Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 28 January 30 >

January 29

[edit]

Template:Sugar Land Space Cowboys

[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. ✗plicit 23:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. This one only contains the main page link, a link to their ballpark, links to two sections on the main page, and a link to a category. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2022 (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:Disambiguation needed/editintro

[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. Izno (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be used, and duplicates content at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing links#How to repair a link. User:GKFXtalk 19:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2022 (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).

Youth Judo Championships navigational boxes

[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 speedy delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The templates were merged with equivalent templates: 2009 in IJF World Tour, 2010 in IJF World Tour, 2011 in IJF World Tour, 2012 in IJF World Tour, 2013 in IJF World Tour, 2014 in IJF World Tour, 2015 in IJF World Tour, 2016 in IJF World Tour, 2017 in IJF World Tour, 2018 in IJF World Tour, 2019 in IJF World Tour, 2020 in IJF World Tour & 2021 in IJF World Tour to improve page connectivity. I was the creator of the above templates. CLalgo (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2022 (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:Elections in Croatia before independence

[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. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to Template:Elections in Austria-Hungary and Template:Croatian elections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigej but then I'm confused how you missed the fact this article currently includes a 1940 link that is in turn missing from the Yugoslav template... Likewise, what would be the problem with 1870 Dalmatian parliamentary election being fixed to transclude this template, instead of having a (broken) inclusion of the post-independence template? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the 1940 link too. However we're discussing the general principles here, not the fine details. Clearly the 1870 Dalmatian election issue can be fixed too. Surely the reality is that the 1990 election/1991 referendum are much more closely related to the post-1991 elections that to those in the old empire. As I noted, Elections in Croatia seems to start in 1990. Given that situation it seems to me logical that we have a navbox that covers that period. WP:NAVBOX says "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article." But 1870 Dalmatian parliamentary election only says "Parliamentary elections were held in the Kingdom of Dalmatia in 1870." It doesn't talk about this election in terms of "Croatia before independence". WP:NAVBOX says "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." I can't see that here between old and new. Also "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." so where's the article called Elections in Croatia before independence. "If the collection of articles does not meet these criteria, the articles are likely loosely related. A list, category, or neither, may accordingly be more appropriate." Nigej (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how this can be confusing. The Kingdom of Dalmatia mostly corresponds to the modern-day Dalmatia, which is part of Croatia. I suppose expecting readers to make all those inferences could be too much. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, enough with long discussions. You need to say whether you want to keep this template or not, with arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, etc. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care much about the specific template location; the content merely needs to be consistent, instead of all this nonsense that seems to be taking years to fix. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2022 (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:Loyola Marymount Lions men's ice hockey navbox

[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. ✗plicit 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no main article, zero links to articles that mention this ice hockey team. OK to userfy if the creator plans to create the relevant articles in the near future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2022 (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:Lists of 20th-century state leaders

[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. ✗plicit 00:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. These articles have all been merged, so there are really only two articles links in the body of this navbox, and {{State leaders by century}} is currently a better template for linking to country leaders by time period. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (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:Latest stable software release/vBulletin

[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. ✗plicit 23:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This single-article content is being managed locally in the relevant article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2022 (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:Latest stable software release/Spark (XMPP client)

[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. ✗plicit 23:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This single-article content is being managed locally in the relevant article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2022 (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:Latest stable software release/Darwin

[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. ✗plicit 23:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This single-article content is being maintained in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2022 (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:Adminer version

[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. ✗plicit 23:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained fork/recreation of the standard {{Latest stable software release/Adminer}} at a non-standard name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2022 (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:Latest preview software release/Sandboxie

[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. ✗plicit 23:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template has been blanked, with an edit summary of "will be managed locally in the article". This makes sense for a single-article template containing article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2022 (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:Events at the 2016 Arctic Winter Games

[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. ✗plicit 23:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, all articles linked are now deleted via PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2022 (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:Latest preview software release/Netscape Browser

[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. ✗plicit 23:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The relevant article is pulling information from Wikidata that would otherwise be provided by this template. A few of these "latest software release" templates pop up as unused every week, which makes me think that the software wikiproject is moving away from these dedicated single-article templates in favor of Wikidata and in-article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out at Template:Infobox software's talk page, there is code ready to use Wikidata automatically without needing any templates or manual wikidata code in each page. Gonnym (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2022 (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:Cretaceous

[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. ✗plicit 23:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-transclusion template, article content. Either use it in multiple articles or subst and delete it so that it is easier to edit in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2022 (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:Portuguese National FA Levels

