Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7 edit

Template:Catree 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) 13:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:Category tree all used only on the creator's page. Should be replaced and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 7 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).

2018 Winter Olympics ice hockey team roster 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) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 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 03:15, 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) 04:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is an improper use of templates to store article content. Whatever the opinions about LST and the level of understanding thereof may be, these templates should not exist. However I'll say that this application of LST, as done by Frietjes, is perfectly reasonable and robust. —Alalch E. 15:19, 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 Olympics basketball team roster 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) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 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 03:15, 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) 04:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is an improper use of templates to store article content. Whatever the opinions about LST and the level of understanding thereof may be, these templates should not exist. However I'll say that this application of LST, as done by Frietjes, is perfectly reasonable and robust. —Alalch E. 15:20, 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 Olympics football team roster 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) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 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 03:15, 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) 04:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is an improper use of templates to store article content. Whatever the opinions about LST and the level of understanding thereof may be, these templates should not exist. However I'll say that this application of LST, as done by Frietjes, is perfectly reasonable and robust. —Alalch E. 15:20, 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]
  • Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:36, 14 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 Olympics volleyball team roster 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) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 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 03:15, 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) 04:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is an improper use of templates to store article content. Whatever the opinions about LST and the level of understanding thereof may be, these templates should not exist. However I'll say that this application of LST, as done by Frietjes, is perfectly reasonable and robust. —Alalch E. 15:20, 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).

2016 Summer Olympics football team roster 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) 13:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and previous consensuses for Olympics roster/squad templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 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 03:15, 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) 04:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is an improper use of templates to store article content. Whatever the opinions about LST and the level of understanding thereof may be, these templates should not exist. However I'll say that this application of LST, as done by Frietjes, is perfectly reasonable and robust. —Alalch E. 15:21, 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).

2016 Summer Olympics volleyball team roster 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) 13:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding pages updated to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 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 03:16, 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) 04:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is an improper use of templates to store article content. Whatever the opinions about LST and the level of understanding thereof may be, these templates should not exist. However I'll say that this application of LST, as done by Frietjes, is perfectly reasonable and robust. —Alalch E. 15:21, 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:Chess South Africa 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) 03:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and the site seems to be broken, with loads of 404 errors Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:25, 7 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:2022 SEC baseball record vs. opponent 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) 14:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. I'm assuming this should be in 2022 Southeastern Conference baseball tournament but it isn't. If needed it should be subst there. Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2022 version template was a continuation of several years of use on SEC team pages, e.g.,2021 LSU Tigers baseball team#Conference_matrix, which had been a take off on American League and and National League baseball, e.g., Template:2022 NL Record vs. opponents, which have been kept up for decades. Recently the 2022 SEC version was replaced on SEC team pages as shown, 2022 LSU Tigers baseball team#Results, which is why it now shows as not being used. I was in the process of changing these templates to indicate home games and make them easier to use. Once I finish these changes, I was planning on using the SEC team pages for 2022 and 2023 to see if a good consensus can be reached on whether to continue to use the older one, or the newer one. I would suggest waiting at least a few weeks before deletion to see which way the consensus goes. I was thinking the burden of reaching a consensus should be on the person replacing something older with something newer, but decided I would do it myself. I was planning on substituting them after they got about 3 years old, since the likelihood of additional changes becomes very slim. Thanks. Jay Jor (talk) 16:53, 4 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) 13:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete don't need the template, as section transclusion is being used to show this results matrix, and so this template is unused. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused template. —Alalch E. 15:22, 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:Heads of the Qajar Imperial Family 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) 14:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely redundant and useless, as all pretenders and heads of the Qajar family since the dynasty's fall from power have been listed at Template:Qajar Dynasty, thus this template serves no purpose at all. Keivan.fTalk 07:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete duplicative template. Few transclusions so can replace if needed. —Alalch E. 15:23, 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_7&oldid=1145814628"