Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 4 May 6 >

May 5 edit

Template:Lucknow Metro Stations 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:Lucknow Metro Stations. Izno (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Lucknow Metro Stations with Template:Lucknow Metro.
Both are for Lucknow Metro lines and stations. Gonnym (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect {{Lucknow Metro}} to {{Lucknow Metro Stations}}, which is more complete. Some pages transclude both, so as part of the merge, {{Lucknow Metro}} will need to be removed from those pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral, inclined toward redirect {{Lucknow Metro}} to {{Lucknow Metro Stations}}, the final content is at the right page title now. 14.139.226.226 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lucknow Metro is the main article (even tho there's List of Lucknow Metro stations), so, I'd propose merging everything into {{Lucknow Metro}} and deleting/redirecting {{Lucknow Metro Stations}} to {{Lucknow Metro}}. This would give an opportunity for expanding the template with any other related links of Lucknow Metro. The other way doesn't — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC) (stricken off deleting — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    b-but that list cant be transcluded thats why they put a navbox which doesnt need expansion with other links. If anything {{Lucknow Metro}} can be expanded with other related links. Agree that {{Lucknow Metro}} seem redundant rn with the other with present content, so inclined towards redirect {{Lucknow Metro}} to {{Lucknow Metro Stations}} 14.139.226.226 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The name "Lucknow Metro" implies it has links to all things related to, well, Lucknow Metro. The name "Lucknow Metro Stations" implies it has links that are stations in Lucknow Metro. Adding and expanding the "Lucknow Metro Stations" with other related things of the metro, say, Lines, or some other notable articles that are yet to be created, is not possible - as (once again) the name implies stations!! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Its good as it is (the laid foundation/base) and I'm for preserve. "Lucknow Metro" for quick overview of related articles, beginning with lines and their termini, they just 2 lines old give some space. "Lucknow Metro stations" for quick links to all stations in its system. As it grows, def not want to cram everything into one box. 14.139.226.226 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know of or have enough links (at least 5 unique) to expend it or are you talking theoretically? Currently, all the links at Template:Lucknow Metro are in Template:Lucknow Metro Stations as they are all station and line related. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Atm I'm talking theoretically — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've updated my !vote removing the deletion. Redirecting Lucknow Metro Stations to Lucknow Stations template will not require an update in all the articles — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're mistaken, pages which transclude both the templates will point to same content when merged. 14.139.226.226 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, those duplications should be removed after merging — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect {{Lucknow Metro}} to {{Lucknow Metro Stations}}. we can always rename the target template if there is a need in the future (i.e., if the theoretical scope expansion happens). Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 13 May 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:Namma Metro 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 merge to Template:Namma Metro. Izno (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Namma Metro navbox with Template:Namma Metro.
Would seem these are both for Namma Metro lines and stations. Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral, inclined towards redirect {{Namma Metro}} to {{Namma Metro navbox}} used in most station articles for intra-system navigation 14.139.226.226 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't name navbox templates with prefix navbox, unless it's really essential. In this case, not — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ah, the author was unaware of the convention. My stand is based on the supposed idea behind separate templates, don't care name coz that's not displayed where its called, and is easy fix after 4 days of wait. 14.139.226.226 (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{Namma Metro}} and delete/redirect the other one — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC) (stricken off delete — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:52, 12 May 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:STM color 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) 02:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Stockholm metro Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 5 May 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:Bay-class patrol boat and one other navbox with a main article but no body links 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 for "Guadiana-class destroyer" and no consensus for "Bay-class patrol boat". Please feel free to renominate "Bay-class patrol boat" if you still feel it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This navbox has a main article but no links to articles in its body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a BS nom, somebody just has to write the class article. This never should have been brought to TfD.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep calm and read NENAN. We don't create navboxes just so the articles can be written. Navboxes are created because there are at least five articles written and form a basis for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NENAN is an essay - it has no more or less value than Wikipedia:A navbox on every page. The "five articles written" threshold does not appear to have any basis in Policy.