Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

December 7 edit

Template:Jalaa SC sections 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 23:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jalaa SC sections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two links and both articles are linked in a sidebox on both articles. A separate template isn't needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 9 December 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:AUSborder 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 23:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AUSborder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Experiment used in one talk page in 2013 but not adopted. Pinging Imzadi1979, Nbound, and Evad37, who were involved in the discussion of this template way back then. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was probably part of the discussions from 2013 as well, but I do not remember what it was used for.:–Fredddie ™ 04:59, 9 December 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:2010 FIFA World Cup Final line-up graphic 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 14:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup Final line-up graphic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to File:NED-ESP 2010-07-11.svg. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesn't seem redundant, in that each shirt icon provides a link to the player it represents, but I wouldn't be opposed to this template's deletion. – PeeJay 14:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting, didn't notice that. However the image is used directly next to both teams' rosters with links to the players so the embedded links in the template are not necessarily needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 19:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed. Giant Snowman 19:43, 8 December 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:Hochmeister 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 December 14. ✗plicit 23:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hochmeister (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Downtown Seattle 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, but there is consensus to modify the scope to include a more targeted list of links. Please feel free to continue the discussion on the template's talk page. If no resolution is possible, feel free to bring this back to TfD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Downtown Seattle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I propose deleting this template, which is large and covers a massive part of Seattle. This template may have been helpful at one time, but recently navboxes were created for more specific parts of Downtown Seattle, including: Template:Belltown, Seattle, Template:First Hill, Seattle, Template:Chinatown–International District, Seattle, Template:Pike Place Market, and Template:Pioneer Square, Seattle. With these more specific templates, there's no longer a need to keep one massive template. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rationale to deprecate but there is still good content here. Why not instead merge it to Template:Seattle to be more like Template:New York City and Template:San Francisco? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But those new templates don't cover all of downtown. The central business district as approximately marked in File:Seattle downtown neighborhoods.jpg, which includes a number of items on here, wouldn't have anything. Not that every place needs to fit within a navbox, but I don't think a split here is done. Perhaps this template could be kept and trimmed to represent that. Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92 I thought about the "leftover" entries which are not part of the new navboxes. However, there's no way to clearly communicate to users that these are the "part of Downtown Seattle which are not in Belltown, First Hill, C-ID, PPM, PS, etc" (if that makes sense). In other words, the scope of the template is questionable. I came to the conclusion that no template is better than an ambiguous template. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slimming it down to just the central business district with links to the other sub-neighborhood templates would be appropriate. These templates are still problematic because they can balloon endlessly with little to no organization. Sounder Bruce 19:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: I wouldn't mind internal comments explaining to drive-by editors which links would be desireable and which links are best for the sub-templates. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a navbox for the Central Business District, but we should label the template as such and not leave as "Downtown Seattle". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the template's Talk page re: which entries should be removed. Participation welcome. If folks don't seem interested in proactively working to make this template useful to readers then I suggest we delete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and all those other Downtown-specific templates. All these do is list almost every location that has an article. This should be left up to the categories. The NYC navbox list specific and broad-range articles about New York City. Not every single park or building that has an article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but define it better. The template provides useful navigation, and we can avoid ballooning through defining its geographical scope well. As WP:DEL-CONTENT wisely notes, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and feel free to define it better/differently. The point is to make navigation more obvious to desktop computer users as many readers won't read the categories. If "Downtown Seattle" is defined as the CBD, perhaps it should only have the CBD. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downtown is a much larger area than the CBD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re-scope to only include Central Business District, Seattle. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 19 December 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).