Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 4 June 6 >

June 5

[edit]

Nuremberg U-Bahn 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) 13:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for the Nuremberg U-Bahn. Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Nuremberg U-Bahn. All transclusions replaced. There are 9 dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 5 June 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).

2014–15 NBA Preseason 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preseason is nowhere notable for having its own templates. Preseason standings are not official in any capacity. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:28, 5 June 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:Spaced en dash

[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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is more trouble than it's worth, and is heavily over-used in place of e.g. colons, or literally any other construction that doesn't require at least two levels of expert-level Wikipedia experience (the deeply idiosyncratic house dash style, and inline templates).

it's been twenty years. Everyone has access to an editing toolbox that puts the right thing in. Let's kill off some curly brackets (which despite the talk page telling me are used by 70k+ pages are extremely localised to its adopters).

Obviously the resolution will be subst+delete, and asking people not to create macros which require 10x the cognitive burden to just hitting the toolbar button. 0% of this template's users are incapable of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:50, 5 June 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).

Basketball 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unnecessary to have for respective seasons. The majority are red-linked to pages that don't exist or not red-linked but titles of templates are in bold. Not helpful for navigation or for any other purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:38, 5 June 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:1989–90 French Division 1 table

[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) 13:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Not sure what tournament or event this is supposed to be for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:45, 6 June 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:Arabian Gulf Cup 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 relisted on 2021 June 13. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:10, 13 June 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:ReferencesList

[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) 13:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduce an unnecessary and non-standard format for a {{reflist}} and {{notelist}} respectively. These don't seem like an improvement. Laplorfill (talk) 16:35, 5 June 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).

2020-21 BBL Match 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) 13:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scorecards of games between two teams in the BBL League should not be on separate templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete all these are not needed, as each scorecard is used a small number of times. These templates are a persistent pain as they make articles more difficult to edit, as you have to go to the article, find the template name, go to the template, and then edit it. I know other cricket articles use templates for individual matches, but they shouldn't do. Consider this vote an approval for the deletion of any individual match cricket templates, as their deletion is way overdue in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and I'd agree that in almost every case the same should happen with other match templates. Frankly we should have much less match information in place anyway outside of major international cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:50, 6 June 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).

UEFA Women's Championship finalists 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 almost all, but no consensus for the winners template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not linked anywhere except to each of the templates' mainspace. Only links in the template are to the nation's national women's football teams. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: Your nominating rationale is factually incorrect with regards to Template:UEFA Women's Championship winners. Seany91 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seany91, what the one template you are voting to keep does nothing except link to the respective national women's team articles. The majority of wins are by the German team including the old West German team, with the second most being Norway. All this template has is fluff. And is superseded by Template:UEFA Women's Championship. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...which is exactly what templates such as these are meant to do: for navigation purposes and are linked in the respective national women's team articles. Also see Template:FIFA World Cup champions, Template:UEFA European Championship winners, Template:FIFA Women's World Cup Winners, etc. One team has a good record in the same competition is not a valid rationale for deletion. Seany91 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You also erroneously stated that the templates are not used anywhere. The one with winners clearly is used. Seany91 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, apart from the one listed by Seany91. GiantSnowman 18:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion either way. But I do not see why Euro finalists templates should be deleted and World cup finalists templates not. The World cup is a more important tournament than the Euro's but not by a big margin. I think that American wikipedians fail to see the impact the Euro's has on the old continent. So in short: Either keep them both or delete them both gets my vote! Dutchy45 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 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).

NFL Team Years

[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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFL Year supersedes and fulfills the purpose of each of these templates. There is no need for each team to have its own team year templates. Especially for teams that no longer exist. No other templates are used for the other major American sports leagues for their respective teams. And a majority of these are unused and the ones that are used can be replaced by NFL Year. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; NFL Year template redirects to the entire league's season, not further specific information about that team's individual season that some users may be looking for.Claystripe (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the pages of MLB, NBA players, for example, in their infobox it links to the MLB Year, NBA year templates for the respective seasons of their career. Having a year template for every team is too much. Even for teams or reiterations of teams that no longer exist, like the Montreal Expos or Flordia Marlins. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The stated rationale is misleading as the NFL template and 39 NFL team templates are unrelated in design and purpose. {{NFL Year|1960}} creates "1960" where the "1960" year links to 1960 NFL season. However, {{Cowboys season|1960}} creates "DAL" where the "DAL" abbreviation links to 1960 Dallas Cowboys season
See Tom Landry#Head-coaching record or Tom Flores#Head coaching record as examples of a career stats data table which can pair both templates to render year links and team links exactly as intended. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UW Dawgs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Seahawks4LifeTALK—CONTRIBS 14:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the explanation by UW Dawgs, they are clearly not a duplicated/superceded. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 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).

1980–81 NBA Rosters

[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) 13:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the roster information is already transcluded on the respective 1980–81 season pages for the four teams. There is no need for each team to have their separate roster template for any season unless they won the championship. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:52, 5 June 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:Uw-thumb1

[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 keep. There is consensus to keep the template. High use was cited by some editors in the discussion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is following the discussion on May 27 regarding Uw-thumb2 where it's barely used and a warning notice over thumbnails in infoboxes seems ridiculous. And Uw-thumb3 and Uw-thumb4 have been deleted with a similar consensus over why anyone would be blocked or warned over something like this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Because given the lack of the template's usage, it isn't an overwheleming concern when it comes to editing. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that this is a substed template so the lack of transclusions is not evidence of lack of use? User:GKFXtalk 22:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. However, a notice about such a thing doesn't seem to be on par with a warning about vandalism or edits without sources. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this message, or something like it, has been used 3000+ times. It seems useful and clear, and evidently this is a routine error. The tone is reasonably friendly, it’s more of a how-to guide than a warning. User:GKFXtalk 22:42, 6 June 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_5&oldid=1028354489"