Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 31

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31 edit

Template:Intcurrent 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Noting for others that the parser function the participants refer to is {{int:}}. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template has multiple problems. First, there reason to have templates whose purpose is to internationalize text on monolingual wikis like the English Wikipedia. Second, there's no reason to have templates that are trivial wrappers around parser functions; just use the parser function directly instead. Third, the source template, mw:Template:Intcurrent was deleted in October 2019. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just use the parser function indeed. --Trialpears (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2020 (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:Koimoi 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no obvious value of having this template in articles. Koimoi is a gossip site and is not generally considered a reliable source at Wikipedia, so why would we direct readers to a site that the community doesn't have faith in? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Koimoi is not RS, so I don't see why it should have a template. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2020 (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:Former monarchic orders of succession 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template used to have several items that have been deleted in AfD processes. No point in having the empty template. --Tone 14:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously, per WP:DELREASON#10: Redundant or otherwise useless templates. The WP:CONSENSUS is clear, now that 39 lines of succession to defunct thrones have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39), that we should not have this type of content. A navigation template with no blue links is useless, and since consensus has determined that we do not want the kind of content that it was designed for, there is no way it can be made useful in the future. TompaDompa (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete logic of clear consensus on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2020 (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:Busy weekdays 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).

The result of the discussion was delete after suitable replacement as discussed. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to either {{At school}} or {{Busy}}, with a suitably-worded message. Just 34 transclusions, now that I have replaced the majority of uses, which were for people who have not edited in over a year (many in over a decade), with {{Not here}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Replace and delete per nom. I think it is better to have a single template for one purpose, which is why I support replacing / deleting rather than merging, as many editors are likely to use templates they see on other editor's pages.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Atschool}} per nom. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:16, 8 September 2020 (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:Argentina men's football squad 1995 Pan American Games 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Tone 13:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long established consensus on WP:FOOTY and per the outcomes of previous TfD discussions (example here, here, here, here, here and here), international squad navigational boxes should only exist for the senior men and women's: World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition. Neither of these templates are for such a competition, and therefore should be deleted. The squads are already listed at Football at the 1995 Pan American Games#Argentina and 1991 FIFA U-17 World Championship squads. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2020 (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:Blackstone Valley stub 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stub-sorting template created outside of process and without a dedicated category. Note: the template creator has only been a registered user for 4 days at this point and created a full wikiproject for this topic as his 10th edit. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This was one of those guidelines I didn't know about. Livinlife133 (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2020 (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:EngvarO spelling 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).

The result of the discussion was delete after replacement with Template:British English Oxford spelling. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:EngvarO spelling with Template:British English Oxford spelling.
Low usage duplicate, it seems ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As noted above, low usage, duplicate. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete EngvarB(oops!) EngvarO and replace uses with British English Oxford spelling. "EngvarO" is not even remotely English or understood by editors not familiar with the group of templates, while "British English Oxford spelling" is. 12 transclusions so shouldn't be an issue. --Gonnym (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete EngvarB EngvarO spelling and replace uses with British English Oxford spelling per Gonnym. - Brojam (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete EngvarB and replace uses with British English Oxford spelling per Gonnym.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment. ProcrastinatingReader it seems to me that there isn't much to be merged, as by setting |flag=no {{EngvarO spelling}} can already be very nearly duplicated by {{British English Oxford spelling}}.
Comparison collapsed.

{{British English Oxford spelling|flag=no}}

{{EngvarO spelling}} {{EngvarO spelling|nocat=true}}

though of course if I'm missing something here feel free to let me know.
Feeling neutral on redirecting vs deletion. I doubt any non-regulars will try to use {{EngvarO spelling}} and regulars will figure at what happened to it fairly quickly and adjust. That said redirects are cheap so there's little harm in it existing. Interestingly {{EngvarA spelling}} is still a redirect, {{EngvarC spelling}} has been deleted and the TFD for {{EngvarB spelling}} is running about even on merging vs replacing below. It's also worth noting that {{British English Oxford spelling}} is itself a wrapper for {{British English|Oxford=yes}}
As a side note Brojam and Tom (LT) both of you wrote EngvarB where I presume you meant to write EngvarO you may want to go back and correct that. (please ping on reply)
𝒬𝔔 00:26, 7 September 2020 (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:EngvarB spelling 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).

The result of the discussion was delete after replacement with Template:British English. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:EngvarB spelling with Template:British English.
Low-usage duplicate, it seems. See this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are you anticipating the name of the merged template would be, and what would be the icon and display text of the template? Nurg (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably the icon would be the Union Jack. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be a one-way merge. Specifically, just redirecting both templates to what they duplicate. Params are directly compatible, it just seems to be a bunch of weird forks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because I cannot see a difference between the two. William Harris (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2020 (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:Riondegod 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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. WP:A10 SpinningSpark 13:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template serves no useful purpose and contains an incoherent mythical blurb. Whpq (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've speedy deleted this as WP:A10. Although in template space, it appears to be intended as an article, and as such duplicates Azrael. SpinningSpark 13:51, 31 August 2020 (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/2020_August_31&oldid=1085548611"