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it serves as a rule of the thumb and has done so for many years. What articles are there to navigate from these two navboxes? There are none, thus these don't have a navigational purpose. Which is what navboxes are for. To navigate across/between articles. Citing policy, "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles", but the main articles of the subjects are red links which is what should be avoided and thus these templates qualify for deletion. Generally, when users create navboxes, the articles exist prior to the navboxes justifying the existence of such navboxes. The same is true of the many navboxes I've created for foreign relations. If the red links can be replaced by articles that do exist, then deletion can be avoided as the navboxes have been improved upon since the nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep navboxes are useful and serve purpose, if given the oppotunity. - wolf 23:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how navboxes work when they are created. They have articles to link and navigate across or they don't. Bay-class doesn't have any. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:NOTFINISHED. That no one has gotten around to creating these articles yet doesn't mean they never will. And deleting a template simply because it houses valid WP:REDLINKS is nonsensical and a waste of all of our time. Parsecboy (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been sitting full of red-links for nine years. At that point I would say that expecting someone to turn those links blue is wishful thinking. Delete (the one that hasn't been withdrawn). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:08, 11 May 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:Escape class rescue ships 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) 14:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no main article. Both of the ships listed in this navbox are listed in Template:Diver class rescue ships, which appears to be the correct class, per sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this appears to be an error. There appears to be only one USN ship named "Espape" which was a Diver-class. - wolf 23:59, 7 May 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:Cosmos-class tender 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 for "Cosmos-class tender" and keep for "Cpl. Louis J. Hauge Jr. class dry cargo ship" Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no main article and only two links to articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles can be expanded whenever someone gets around to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All five ships of the Cpl. Louis J. Hauge Jr class already had articles and are now correctly linked from the navbox Lyndaship (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have added redirected links. Please fix them. You would need one more article within the navbox listing outside of the title. At the moment it still fails NENAN regarding the rule of thumb of having a minimum of five links. It currently has four links to actual articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look again at my edits - none of the ones I added were a redirected link. Perhaps you would like to sort out the already existing one which was. Don't accept your NENAN rule either, there's hundreds of ship classes which have less than five members with navboxs Lyndaship (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check my edit. You may not accept NENAN, but many nominations have been used on the basis. And the project associated with these templates needs to address this. Because you can't create navboxes if there are no articles to navigate from. Especially when it's fewer than five. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are actually deleting links in sensible places and introducing easter eggs, by moving the link to MV Cpl Louis J. Hauge Jr. (T-AK-3000) to the title field and removing the link to the class. Please don't do this as it is disruptive.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't. Please check again. MV PFC William B. Baugh is the main article. MV PFC William B. Baugh (T-AK-3001) is the redirect. Please don't make false accusations of disruption when you haven't checked through the changes in the edit which you haven't otherwise you wouldn't have said so. And since two editors here aren't willing to read through NENAN, the title link does not count. It's the links in the body of the template that do. The link in the title goes to the main article of the subject the navbox was created for. The name of the navbox is "Cpl. Louis J. Hauge Jr." The main article for the title is MV Cpl. Louis J. Hauge Jr.. This refusal to listen, address the concerns of the nomination, and not do basic checking does not bode well in this discussion to make improvements. Read the policy and guidelines regarding navboxes. Jonesey95, care to interject? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to be distinguishing between an article on the class, and an article on a ship in the class - MV Cpl. Louis J. Hauge Jr. is not the article for the class like you claim, it is an article for one of five ships in the class - the overall class coverage is in the Strategic sealift ships#Corporal Louis J. Hauge, Jr. class. Please be more careful.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title is not supposed to link to article sections or redirects. The title has to be a link to an article. What part of this is hard to understand? