Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 28 October 30 >

October 29 edit

Template:Year nationality novels category header 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 November 6. Izno (talk) 05:20, 6 November 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:Youth Olympic venues 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 November 6. Izno (talk) 05:21, 6 November 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:Central African Republic Civil War detailed map 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 November 6. Izno (talk) 05:25, 6 November 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:X-Change Series 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 00:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and nothing but red. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • An uncontroversial delete - this should've gone when the articles were deleted last year.--AlexandraIDV 10:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncontroversial delete. No need for this anymore. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 03:16, 31 October 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:Yel-c1 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 November 6. Izno (talk) 05:21, 6 November 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:YearcatUSstate 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, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and I don't think has been used since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as creator). Redundant to {{Year in US state category}}. I can't recall the history of why I created this, but I am puzzled by the nominator's statement that they don't think has been used since creation. On what basis is that claim made? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 29 October 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:Years in mixed martial arts 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 November 6. Izno (talk) 05:21, 6 November 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:Alaska fire departments 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 November 6. Izno (talk) 05:22, 6 November 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:10-digit dialing transition 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) 05:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template was used to transclude a section of text into the articles of about 80 telephone area codes. This is now a past event, so this should be substed on the pages that use it and deleted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:49, 29 October 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:Username 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:User link. Izno (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Username with Template:User link.
The Username template does the exact same think as the User link template, just less efficiently. It's not as used and there isn't any reason for it to exist separately. ― Levi_OPTalk 18:57, 29 October 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:Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Variety Special 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:Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Variety Special. Izno (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This unused template is redundant to Template:EmmyAward VarietySpecialWriting but was created first. Of these two templates, EmmyAward VarietySpecialWriting is more up to date (has 2021 winner) and is used. There's a few possibilities that could be done here:

  • Primetime Emmy Award template be redirected to EmmyAward template.
  • EmmyAward template be replaced with Primetime Emmy Award template (as it was created first) and updated to add the 2021 winner.

Which would be the better option here? Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace EmmyAward template should be replaced by the template nominated. The nominated template is the proper name for the award per the name of the page. Not sure why the informal name is the one that is used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:57, 29 October 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:Htmlref 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 14:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unused template created 7 years ago to source html tags. Gonnym (talk) 14:32, 29 October 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:NCAA Division I FCS independents navbox 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) 16:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreated template that was deleted back in March 2017 for only having one link. Now it has two, but one of them is a redirect. Navigational benefit is not presented yet again. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template points toward prior teams and past records. There have been Div I FCS independents in the past, and there likely will be in the future. It's fair to keep this one to be in alignment and expectation of the readers based on other templates and usage. There's no policy violation that I can see.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul McDonald, a navbox needs a minimum of five links. That's a policy that is not being upheld with this template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with such policy, can you provide a link? If so, then perhaps MERGE would be a better option to another template such as a similar Div I FBS or Div II or such.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still cannot find any reference to such a policy--anyone?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul McDonald, no policy as far as I know, just an essay. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's all I could find too. I believe this nomination is erroneously made based upon there being a "policy" about a minimum number of links of 5--those taking a deletion position have supplied that as the only reason (see WP:PERNOMINATOR as an argument to avoid). The essay Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is a good essay but so is Wikipedia:A navbox on every page. I believe this question comes down to an editing issue rather than a policy. For the reasons I gave above (standardization, navigation, history, completion) I will maintain my position of Keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 2 links is not enough for a need to have a navigation template. Those links are and should already be present in the articles. Gonnym (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2 links is not enough to justify a template. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • just one more comment normally, I would agree and I wouldn't want this to set a precedent. However, I believe that this is an exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any justification for why it should be an exception. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • the template points toward prior teams and past records. There have been Div I FCS independents in the past, and there likely will be in the future. It's fair to keep this one to be in alignment and expectation of the readers based on other templates and usage. There's no policy violation that I can see--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The challenge here is that programs change conference status rather frequently. When it was created in 2020 there were four such programs: [1]. All four have since joined conferences. It doesn't require a crystal ball to predict that more programs at that level will become independent and justify the (re-)creation of the template. Repeatedly deleting and re-creating a navigational template isn't helpful. Mackensen (talk) 12:10, 30 October 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).

Lucknow United templates 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 08:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON for these templates, the team is only just announced and has no players or staff signed, until the IPL auction on an unknown date (probably early 2022 based on previous years) Joseph2302 (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, blank pages, and there's no confirmation of whether or not this will be the actual team name, plus they haven't signed any players to be in the squad. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:36, 29 October 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:Transperth bus transfer/header 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 08:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused set of three templates with no documentation. Seven years old. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:14, 29 October 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:Global Cebu F.C. squad 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 08:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global F.C. was dissolved in 2020, making a current squad template no longer needed. Global Cebu F.C. is a previous name of this team. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as squad templates are for current squads, and so we don't keep them for clubs that no longer exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:18, 29 October 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).

Seignories of Quebec 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 08:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These templates, used once each, should be replaced by files. I propose replace and deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:22, 29 October 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_October_29&oldid=1054231366"