Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6 edit

Template:2013–14 Pittsburgh Penguins Schedule 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 after merging with season articles Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates. Izno (talk) 23:50, 6 March 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:Fb report2 2t 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) 15:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is used on only 2 pages. I assume there's another template somewhere that could be used to perform the same work. Izno (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Replace with {{Fb report 2t}}, which seems to serve the same purpose with perhaps cosmetic differences. Nigej (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:55, 7 March 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:NavFrame 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. (non-admin closure) –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 23:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NavFrame is deprecated (see WP:NavFrame) and we have other available templates. Izno (talk) 23:13, 6 March 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:Navigationbar 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. (non-admin closure) –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 23:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have quite a few other Category:Collapse templates. We don't need Yet Another One. Izno (talk) 23:12, 6 March 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:Alphabet nan kiril 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 userfy. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Izno (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete per nom. Would also be OK with userfying, since the only use is in the creator's userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If substed or kept, it should be converted to use {{navbox}} or equivalent first probably. --Izno (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to user space. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 8 March 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:Pyawbwe Township 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. Izno (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created The Banner talk 21:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As previously, most of the blue links relate to other places, not in this township. Nigej (talk) 08:04, 7 March 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:Collapsible section 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 merge to Template:Hidden. Along the lines of Frietjes and Plastikspork. Some merge details (such as whether |note= should be carried over) are better discussed post-close in holding or template talk. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should reduce the number of templates that can be used to collapse things. This template has no transclusions in main space (I removed a half dozen under MOS:COLLAPSE).