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Lyndaship and Nigel Ish. Also, navboxes are useful and serve purpose, if given the oppotunity. Lastly, where in the rules does it say: "The title is not supposed to link to article sections or redirects. The title has to be a link to an article. What part of this is hard to understand?"...? Looking for an actual policy or guideline on this, not some essay. And watch the personal attacks... there's no need for hostility or rudeness. - wolf 00:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the keep votes are coming from people who are not regulars at Tfd's. If the cosmos template was useful, wouldn't the articles have been created by now before the navboxes' creation in 2013? If the articles didn't exist then, then how is the navbox useful now? If somebody is going to create the articles, then go ahead. Criticizing NENAN and not understanding its invocation in Tfd nominations represents a big problem for not listening. It's not policy. That's true. But it serves as a rule of thumb. Citing policy, "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles". There are no articles at the moment for Cosmos-class tender. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Two of the keep votes are coming from people who are not regulars at Tfd's." - You are not the gatekeeper here, anyone can !vote if they like, despite your persistent condescending rudeness and petulance. Your bludgeoning responses to every !vote you disagree with are bordering on harrassment. You've had your say, let others have theirs and let the process play out. - wolf 01:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your emphasis on two voters not being regulars leads me to think that there's a certain amount of groupthink going on with the regulars here. Perhaps we're violating the unwritten standards/interpretations of the regulars?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's beginning to make me think we need to head to ANI. This type of behavior is unacceptable.
Oh, and WikiCleanerMan - Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates isn't policy, either. It's a guideline. The two are not equivalent. Parsecboy (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy and Sturmvogel 66: An ANI may very well be needed. Looking at the exchanges between Wikicleanerman and Nigel Ish, (both here, at wt:ships and Nigel Ish's talk page), it appears Nigel Ish has walked away as a result. Who knows how many other content creators have been chased away and how much content has been needlessly lost becuase of the behaviour here. - wolf 14:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all take a step back and let the nomination play out. I've explained to the admin on his talk page. I've argued my case and so has have others. There is no need for ANI. And I'll address the idea I drove someone off Wikipedia. I didn't. Multiple explanations can be tiring, but I'm taking a step back from these ships Tfd's. If anyone is willing to improve the navboxes to address the concerns of the nomination and is willing to create the articles, by all means, go ahead. Let's not take this personally or anywhere farther than it needs to go. I apologize for any offense. But I only was arguing on the merits of the nomination which I checked. But what's done is done. And let the process play out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think that things have gotten so bad we need to go to a drama board. While WikiCleanerMan's comments weren't very collegial at times, Nigel overreacted, as he is want to do. I hope that he returns as I value his contributions, but I never would have inferred that either WikiCleanerMan or Jonesy95 would have damaged some of the articles that were part of the disputed templates from their comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the behavior I was talking about was the gatekeeping and trying to disqualify the opinions of people who aren't regulars at TfD. And the nomination here, which struck me as a bit tendentious; WCM should have known that would be contentious, and it would have been wise to wait for the outcome of these discussions before pouring more gasoline on the fire. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's note: I am happy to have these navboxes kept if they can be (or have been) edited to conform with the guideline at WP:NAVBOX, primarily with There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just about all of them can have a class article written; it's just a question of time. I have no idea why the templates were created prematurely, but I would be wroth to discover that they'd been deleted simply because they didn't (yet) link to existing articles as that would mean that precious time would be required to recreate them. I am entirely indifferent about the guideline of a minimum of five articles before a navbox should be written as I believe that every ship class article deserves a navbox, regardless of the number of links in it. I found the 8 May nomination of a class template particularly offensive because it already has several blue links and we were still discussing the issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems like the right choice may be to userfy the templates that are not ready yet, so that the effort to create them will not have been wasted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • What, exactly, would be the point in userfying either of these templates? There are articles currently using both, and removing them would inarguably degrade those articles. If ever there was a case to WP:IAR, this would be it, not that NENAN's 5-article prescription has ever actually been a rule. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template:Cpl. Louis J. Hauge Jr. class dry cargo ship which has enough links, and Delete Template:Cosmos-class tender per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as providing a useful basis for navigation between closely related articles; the matter of too few links for for Cosmos is probably a pretty easy fix; from poking around on Google I could probably hammer out a decent start-class article on Barberry in 45 minutes. Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 11 May 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:Calumet-class tug and similar navboxes with no main article and no links to articles 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 for all but "Costanzo Ciano-class cruiser" (delete) and "Ersatz Triglav-class destroyer" (withdrawn). Please feel free to renominate any that you still wish to see deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions in article space. Navbox with no main article and no articles for its entries. Not created recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audaz-class destroyer (1945) actually does have an article - at the non-disambiguated Audaz-class destroyer. The constituent units of the class don't have articles on en-wiki, but do have articles on the Spanish-language Wikipedia, so they are credible targets for articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, Canopo-class frigate is covered by the article Centauro-class frigate.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with any of these navbox templates being userfied until there are actual articles to link from them. Even with a main article, a navbox with no links in the body is not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are now articles for Spanish destroyer Audaz (1951) and Spanish destroyer Ariete (1955). Clearly there are now actual articles linked in the Audaz-class destroyer template, so Keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles are not enough. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right - I'm gone from here - it is clear that whatever links are present in the infobox will not be enough to satisfy those who want deletion, and that editors are quite willing to do whatever is necessary to delete them no matter how disruptive to the encyclopedia they need to be to do that. People who actually write articles are obviously not welcome at templates for discussion, and presumably the content isn't welcome either (as you are stopping people from linking to it and misdirecting links.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is true. You clearly do not understand the purpose of navboxes and how they're supposed to work despite repeated instances of telling you. You just refuse to listen. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aalesund class destroyers now have an article Ålesund-class destroyer - although in this case the two constituent ships of the class were never completed and are unlikely to get individual articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've left a note on the WP:SHIPS talkpage about these discussions (and the ones above) here.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these with the possible exceptions of the tugboats and the Costanzo Ciano-class cruisers can have articles written about them so I see no need to delete them because they'll have to be recreated whenever that happens. The Ersatz Triglav's are already on my to do list, it's just a question of whenever I'll get around to it. What harm does it cause to leave them be?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ardito class destroyers are covered in the Indomito-class destroyer article - if that is the correct place for them, then contents of the Ardito-class infobox can probably end up in the Indomito class navbox - we want the navboxes and the articles to be consistent.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Sturmvogel66 Nigel Ish. Also, navboxes are useful and serve purpose, if given the oppotunity. - wolf 00:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how navboxes work when they are created. They have articles to link and navigate across or they don't. None of these have any. Some would have two few if they did have articles created. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>Well ain't that just spiffy! I've created dozens of templates with a class article and only two individual ship articles; hell, I have a few that only deal with a single ship. Ya gonna try to delete them as well? And others have lots of redlinks in them as well, are they subject to deletion too?</sarcasm> That's what it sounds like you'd like to do, based on your comment at 00:21. I don't actually think that that's what you meant, but it sure came across that way.
I applaud your Wikignoming efforts, but I think that y'all have gotten wrapped up in your own little world here. I see that y'all made no effort to notify our project about these proposed deletions; if it hadn't been for one of our alert members, none of us would have known about these. And that I don't appreciate at all.
You guys aren't ships people and are clearly not placing the same importance as we do or evaluating them by the same criteria. Y'all place the most importance on redlinks and we see something that we can potentially put to use at a later date, deletion of which would cause us additional effort to recreate once we got around to writing the relevant articles. You guys don't know enough to spot the bad links in the templates as Nigel pointed out, but we've fixed them now that they've been pointed out. You've found one genuinely erroneous template and three others that likely lack the RS coverage to satisfy GNG and those four can be deleted without objection from us, but all the others are perfectly useful once the articles are written. Y'all are focused on these templates simply because they're un- or underused, but so what? What resources are they consuming just sitting out there? I'm all for deleting erroneous or obsolete templates, but other than that what harm are unused templates causing? Since they're not actually being used, they only take up a few kilobytes of memory and use no cycles. Honestly all this comes across to me as an obsessive tidiness for its own sake.
