Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16 edit

Template:Field hockey at the 2010 Asian Games 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 no consensus. Izno (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and both links have been redirected for a while now. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep both links were have been redirected by mistake. it's fixed now. Sports2021 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were not redirect by mistake. Those articles did not have a stand alone reason to be separate from the main article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and who says that? there are hundreds of articles like them this, this, just 2 examples but I can show 100 more. They were redirected most probably someone wanted this article to be moved to this one to keep the edit history but probably messed it up. this is interesting I even have to explain this. Sports2021 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All you did was restore what it was like before it was redirecting. There are no inline sources and a majority of the same information exists in the main articles about Field hockey at the 2010 Asian Games. Outside of the game results that is. I'd say there needs to be a discussion before those articles to be unredirected. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A sidebar containing only two pages is useless; use the see also section instead if needed. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it links to 4 pages. and contains 3. and there are several templates like this.Sports2021 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 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:Trilateral meeting leaders 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 02:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template for listing the countries and their leaders for an international organization. Rather this just links to the article for China, South Korea, Japan, their PM/Presidents, and the foreign ministers. The main article China–Japan–South Korea trilateral summit is just an annual get together between these countries to advance trade and other forms of political cooperation. Nothing connects the articles together other than just a general grouping. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 16 April 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:Edicts of Ashoka 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) 02:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An obtrusive template placed on the bottom of articles and duplicates article content more than anything. This template can't aid in terms of navigation. Should not be substituted anywhere. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very useful template, facilitating navigation of this complex subject. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subst to Edicts of Ashoka and delete (if wanted there) or delete. This is clearly article content and not a navigation template (among the many other issues this has, including the small font). Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute in Edicts of Ashoka and delete per Gonnym. No need to transclude this in so many articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
substitute and delete per above. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 25 April 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:Olympic medallists in Yngling 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) 20:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that's no longer necessary as all the information is featured on the Sailing at the 2004 Summer Olympics and Sailing at the 2008 Summer Olympics articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 16 April 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:Oleksiivska style 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) 20:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Kharkiv Metro. Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 17 April 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:Baltic Pipeline System-II full/doc 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 no consensus to delete, so keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused doc subpage that copies the same links on Template:Baltic Pipeline System-II full. Don't see the need for such a page when it already works fine on the main template page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use doc and move documentation out of the template. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Train/railway route templates don't use doc pages. So what would be the point for this one to have one? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This obviously uses documentation as you can see in the template code. Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 18 April 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:Toponymy of the British Isles 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:07, 16 April 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:Albany Radio/doc 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 and revert blanking Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused doc page whose contents was moved into the main template back last week. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use doc and restore the previous version where the documentation was not in the template. Gonnym (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert the documentation merge to base. Why was this nominated, when this reversion could be easily justified by following common practice when the doc subpage exists? (I would presume only when a revert cycle failed to come to a conclusion, would it be brought to TfD)-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It contravenes policy to delete the page because its contents was moved, and thus the history needs to be preserved for attribution. But I agree that the documentation should be moved back to the subpage. --Bsherr (talk) 20:47, 17 April 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:State parks of North Carolina 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map that was created back in 2011, the only major edit to date, only used in the creator's sandbox. Creator has not been active since October 2020. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:24, 16 April 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:IslandCOTM 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) 20:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the purpose of this template (which is an ancient collab template) into the project banner at {{WikiProject Scottish Islands}} and removed it from the relevant talk pages. Izno (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personally feel that merging into the project banner is a bit pointless and adds (a small portion of) clutter. Gonnym (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete horribly named template, whose functionality has been migrated -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT please update the template documentation for the project banner to indicate how to use the new functionality -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 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:CMA Global Country Achievement Award 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 April 23. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:19, 23 April 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:PlanetMath editor 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) 06:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially unused. Suggest full removal. Izno (talk) 04:03, 16 April 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:Strong-em 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) 14:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and em tags have distinct purposes. It's not that they can't overlap, but when they overlap fully, it's usually an indication that only one should be used. It's probably not a good idea to merge these tags in a single template, as it encourages mistaken thinking that this is some kind of "super bold". The template itself also has a design problem. The name and documentation suggest it applies both strong and em tags, but it only applies the strong tag, and just adds italics. It's only used in the talk namespace right now, so I think the best solution is just to orphan it. Bsherr (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. Also noting that ''''' can be used for this purpose which is even simpler. --Trialpears (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Semantically, that isn't the same. Gonnym (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's a great learning opportunity. We differentiate between italics/bold and em/strong. The former are for appearance only (I'm making something bold because it's a definition, or a heading), and the latter are for semantic purposes (I'm italicizing a word to show literal emphasis). So the replacement for this template would be {{strong|This is an{{em|example}}.}} --Bsherr (talk) 20:42, 17 April 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:Yerkey, Gary G. The Two Wars of Bruce C. Hopper: From WWI Bomber Pilot to WWII Spy (Washington, DC: GK Press, 2021)ISBN 979-8-7055-7028-7 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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad template. Fixed at Special:Diff/1082943745 --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Shouldn't have been created in the first place. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like an accidental creation of an inexperienced user. --WestCD (talk) 22:04, 16 April 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:Xi Kappa Sigma 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 02:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template, plaintext. Should be substed and deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:58, 16 April 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:Britten cantatas 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 02:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion — the information is already covered in Template:Benjamin Britten, and there are only six cantatas, so not enough to warrant a separate template. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is ok with me. I forgot I made this template many years ago. I was on big template-making kick at the time (Bach cantatas, Haydn symphonies, Etc). If for Britten, people prefer the large template (hopefully collapsible) with all the compositions, I am OK with it. DavidRF (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. I think the trend seems to favor single templates, except when there are just too many pieces for a single composer (Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Schubert etc.), where your templates come in handy. Aza24 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 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_April_16&oldid=1084864508"