We have other collapsible templates where necessary. Izno (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • STOP: this template has been used with great success at many articles, and does have many main space uses, regardless of some edit warring at High Line and elsewhere. I don't see why you didn't raise a discussion first. MOS:COLLAPSE is merely a guideline, not a policy, and there is no logic behind removing it in many of the places you did. When further content can be displayed as desired (like {{adjacent stations}}/{{s-line}} has used for years), and when it is accessible from mobile, tablet, and desktop devices, there is no logical reason to remove these and make articles display far worse, at risk of fully cutting the collapsible content. This is also one of -very few- collapse templates that actually works on mobile devices, making it perhaps one of the best worth keeping. Your deletion proposal simply based on removing what you don't like really lacks the nuance of what benefits the readers and which templates work best. ɱ (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    great success at many articles I removed a total of some 7 uses in article space. And that was the sum total of uses. If that's true, you would expect to see more.
    In none of the places I removed it did I find sufficient cause to keep it. WP:SUMMARY is relevant in many of the cases. WP:NOTDIRECTORY others. Still others a general understanding that 'if you want to hide it away, then it may not be of an appropriate weight in the article.
    It's just a guideline is an argument to avoid.
    I don't see why you didn't raise a discussion first. Because I am not required, especially when MOS:COLLAPSE is a guideline. If you want to change its guideline status, your beef is with WP:MOS.
    As for working on mobile devices, NavFrame is going away. I'm about down to some 2-dozen uses in template and module space and another 4000 in article space. While I can transition this template away from NavFrame, it still remains in violation of a guideline that we have moreover enforced more or less stringently, especially for content outside of tables and confined spaces like infoboxes and sidebars. And there is plenty of precedent for other collapsing templates not being used in the main space mainspaces, in general accord with our guideline on the matter. {{collapse}} and its content does not display at all. {{collapse top}} has some 700 uses, probably better removed. Both templates have a strong "Do not use in articles." statements in their documentation. {{Collapsible list}} has a marginally gentler recognition, but still limits itself to "use in small spaces".
    removing what you don't like Pot calling kettle black. Your 'stop' request amounts to "I like it" and "It's useful". Neither reason actually considers why our guideline is the way it is. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, many articles can be seven, and similar templates would bump up the number far more.
    You don't need to be the one to "find sufficient cause to keep it". You are not the arbiter here for content inclusion; Wikipedia is a collaborative project. And no, many key facts about an article, like historical named trains that utilized Chicago Union Station, are lists enough that many readers don't care, but will be of essence to plenty of others. Collapsible templates have been devised for such purposes; if you don't agree with them create an RfC on whether or not to deprecate the whole system, not pick-and-choose removals and propose deletion of a single template.
    I don't care if "It's just a guideline" is an argument to avoid. Wikipedia's founding principle is that if there's a rule that stops us from better serving our audience, to ignore it. You can't require me to comply with a single guideline you support. And MOS:COLLAPSE allows for many uses of collapsible areas, making this deletion discussion pointless. Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary. This is what I have been using it for, and the MOS says consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all. - NOT to be bold and remove it.
    I don't know what NavFrame is, nor why it is going away - care to explain why you bring this up?
    "violation of a guideline" - MOS:COLLAPSE describes several ways in which collapsible content is acceptable, and thus ways this template can be used. It really seems like you are the one who needs to go to an MOS talk page to remove all of the portions of MOS:COLLAPSE that allow for article usage.
    Your 'stop' request amounts to "I like it" and "It's useful". Yes, as a highly-active article creator, it is a useful tool for creating and displaying content, a web 2.0-like feature that innumerous websites use. I detest any and all attempts to fight against interactivity in articles, as we can create something far greater than just static essays if traditionalists stop fighting against things like {{mapframe}} and the likes. ɱ (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We generally do not keep templates so-little used. Certainly not functional duplicates.
    Collapsible templates have been devised for such purposes; if you don't agree with them create an RfC on whether or not to deprecate the whole system, not pick-and-choose removals and propose deletion of a single template. No. The onus is on you, not me, to show that MOS:COLLAPSE does not enjoy consensus. But regardless, I can still take individual templates to WP:TFD, especially for other reasons, such as "not used (very much)" and "duplicates another existing template", under which this template qualifies.
    lists enough that many readers don't care Either it has sufficient weight to be in the article, in which case it should be accessible to everybody, or it doesn't (or it truly is supplementary content, such as sidebars and navboxes, which that exception is actually for, not ad hoc use). Since you bring up the the particular article, I honestly don't care whether the content lives in the article, what I do care about is whether it's hidden away. You might persuade me it doesn't have the weight to be in that article, in which case you should remove it, or it does, and you should give it a shine. As it is, the content in question has 0 citations, so I would be justified in removing it without any hope of restoration Soon per WP:CHALLENGE. Are you interested in having that discussion? I usually don't take that path because it doesn't always apply and in this case I try to disturb an article least (or if I see some other reason some collapsible content is violating expectations of our articles per various WP:PAG, I do remove content I suppose; I just usually try to stay away from questions of sourced-ness). Fundamentally, it looks like you care that the content is there, not some abstract railfans, so don't hide behind the unseen them as an excuse. I think this paragraph also reasonably takes care of consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all. - NOT to be bold and remove it., which is entirely related to the specific content and not the use of collapsibility.
    WP:NavFrame is the particular CSS- and Javascript-supported functionality that this template relies on. I can change it to use the known replacement, but in this case this template duplicates another template uses outside mainspace and simply shouldn't be used in mainspace, so I submitted it for TFD. I would be extremely surprised if this actually does work on mobile (for collapsing at least) since MediaWiki:Mobile.js does not have the relevant JavaScript. NavFrame's replacement also does not (currently) work for collapsing on mobile, but does display as expected also.
    IAR See Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. I find your vein there to be fully outside of what IAR means, so, I'm going to, er, ignore it.
    a web 2.0-like feature that innumerous websites use I refer to to the onus here. I'm actually sympathetic to this line of reasoning in some ways and think that particular section of our guideline could use some revision on the point, but that's not really a revision I am interested in supporting right now and/or I would need to see some stronger preference to support allowing free use of collapsing elements in the main space. (go ham outside if you should please). --Izno (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus this is a wall of text that's hard to follow. I'll have to take time to look at it later, yet it seems pointless as we're both dead-set on opposite views that articles are [just for the general public vs. can have tools to allow for specifics for nerds]. I'm confused though how you think MOS:COLLAPSE does not permit any collapsed sections in articles, when, with consensus, it very well does. ɱ (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, you're posting blocks of text almost as large. Izno's total word count here is 879 words, and yours is 619 (before your apparently forthcoming additional reply). I think WP:KETTLE was already cited in this discussion. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody asked for a character count here; I also said it's hard to follow. Congrats on linking one of the snarkiest essays; my one response only had to be long in an effort to reply to all of their many points, but their two have broken records within this discussion. ɱ (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The level of hypocritical hostility you bring to discussions of this sort (and then double-down after others point out you are being unreasonable) is looking more and more like a reason to see whether ANI should topic-ban you from XfDs. We all have better things to do that have our blood pressure pointlessly raised by WP:BATTLEGROUND-oriented ranting in everyday wikiprocesses.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Collapse The bit about this not being allowed in article namespace is a tangential, since most uses are outside the article namespace (and were even before Izno's actions). What matters is that I see nothing that meaningfully distinguishes this from other templates for collapsing things, so it should not exist separately. Nevertheless, I feel the name "collapsible section" is a plausible name for a template, so a redirect is preferable to deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No - there are key differences. For starters, I do not believe {{collapse}} works on mobile devices. It also has a different style than this template, with a long gray bar that may not suit all articles or look as modern, and would look horrible in a table like the one here. If you want to combine the two, I find it imperative to keep this sort of style. Additionally, this template always uses a message "— View by clicking [show] —" that helps users understand how to access the content, where [show] might not always be too clear. ɱ (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 
It's the above clumsy three-border, three-different-shades format versus the below, clean, inline map format. Keep the functionality even if you have to merge. ɱ (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Pppery. The two seem very similar functionally, the differences being cosmetic (although I've no idea about the mobile issue). I'd have thought that options could perhaps be added to "Collapse" to make it more like "Collapsible section", and, at the end of day we're producing an encyclopedia, not running a beauty contest, so some differences are acceptable. Nigej (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about a beauty contest. {{Collapse}} is designed as a standalone segment to a page, with its own shading and borders. It is simply not applicable for use in other areas like tables and infoboxes, like in my example above. Unless and until {{Collapse}} is granted that functionality, I can't allow {{Collapsible section}} to be deleted. ɱ (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused. When I change "Collapsible section" to "subst:Collapse" in List of COTA bus routes it looks ok to me. Nigej (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It displays its weird own box with its own shading and borders that look terrible, and then when you expand the map, it forms its own bordered white box as well - it's so clumsy I wouldn't have even done any of this work if there wasn't a reasonable way to display it. No need to cut a perfectly-working preferable format. I'd be fine with merging the templates, so long as formatting options are preserved. ɱ (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd put the differences in the trivial-difference category. Content is exactly the same. Nigej (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (per image) Still look like trivial differences to me. Content is exactly the same. Nigej (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, that's your opinion, and why Wikipedia will look like the 2000s-era site it always has - too many Wikipedians only care about content over design. 'Content exactly the same' is not a good argument, sorry. ɱ (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But tuning everything up to our own personal preferences is much worse, IMO. We should be improving what's there, not creating duplicates. Nigej (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I am not at all opposed to a full merge. I don't expect the template creator knew how to build that functionality as an option to the existing template, nor do I. If someone with the know-how volunteers to, I suppose we could all be done here. ɱ (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I see no reasonable rationale for deleting this. Even if it comes in useful in a handful of articles then I see no point of deleting things just for the sake of it. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge-and-redirect of a redundant template because it is redundant is not "deleting things just for the sake of it", so you have not provided a valid opposition rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. It appears the templates have slightly different appearances, which I think can be relatively easily accommodated with conditional code. I oppose deleting this outright - that doesn't really help people if they wanted slightly different options like Ɱ mentions. However, the purpose of both templates is fairly similar other than the appearance. The fact that this isn't allowed in article space is a little offtopic given that it has almost 400 non-article-space uses. Epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge. We have no use for a redundant template that does the same thing as {{Collapse}} (and {{Hidden}}, another template to probably merge away). The visual display difference can be resolved with a parameter. If the code of one is smarter and works across more user agents, in a standards-compliant and accessible manner (I remain skeptical), then use that code rather than the crappier code. This is not rocket science. The histrionics above appear to be grounded in the mistaken impression that collapsing material will suddenly become impossible. But that is not true, so the merge/redir. should proceed. I even think I detect a bogus argument that if some wikiproject would rather auto-collapse a bunch of things, like train-route tables or album track lists, that they're free to do so. That is a false assumption, per WP:CONLEVEL policy. The very reason that policy exists is to stop wikiprojects and other clusters of editors making up their own "anti-rule" directly against side-wide policies and guidelines. But it really has nothing to do with whether this template should exist as a stand-alone template.

