Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly fails WP:NENAN, it includes two links: the parent article and a singular episode article. -- /Alex/21 23:43, 28 November 2020 (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).
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:Infobox station. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging the above into Template:Infobox station.
Proposing merging these two low-usage UK railway station templates into {{Infobox station}}, which follows the July discussion that merged the main GB railway templates.

Sample converts of these templates can be seen in my sandbox, User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox2. I think these look much 'prettier'; Heworth_Interchange#Metro is a bit of a mess and the templates horribly out of date.

Data is carried over with two exceptions: "Distance from datum" on the T&W template, which is pretty much trivia especially for an infobox, and "[number of] Escalators", same reason. As for styling changes, consensus from the GB station merge & post-merge discussions should apply, for example the A-Z "List to stations" will be removed. To accommodate for colours on the Manchester set, a Module:Adjacent stations system will be created (already done for T&W at Module:Adjacent stations/Tyne and Wear Metro). For remaining points, see sandbox mockup. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2020 (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).
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. Valid concerns, no opposition, plenty of precedent in the past for deletion of this type of template. Based on low participation though, this can be considered a soft deletion. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing templates are typically reserved for albums that have articles on the majority, if not all, of its songs. Only a few songs from each album have articles and navigation to them is already provided by the {{Electric Light Orchestra singles}} template. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely. I came across these during my review of the daily updates at User:AlexNewArtBot/AlbumSearchResult. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:44, 3 December 2020 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) --TheImaCow (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for discussion and possible deletion here following an initial discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Most-produced aircraft. Essentially this falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the concerns brought up in the essay Wikipedia:Avoid template creep, plus it duplicates the article we already have: List of most-produced aircraft. Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (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).
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 2020 December 7. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2020 (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).
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:Old moves. There was some valid opposition to this merger which seems to have been reconsidered, leaving a fairly straight consensus to merge to the "multi" version of this template family. Regardless of whether the merge involves a switch to Lua (like the multi XfD template) or some other method, it should still be backwards-compatible (at least from the outset) with all extant uses. If this provides too challenging and/or a different solution is needed (per some of the now-removed opposition comments), this discussion can be relisted for more input from the community. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Old move with Template:Old moves.
Redundant template. The whole setup of {{Old moves}} should be replaced with Lua similar to {{Old XfD multi}} or {{Copied}}. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 12:52, 28 November 2020 (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).
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 redirect and change the target name to Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case, as suggested in the discussion, as it is a clearer name for non-USA editors. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an unused fork of Template:Infobox court case modified slightly for SCOTUS cases. I presume creator wasn't aware at the time that Template:Infobox SCOTUS case exists.
Proposing to redirect both to Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and rename the original template to "Infobox US Supreme Court case". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 28 November 2020 (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).
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 2020 December 6. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2020 (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).
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 2020 December 5. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2020 (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).

Country templates part 1

[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) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

43 deprecated {{s-line}} NSW Country templates replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/NSW TrainLink and Module:Adjacent stations/State Rail Authority. Fleet Lists (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2020 (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).