[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. ✗plicit 23:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content now at Portuguese football league system#National leagues, a much better place rather than hidden away here. Nigej (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2022 (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:Poland III Liga Group IV

[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) 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The need for this navbox is met by the more comprehensive {{Polish Third League}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2022 (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:Mathematicians by century

[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) 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Has been replaced on category pages by the standard {{Navseasoncats}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2022 (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:Wikipedia's sister projects/CSS

[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) 17:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation. Unused subpage with only one incoming link from a 2004 talk page discussion saying that it doesn't look right. It looks fine now, but it is no longer useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2022 (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:Polyhedra DB

[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. ✗plicit 14:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 22#Template:Polyhedra snub DB Gonnym (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2022 (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:Hidden information

[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. Replaced by {{banner holder}} in talk pages see here. Feel free to replace these with something else (like {{copied}}) where appropriate. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used on around 40 pages, however it is completely uneeded. The 4 usages in article space should be removed completely per MOS:DONTHIDE and the ones on the talk page either converted to what is standard or just removed completely. Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, at Talk:List of Catholic titular sees it should use the correct Template:Copied syntax. Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2022 (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:Spb

[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. ✗plicit 12:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Gonnym (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2022 (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:BlueBadge

[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. ✗plicit 12:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template. Transcludes {{self}} and 3 non-existent categories. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:56, 29 January 2022 (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:Hollywood Music in Media Awards Chron

[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. ✗plicit 12:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User created this and {{HMMA Chron}} two minutes apart. They cover exactly the same topic. HMMA Chron is used but this one isn't, although people are still making occasional edits to it. Best to get rid of the duplication. Nigej (talk)

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:Wide template

[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 2022 February 5. ✗plicit 12:50, 5 February 2022 (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:Royal houses of Europe

[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 split. There was no specific consensus on how granular to be with the split (i.e. whether it is just going "by region" or further down to "by country") so that will be left as an exercise for the editor(s) splitting this template. Also note that some of the latter template already exist. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems redundant to Category:European royal families, but more importantly, there are so many of these that this template is really unmanageably large - looking at the suggestions of WP:NAVBOX, this doesn't look like the best way to do this. It might be possible to split this into smaller ones, but then it would still be redundant with the categories without adding much of its own (for ex.; does Template:Royal Houses of Wales really add anything useful that isn't already in Category:Welsh royal houses?) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just seen this navbox pop up and I'm not sure if I have a definitive opinion on deleting it yet, but certainly the template seems way too broad in scope. As is, for example, it includes everything from the Argead dynasty (8th-4th century BC Greek-Macedonian dynasty) to the Almohad dynasty (12th-13th century North African empire that ruled part of the Iberian Peninsula) to the Romanov dynasty (17th-20th century dynasty of Russia). These are certainly not relatable to each other per the guidelines of WP:NAVBOX. Plus, there's a lot of redundancy because many of the articles are listed for multiple countries; e.g. Habsburg and Ottoman are linked a total of 10 times each, Bonaparte 6 times, etc.
Maybe if someone has a good alternative suggestion on how to rework it instead, I might see a good reason not to delete it; but if it's just accumulating unvetted links over time, just delete it so it doesn't take up more space in articles with already numerous navboxes. R Prazeres (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or split. Over-repetitive and too broad in scope. Per WP:NAVBOX, "a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use" and "articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". DrKay (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split then delete Split each one of the sections into its own template(s) and then delete this one. It'll make navigating much easier. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems too be too disparate a set to be useful. Nigej (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or split - I always preferred all the project's navigational templates and infoboxes (at one point infoboxes were nearly abolished, and that was bewildering to me) - it gives you informed shortcut (which often carries more info than categories) for whatever you search for - it's better to preserve it and eventually fix its technical, manageability and other shortcomings than lose it altogether.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split then delete. The split option will let us see if this works better, it might still be too broad and unhelpful, but this should be the first step before total deletion. Gonnym (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2022 (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:Audio-fi

[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. ✗plicit 03:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed to be used for Finnish audio files but not used anywhere relating to the Finnish language. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2022 (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:Current US House Other caucuses

[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. ✗plicit 03:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not used anywhere and no links to any article relevant to the navbox. No benefit here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2022 (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:Cycling data EFT

[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 all except Template:Cycling data Ironage. ✗plicit 03:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cycling templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Ironage can stay. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2022 (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/2022_January_29&oldid=1070797060"