    PS: To clarify, MOS:COLLAPSE does not forbid the use of collapsible content elements in mainspace, only the use of them to hide content by default. That is, any such element is to be "open" by default but may be coded to be collapsible by users with browsers that support that feature. An exception is made for navboxes, which may auto-collapse, since they are not part of the real page content but are a navigational interface element. We have these rules because the collapsed material cannot be read by users of screen readers, those without JavaScript on, and those with various mobile browsers that aren't as capable as desktop ones. They generally cannot make the content un-hidden, so an article with collapsed content is effectively censored to them. However, they and everyone else can read the content if not auto-collapsed, and any users who can use the hide/show widget will be able to collapse it, or can even use user JavaScript (in Special:MyPage/common.js or on the user-agent side, e.g. with TamperMonkey) to auto-collapse all such elements.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC); added mention of additional redundant template 06:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't put words in other editors' mouths, thank you! You're the first one to mention WikiProjects or groups of editors; stop. We also have to serve the general public as well as we can. Prominent websites utilize javascript and other interactive elements; likely 99.9 percent of readers have access to these things. If you uncheck the ability to display internet content, you should very well expect to see gaps in what appears in front of you, but it's not like we put ultra-essential content there anyway. As for screen readers, I doubt the usage is very high at all, and don't see how that would help those users see hidden maps like at the High Line and COTA routes articles. For the Chicago station article, it's also not ultra-essential content either. ɱ (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your repetitive habit of telling other editors to "stop" (twice in this discussion already), is annoying, uncivil, and anti-collaborative. In point of fact, about 99% of the desire to inject auto-collapsed elements into article content is coming from, and always has come from, wikiprojects – especially those on music, TV shows, and companies/organizations. There is no magical requirement that someone prior to me has to have mentioned this first before I bring it up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Stop" is a perfectly reasonable request when a user removes (not replaces) a template in all mainspace pages just to be able to come here and say "no mainspace uses". Talk about pot calling the kettle black; your latest responses are the most dramatic and unwelcome here yet. Stick to the topic at hand here, please. ɱ (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why can't this be replaced by {{hidden}}? I tested replacing it in High Line and it looks basically the same to me. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very similar template! I'm pretty sure I chose the other one due to its instructions given, where this template doesn't immediately make it apparent that there is collapsed content. As well, I am not sure about its mobile applications, would have to test that out... ɱ (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery, Nigej, Epicgenius, SMcCandlish, and Abcmaxx: your thoughts on redirecting this to {{hidden}}? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a strong opinion about where this is redirected to. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this simply needs to be merged, not redirected. ɱ (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As Pppery, I don't have a strong view. I just feel it's a bad thing to have two (or maybe it's three) templates doing such similar things. Nigej (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{hidden}} after adding some parameters to hidden. I have rewritten this as a relatively "clean substituting" wrapper for {{hidden}}. The only real syntax difference is the |note= option. I suppose this could be added to {{hidden begin}} but given how many of these collapsing templates don't have that, I don't think it's necessary. Otherwise, the syntax is similar enough that we could just redirect this template to {{hidden}} and add some parameter aliases to {{hidden}} for compatibility (e.g., titlealign for ta1 etc.). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you implement the changes to {{Hidden}} or {{Collapse}}? I can then use transfer over uses to these templates and would then be happy to vote for this template's deletion. ɱ (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I added the alternative parameter names here. I didn't add the "note" since it's problematic for the print version. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the note problematic for the print version, just because you can't click on a piece of paper!? People will realize that... The note makes it much clearer how to operate the template. Are we to forgo any instructions for interactive content? Maps, images, and audio templates often have similar instructions that help with operation, and it should be clear to readers of a printed copy that you can't click, scroll, drag, pan, etc. ɱ (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hidden template gracefully removes the [hide]/[show] links in the print version, expanding any collapsed content. Leaving a note behind that says "click here" is pointless when you can't click on the paper. This could probably be fixed using {{noprint}}, but I don't see why the note is needed when [show]/[hide] is pretty self-explanatory. Navboxes have existed for a very long time with out these extra instructions. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added the note as it makes it more clear how to show the content; in some areas the view button may be far off to the right or obscured among images or tables. I don't need to argue this with you, many people have found and will find it useful, that's why it was put in the template, and likely why this specific one was chosen for many articles. Yes, use {{noprint}}, there's no harm done there. ɱ (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to {{hidden}} as discussed above. with over 340k transclusions, the format used by {{hidden}} is clearly the preferred format. the addition of an optional |note= can be discussed at template talk:hidden. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 8 March 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:Knorkator 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. Izno (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete: Navigation template for band Knorkator. I have turned the articles listed in the template into redirects as they are all albums that clearly fail WP:NMUSIC (and had been tagged for notability for a decade). This means there is no longer a use for the navigation template. Lennart97 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 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:Akrotiri and Dhekelia English 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. Izno (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All but two of these templates are completely unused. Nearly all of these English variants have either no article, or just a redirect to a larger article.

