the data from the latter, but I have no experience in this subject. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2020 (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).