Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< May 22
May 24 >

May 23

edit

Template:RensselaerswyckPatroons

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 23:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article content with no template parameters, documentation, or categories. Subst into article and delete template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 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:Sight and Sound Poll

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) 18:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really what a WP:NAVBOX is for. Best left to the articles. --woodensuperman 15:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is not a film awards navbox. This is just a ranking from a magazine. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The magazine is from BFI, the British equivalent of AFI, so it's a definitive list - and most (possibly all) of the articles reference it. And I would point out that per WP:NOTDUPE, the template and the list article are considered complimentary, not inappropriately duplicative: It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better to link to the article in the prose instead of using a navbox to avoid navbox creep. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 30 May 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:1972 Summer Olympics women’s volleyball group A standings

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 14:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 23 May 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).

UEFA Euro group tables

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 14:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after CRwikiCA converted the articles to use section transclusion. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 23 May 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 game reference 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. ✗plicit 14:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

current convention for Olympics and Paralympics is to place these in the main article and transclude using WP:LST to avoid creating/watching 21 to 32 templates per competition. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 23 May 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 game reference 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. ✗plicit 14:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

current convention for Olympics and Paralympics is to place these in the main article and transclude using WP:LST to avoid creating/watching 26 to 32 templates per competition. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 23 May 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:WikiProject Mathematics field category

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 14:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. It was previously used by the |field= parameter in {{WikiProject Mathematics}}, from which the |field= parameter was removed in 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:42, 23 May 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:Rurik

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) 18:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template:Rurik (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Fails Wp:TG #5 "Templates should be clearly documented as to their usage and scope."
  • Fails WP:TG #3 "Template function should be clear from the template name". Instead, this is a random sampling of 3 generations of people (but not all of them) allegedly descended from Rurik (whose historicity is heavily disputed, see Rurik dynasty#Genealogical issues) from the 9th to 11th century, while it is claimed that the so-called "Rurik dynasty" lasted until 1598. Most people were not Grand Prince of Kiev themselves, and thus their relevance in the template is unclear.
  • Fails WP:TG #2 "navigation aid" because 6 out of 14 articles are still redlinks, and it unclear why the reader should want to quick-navigate between these 14 articles in particular. (Addendum 9 May: this reason for deletion is supported by WP:CREATEFIRST and WP:EXISTING). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: those aren't reasons for deletion. Those are improvements that need to be made. Documentation can be added, although it is not typical for sidebar templates. If the name is less than ideal, the template can be moved to a new name, such as "Rurik sidebar". The 6 redlinks use {{ill}} to indicate that articles at ru.WP exist and may be good targets for creation (see also the nuance at WP:EXISTING). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are 3 very specific reasons for deletion. Interlanguage links are fine in the main body, but templates are for navigation between already existing articles per WP:CREATEFIRST: Creating red links in purely navigational features of Wikipedia, like navigation templates, disambiguation pages, and "see also" sections, directly interferes with the actual function of these features, which is to help readers navigate the already existing Wikipedia resources relevant to the topic. Red links are strongly discouraged in navigation templates. The nuance at WP:EXISTING stipulates a requirement: Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data. These 14 articles are neither. I, for one, have never even heard of "Evstafiy Mstislavich", and I have been intensively writing and categorising articles and lists about Kievan Rus' for several months now. Why should a son of Mstislav of Chernigov who ruled a minor principality at the fringes of the realm be more relevant to some sort of "set" of "Rurikids" than 3 of the brothers of Yaroslav the Wise, who each became Grand Dukes of Kiev themselves within the template's specified timeframe of IX—XI century? It is remarkably arbitrary and incomplete. WP:EXISTING is actually a reason for deletion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not convert to a navbox and just link articles from the Rurik dynasty category? The sidebar isn't doing anything in terms of navigation and is more of a family tree chart than anything else minus the links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there are multiple problems with that.
    1. Rurik may never have actually existed, so the whole "Rurik dynasty" may be a misnomer.
    2. "dynasty" and "family tree" are two different things, see the current discussion about merging the "Rurik dynasty" and "Rurikids" categories. The current template is an arbitrary mix of both.
    3. The template's specified timeframe of IX—XI century is still arbitrary. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that Rurik existed and there was an unbroken chain of blood ties all the way up to 1598, the navbox should extend up to the XVI/(16th) century. There's no reason to take only the first 3 centuries of a purported total of 7 centuries.
    4. There is already Family tree of Russian monarchs#Rurik dynasty, which per WP:TG #6 makes the template redundant by performing the same function. It's so huge that it wouldn't make for a good navbox anyway.
    Feel free to ping me if you'd like me to point out even more problems, but I'll leave it here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:30, 23 May 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:IPA AE/Edit notice

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) 18:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}}. Only one usage as an edit notice, so this wrapper isn't needed. Also mistakenly applies the categories associated with the topic from which the template was copied. Bsherr (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{IPA AE}}. Only two uses on talk pages, and mistakenly uses text associated with the topic from which the template was copied. --Bsherr (talk) 03:08, 23 May 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_May_23&oldid=1157905831"