Jersey English points to a disambiguation page; I assume the intended target for this template is Channel Island English, which like Alderney and Guernsey, does not seem sufficiently different from British English to warrant its own template. Most of the ones that apply to British holdings should just be using {{British English}} anyway.

Falkland Islands English, Gambian English, and Gibraltarian English do have articles, but all are extremely short articles that could stand a merge. And it still stands that their respective English-variant templates are completely unused anyway.

Namibian English redirects to Namlish, an informal portmanteau that does not seem to be in widespread use. This is also the only article that transcludes the template.

{{Malawian English}} and {{Botswana English}} are used on two or three articles each, but otherwise has the same problems as the rest. The Botswana one was previously TFD's in 2019 with a result of "no consensus" due to lack of participation, so it's had time to grow but has not.

{{Montserratian English}} is already at TFD for similar reasons. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a comment at the moment. It seems to me that many of these are simply dialects of British English. There will be different slang, turn of phrase, etc. in these places but, when writing an encyclopedic article, they are exactly the same. The other point is that they are nearly all unused and could be deleted on that basis. Nigej (talk) 07:52, 6 March 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:Delibes ballets 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) 17:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Delete—redundant to the more comprehensive {{Léo Delibes}}. Aza24 (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clear duplication. Both navboxes appear in the three ballets. Nigej (talk) 20:09, 6 March 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_March_6&oldid=1012198075"