Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11 edit

Template:Infallible declarations 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) 03:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official Catholic declaration, nor scientific consensus, as to what are all the positions the Catholic Church holds as infallible. The closest thing there is, is the list given at point 11. of the Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei which is "[w]ithout any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness".

The selection criteria are unclear, something which was already pointed out in 2016 at the Talk page and to which the template creator did not answer conclusively.

The claim that those indivual documents and all the council documents (which is what I assume the template refers to when it has the names of the councils) are infallible, is nowhere to be found on the individual WP articles linked in the template, apart from Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus.

This template is therefore pure WP:OR and should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It is a complicated subject that even theologians wrestle with. The template talk page also clarifies that is really an ill-defined concept for determining what is included.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 01:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (WP:OR) —Alalch E. 12:24, 12 March 2023 (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:CONCACAF national champions 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) 22:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Used on one very loosely related article. Template:CONCACAF Championship, Template:CONCACAF Gold Cup, and Template:Countries at the CONCACAF Gold Cup already exist. The only unique links this adds are links to national football teams, but these links are just general articles and not specific to CONCACAF (like the country links {{Countries at the CONCACAF Gold Cup}} has). Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid as per {{FIFA World Cup winners}} etc., simply needs adding to relevant articles. GiantSnowman 19:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant articles already have the other templates. No reason to add another template which does the same thing the others do. Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Other navboxes are already doing the job. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – It is only on "one loosely related article" because it is new, and I have not had the time to add this template to other national team pages. And it does not fulfill the same purpose as other navboxes as those ones list the host nations, not the champions. Similar templates are already used for the FIFA World Cup champions and the Summer Olympic gold medalists. RedBlueGreen93 (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The template links to country templates which are general articles, unrelated to CONCACAF specifically. Additionaly, a navigation template is not an article and a link there should appear only once, yet here you have 10(!) links to the same Mexico article and 7 links to the USA article. A reader clicking on the 2019 country link will reach the same place as a reader clicking on the 1965 country link. How are they aided by this navigation? Gonnym (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RedBlueGreen. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm pretty sure this template (or similar) has been deleted twice before at {{CONCACAF Gold Cup winners}}, once less than two years ago. I'm not seeing any compelling reasons to keep this one that address any arguments made in the prior TfDs. I also agree with Gonnym's concerns that this doesn't aid in navigation in any way - "champions of the CONCACAF championship" is not enough of an identifying characteristic to just have these national team pages all listed together, especially not the same link to Mexico 10 times. And frankly, I don't care that there are other navboxes for the World Cup or Summer Olympics - these same concerns would apply to those templates too, and I'd be more inclined to bring them to TfD than to include this one because those exist. -fuzzy510 (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per the prior TfD as noted above. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and fuzzy510 (in light of the prior TfD linked above). —Alalch E. 21:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fuzzy510, and both this and this prior TfDs that ended in deletion (is this not enough for a G4 speedy deletion?). I don't see how this template aids in navigation at all. V27t (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2023 (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).

2012 Summer Paralympics football 5-a-side 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles update to use WP:LST Frietjes (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 21:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2012 Summer Paralympics football 7-a-side 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles update to use WP:LST Frietjes (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 21:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2014 Winter Paralympics ice sledge hockey 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles update to use WP:LST Frietjes (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 21:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2014 Winter Paralympics wheelchair curling 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles update to use WP:LST Frietjes (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 21:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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:Simpleboxtop 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) 13:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This set of templates was created in January 2022 and hasn't been used since. It is redundant to Template:Infobox per its own documentation, quote: Infoboxes are really complicated. A much more simple one could be made using normal wikitext formatting. This template is a simple infobox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2023 (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/2023_March_11&oldid=1145431722"