Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 15

< March 14	March 16 >

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) 04:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Past Masters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This collection of songs is lesser than but redundant to Template:The Beatles singles. We have footer navboxes for all the Beatles' albums, but none for compilations, and I don't see why this compilation should be considered in the same league as an official Beatles album. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- then why is it an official album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minemaster1337 (talk • contribs)
  - I would like see links to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources that consider Past Masters an official Beatles album. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding the above comments, we need to remember that this is a navbox; its only purpose in life is to aid navigation between the articles in the template (see WP:NAVBOX). The question is simply whether this navbox does that. The first thing to note is that the template isn't in most of the song articles (eg Love Me Do) - so it isn't aiding navigation between the articles if it's not there. Basically the fact that they're in the "Past Masters" album is not a defining feature of these songs, and as such the link between the songs is quite tenuous from a navigation point of view. Nigej (talk) 09:38, 16 March 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:Chop head and tail

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) 04:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chop head and tail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete to Module:String's sub function and barely used outside of sandboxes. User:GKFX^talk 22:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace those instances and then delete, per nominator.

First observation: the variables in Module:String's sub function that determine the position are not identical to the variables used by Template:Chop head and tail, rather they are off by 1 (Template:Chop head and tail counts how much to chop off, while Module:String's sub function counts what to leave).

Secondly, and this is a rather insurmountable obstacle, the second position variable in Template:Chop head and tail is counted from the end of the string, while in Module:String's sub function it is counted from the beginning. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:String says (for the "sub" option) "If either i or j is a negative value, it is interpreted the same as selecting a character by counting from the end of the string. Hence, a value of -1 is the same as selecting the last character of the string." Nigej (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That solves the issue: {{Chop head and tail|12345654321|3|2}} (456543) would become {{#invoke:String|sub|s=12345654321|i=4|j=-3}} (456543), and in general {{Chop head and tail|string|i|j}} would become {{#invoke:String|sub|s=string|i=i+1|j=-j-1}}. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think sandboxes should probably be left alone rather than fixed, since they are supposed to test specific code not display specific content? Besides the conversation above, that just leaves Template:Mfd top collapse which I have an edit request in for, and the redirect {{cht}}. User:GKFX^talk 20:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a courtesy to editors, to keep functionality, all transclusions should be replaced. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My edit request on Mfd top collapse has been put on hold until this TfD closes; it's not just the trivial substitution so it would be great if it could be carried out as requested when required. User:GKFX^talk 14:22, 19 March 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:GetLabelFix

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, probably copied from ca:Plantilla:GetLabelFix or a similar location Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G8, dependent on Module:Wikidades, which has never existed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nigej (talk) 09:06, 16 March 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:Identificadors

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused probably copied from ca:Plantilla:Identificadors or a similar location ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nigej (talk) 09:06, 16 March 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:Collapsible conditional list

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsible conditional list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Llista desplegable condicional (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, appears to have been copied here from ca:Plantilla:Collapsible conditional list Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nigej (talk) 09:05, 16 March 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:Una o dos imatges dins infotaula

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Una o dos imatges dins infotaula (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-English variant of Template:Double image Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would have qualified for speedy deletion as T3 before that criterion was repealed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nigej (talk) 09:05, 16 March 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:OpenDivRTL

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OpenDivRTL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CloseDivRTL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:dir was deleted, so I believe we don't need this either Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly useless on the English Wikipedia, possibly speedyable as G8. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nigej (talk) 09:05, 16 March 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:Simbol

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, not clear why it's needed since standard File syntax seems to work in most cases? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Seems perhaps a misspelling of Symbol, which now contains similar content. Nigej (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 15 March 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:List of captains of the Belgium national football team

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) 04:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of captains of the Belgium national football team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article (List of Belgium national football team captains), serves no purpose, so should be subst and deleted. Giant Snowman 19:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst/Delete per nom. I can never understand why people do this. Nigej (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 15 March 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:Virtus.pro

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) 06:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virtus.pro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox does not have links for players and likely will never. Pbrks (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. List of "handles" (ie players) for a Russian esports organization who are almost certainly not notable. Nigej (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provides no useful navigation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 15 March 2021

(UTC)

Delete Zero links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTTEMP, useful for archival purposes. Links will be restored or created soon.—Prisencolin (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, if this is ever needed, the content can be regenerated from Virtus.pro. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 17 March 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).