I'm sure that I've misunderstood y'all's motives and such, or that there's a lot I don't understand about the templates in general, so I'll be standing by to be educated. No, seriously, I'm curious why unused templates are perceived as a problem by y'all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion request for the Ersatz Triglav-class destroyer is now moot.
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:Korail color 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) 02:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Korail. Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 5 May 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 master 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) 14:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions for this source-specific external link template. Created in 2010. The site appears to be usable in only four articles, at the most. It's probably not worth keeping a template around on the off chance that someone wants to convert those four links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 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:CJHr 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) 14:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only one transclusion for this source-specific citation template. Created in 2015. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 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:CJHfa 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) 14:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions for this source-specific citation template. Created in 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 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:BTC color 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) 02:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Busan Metro Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 5 May 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:CEN 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) 14:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions that intend to use this template (there is one transclusion that exists from a previous iteration of this template when it had a completely different function). This flag template is misleadingly named and incorrectly documented. It is the flag of the Federal Republic of Central America, not of modern Central America, which existed from 1823 to 1841. There is no such three-letter country abbreviation. This template should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 5 May 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:CEM poster 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) 18:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions of this Wikisource link template. Created in 2016, does not appear to be adopted, or perhaps a general-purpose template meets the need. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a standard type template used for many Wikisource links in the external links section (eg {{DNB}} {{Cite DNB}} and {{DNB poster}}). While of course the link can be met with a "general-purpose template" they are difficult to fill out unless one is very familiar how temples work. I think it should be kept because it may be useful. If however someone wants to deleted until it is needed then I suggest it then editors should be able to recreate it without the need to go through bureaucrat hoops to do so. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:Jonesey95 how does deletion benefit the project over retention in this case? -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unused. But, it should be allowed to be recreated if needed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:37, 12 May 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:CEM 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) 18:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions for this source-specific citation template. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These templates which link to Wikisource come in threes. One is for citations usually called "cite xyx", the second is "XYZ" and the third is "XYZ poster" (for use in external links). If one looks at Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the Complete Encyclopaedia of Music it is clear that this is used as a source. Given that it is out of copyright then text from it may well be copied into a Wikipedia article in the passive narrative voice in which case this template will be needed. -- PBS (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's unused despite existing for six years. I don't find the above hypothetical to be convincing -- it's had 6 years to happen but hasn't. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Pppery are you familiar with the many dozens of similar templates for linking to Wikisource? For example {{EB1911}}, {{Cite EB1911}} and {{EB1911 poster}}. Editors who incoroprate PD text into a Wikilpedia from Wikisource, or just link to Wikisource are familiar with these tripple templates. How does it a net improvement to the project to delete a template such as this? Afterall ther is no time limit on this and sooner or later if other similar templates are considered this one will start to be used. -- PBS (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unused. But, it should be allowed to be recreated if needed, although I don't think CEM is the best name for it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:36, 12 May 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:Cultural Regions in Europe 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) 13:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a random group of regions mashed up together. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing defining about these regions in terms of navigation other just a list put together. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:02, 6 May 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:Contains Meitei text 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 May 12. ✗plicit 12:49, 12 May 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:Lobos BUAP 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 12:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

team is not active; no need for current squad template Joeykai (talk) 03:46, 5 May 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:Infobox Minecraft server 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) 02:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per rationale by Izno from previous discussion. Infobox is being used by six articles. {{Infobox video game}} could take on the warranted entries. – Pbrks (t • c) 01:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been disagreement on which type of infobox to use, with either no infobox, or {{infobox software}} being used. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it has special fields that are not available with any other kind of infobox–ones that can't naturally be integrated into the prose (primarily the server IP address, but also player statistics). It specializes in Minecraft servers by design and will result in a poorer-quality infobox if it is deleted. Its addition has not been contested on any of the articles. SWinxy (talk) 03:04, 5 May 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_May_5&oldid=1087654536"