Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StormSurgeWarnings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in mainspace. Izno (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, redundant to {{HurricaneWarnings}} which contains the entire set of hurricane warnings and is used in articles. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sole use is a talk page post announcing its existence. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Nigej (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2021 (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:Former first-class cricket club

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) 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former first-class cricket club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only once. I'd guess there's an acceptable infobox template for this one already. Izno (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Izno is correct that there's a proper infobox template for this: Template:Infobox cricket team (which has the same parameters for last match). Therefore, it's redundant and should be deleted and replaced by this infobox template on the one article where it's used. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Nigej (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I converted the one use of this to use the standard template mentioned in my previous comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2021 (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:Kingdom of Jeruslaem

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 Wrong venue, go to WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 13:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kingdom of Jeruslaem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused userbox; misspelled duplicate of User:Tablecloth1389/KingdomofJerusalem. Lennart97 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue userboxes go to MfD, not TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 11 April 2021 (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:Enum/Item

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) 17:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Enum/Item (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. User:GKFX^talk 19:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 11 April 2021 (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:NUMBEROFARTICLES2

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) 17:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NUMBEROFARTICLES2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (and created by a banned user, so unlikely to be used). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, will never be used, created by a banned user, and not even a correct count of number of articles. I see no purpose in keeping this around. Hog Farm _Talk 00:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, no obvious use. Number of articles - number of categorised dab pages isn't a particularly helpful count of articles as it will still include all kinds of pages in mainspace that aren't really "articles" per say (e.g. lists, outlines). If this is needed for some reason subtracting two magic words is such a simple operation this could be built directly into whatever template needs it. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, as we have Template:Numberofarticles, which is used in a couple of places. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not per se redundant to Template:Numberofarticles (because it wraps that to exclude disambiguation pages), however it's unused, and should be deleted unless a use case is found. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 11 April 2021 (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:Matches

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) 17:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and not likely to be used. User:GKFX^talk 17:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure in what Wikipedia context you'd want to be testing whether strings match, and the 0 transclusions highlights that it's pointless. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 11 April 2021 (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:AS Saint-Étienne (women) squad

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) 17:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AS Saint-Étienne (women) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 1 player in this squad has an article, so template fails basic purpose as a navigation tool. The team is in Division 2, so unlikely any of their players would meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG currently Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, serves no purpose as a navigation tool. Giant Snowman 11:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, might be CRYSTAL, but their striker Pilar Khoury will represent Lebanon internationally in a couple of months. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provides no useful navigation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 11 April 2021 (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:ASPTT Albi squad

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) 17:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ASPTT Albi squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for this template, as only 2 links. Most of the players won't be notable, as the club is in the 2nd tier of football, and so players don't meet WP:NFOOTY. As such, this template doesn't help any navigation between articles, and so is redundant Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the article and template needs to be updated so that women are better represented on Wikipedia? If so, I totally agree. Hmlarson (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean because otherwise, "Most of the players won't be notable, as the club is in the 2nd tier of football, and so players don't meet WP:NFOOTY." is a WP:TROLL maneuver rooted in some male? editors' insecurities. This team played in Division 1 Feminine per the article and we all know WP:GNG takes precedence over WP:NFOOTY. Hmlarson (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should improve women's articles on Wikipedia. However, I'm saying that most Division 2 Féminine players won't meet our notability standards (WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY), and so we'll never get enough links to make it a worthwhile template whilst they're in D2. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And before accusing editors of being a troll, you might want to actually think about what you're saying. In the last week, I've created multiple articles about notable women's footballers. But looking at the coverage of French women's footballers, I've struggled to find a good deal of coverage about Division 1 Féminine players, and there will be even less about Division 2 Féminine players. They played in Division 1 a few years back, but the current players- which are the ones on the template for a current squad- did not. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, serves no purpose as a navigation tool. Giant Snowman 11:34, 9 April 2021 (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:FrenchSculptureCensus

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 now with the hope that a non-archive-link solution can be found in the future. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FrenchSculptureCensus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template no longer works. The contents get populated automatically from Wikidata, but the links they provide are no longer valid. I raised this at the template talk page a few weeks ago, but no reaction so far. Template should either be deleted, or hidden until the problem is fixed at the Wikidata side. It is used on some 300+ pages, some of them high profile ones like Auguste Rodin. Fram (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that already. Such a shame! It appears the website still exists, but apparently they gave all artists new identifiers, so it's not a question of just fixing a formatter url due to new website hosting. I think it's best to hide the template until someone can find a way to update the links. I don't see an easy fix. Jane (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fram, I changed the url to use the archive of the site until the website is fixed. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I'll leave this open to hear more opinions and options (if any), but this seems like a good solution in any case. Fram (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hopefully this issue can be fixed at Wikidata, but the archive is better than nothing. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep solution is to fix it not to throw it away. Looks like a website re-indexing, so as long as someone can find a programatic way to associate old and new URLs, they should be able to update template. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2021 (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).