Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 25

< November 24	November 26 >

November 25

Template:Largest cities of the Basque Country (greater region)

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 ⚡ 02:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of the Basque Country (greater region) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and not needed as a table of the largest cities is already featured on the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the original author of the template, I recognise its utility has been superseded by the Template:Largest cities which is already used in the article this specific template was created for. No longer needed.--Metroxed (talk) 08:50, 26 November 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:Large warning sign

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 ⚡ 02:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Large warning sign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is unused and user essays are opinions of the users who created those pages, but they don't use this template as a disclaimer. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:01, 25 November 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:Coulrophilia

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 ⚡ 02:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article, Coulrophilia, has been deleted through AFD twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coulrophilia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coulrophilia (2nd nomination)) and the page title is now fully protected from recreation. I don't see the need for a template focused upon an article subject that will never exist on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a subject notable on it's own. Nor deserving of it's own template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until clown fetish receives a proper exposition on this database. Given that it's a thing whether academics have dissected it enough or not, how would you have this subject matter receive acknowledgement here as it has in Cosmopolitan (with a reputation of 135 years ongoing to uphold) and Vice (recipient of Peabody Awards and these). Whether it has a title article to fit into right right now is not the test, but rather whether it does collate articles about related things and concepts that give the reader as good a perspective of the subject matter presently allowable from the information permitted to exist here. SAMBLAman (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the topic does not pass WP:GNG and the inclusion of these items in this template is WP:Original research. P.S. Cosmopolitan has no one to blame but themselves for what they've become after 135 years. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although it should be noted that the article has actually been deleted more times than that. The template serves no purpose. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable topic with navigation to a loose collection of articles and redirects, many of which are related only by original research. • Gene93k (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy delete as stealth vandalism from a user who was blocked for disruptive editing. ~~pointless misuse of this template format, doesn’t even have a central anchor article.~~ Dronebogus (talk) 12:24, 29 November 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:High five

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 ⚡ 02:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:High five (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Consists solely of an image. [Note: unable to notify creator, who has retired and has been vanished.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused. And you can notify the creator just by placing the Tfd notice on his talk page which creates the talk page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 25 November 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:Wikibreak break

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibreak break (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used, that's all. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Properly categorized humor template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the humor in it. Other than taking a brake from the wikibreak. But delete as it's unused and unlikely to be. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I’d use it (I collect this sort of oddball WikiJunk) but I also wouldn’t care if it was deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Adds nothing to the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's humorous, and that's what the Wikifun project is all about. I don't think there's a detrimental effect in keeping this. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 10:00, 1 December 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-t1-h

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 11:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-t1-h (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Warning templates that are not used and have nonstandard names. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As creator. I don't use it much, but I do use it from time to time and saves a small amount of typing. Yilloslime (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is missing from Template:Uw-test1, Template:Uw-test2 or Template:Uw-test3? Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template creates its own month/year section header. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing is missing from the other warning templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's not clear: This template automatically creates a new section header named with the month and year (hence the "-h" in its name). The standard uw-test1 template does not do this, so this template is not duplicative. At any rate, I'm not seeing what harm or confusion the existence of this template could cause/is causing, though admittedly I may be the only person who uses it, and I use it very infrequently. Yilloslime (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's better that we limit the amount of user warning templates we have. The reason being is that these templates usually go through some kind of scrutiny regarding the text. If a header feature is wanted, then that should be brought on at the talk page to see how that can be made possible. I'll note though, that if no other user warning uses a header, then maybe there is a reason behind that. Gonnym (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would recommend the use of Twinkle as I think that automatically creates headings for you, so this template is unnecessary. User:GKFX^talk 19:29, 26 November 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:Election box roundwise rank choice begin

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 userfy. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election box roundwise rank choice begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box roundwise rank choice candidate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box roundwise rank choice end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above group are all unused table election templates created by CX Zoom. If this is a WiP and they wish to keep it, it should be moved to their sandbox. Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made them during some of my earliest days here. Some parts of these templates are currently unusable and might need some work before they can be put in template-space and used in WP. It's unlikely that I would be able to work on it anytime soon though. Hence, I request that they be moved to my sandbox to work on later. Cheers! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per creator's request. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:17, 25 November 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:Wikibreak Thanksgiving

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 11:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibreak Thanksgiving (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No use is the reason. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it isn't Thanksviving right now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion will be closed a week from now, which is almost exactly on Thanksgiving. If it's still unused then, it should be deleted for that reason, and if it has become used in the meantime, it should be kept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be renamed to {{Wikibreak Holiday}}, where a switch to select the holiday could be implemented, then other holiday wikibreak templates could be merged into it. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of IP's rename/merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the template is still unused now, even though it's thanksgiving day. The IPs proposed merger should be a separate TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's Thanksgiving already. So it still isn't being used now as of my vote. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too short-term to be significant. It's only 1 week at most. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 26 November 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:Awkward

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used on a single article and many miscellaneous userspace test pages. If for some reason a section or article has some words that aren't clear or are awkwardly-placed, a user can simply change the word/sentence or add copy edit, cleanup, or rewrite tags at the top of the section or article, but this seems to be a rare case because only one article uses this. Furthermore, to me, the tag appears more satire or sarcastic than genuine and looks as if it is describing the discussed topic in the article as "awkward" rather than the phrasing itself. ~~Waddles~~ Gobbles 🍂 🦃 03:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an inline cleanup tag. It is used quite frequently, roughly ten times per month. Articles tagged with it are fixed quickly by the Guild of Copy Editors, a very active project. I have marked it as transclusionless to keep it off of unused template reports. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I have argued for keeping this template, I would also be fine with it being redirected to {{copy edit inline}}, which serves the same purpose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes the awkwardness is not an easy fix done without thinking, but requires a return to the source material. Most other similar tags (eg, unclear, rewrite) are for entire articles, not for inline bits. Its loss would be felt keenly, I do believe. Thmazing (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still Keep. Just read in full Waddle's comment and wanted to respond to the suggestion an editor can just "add copy edit, cleanup, or rewrite tags at the top of the section or article" and have the same effect. I don't think this is a great solution. For instance, I'm here because I just added the awkward tag to the Lenovo article, which is a huge article—even the section the problematic sentence was in is awkward!—so just alerting people the article (or even the section) had an issue wouldn't help the helpful would-be-fixer find the problematic portion.
delete Redundant to {{Clarify}}, which has, er, clearer meaning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they have distinct usages (awkward is phrasing only; clarify is usually factual), but it's not the worst collapse in the world. Thmazing (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are two very different templates. "Awkward" means that a sentence needs to be fixed, and can almost always be fixed by a copy editor. "Clarify" means that the sentence can't be fixed without more information from a knowledgeable editor. If this template is redundant to anything, it is {{copy edit inline}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 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:C20YearInTopicX

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 ⚡ 02:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:C20YearInTopicX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:C21 year in topic (no calendar) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both unused. C20 is filled with error codes and hasn't been edited since 2010. C21 is not needed as it's the main C21 year in topic template used already across multiple articles for the current, previous, and future years. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C21 was requested a while back, so I created it. In fact, in Template talk:C21 year in topic#question re template parameters, settings, etc., it was requested. But if it's not used, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:37, 25 November 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).