Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 29 March 31 >

March 30

[edit]

IPL Flags

[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 12:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar templates replicated from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 7#Template:Cr-IPL/Flags. Similar template from this user were deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 December 17#IPL Flag icons. The user must be reported at ANI if he creates such templates again. Human (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • And these "flags" aren't actually flags, so violates MOS:FLAG: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality. They don't represent any of those things, because they aren't actual flags. So SharadSHRD7's comparison to international country flags is irrelevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the actual flags have been recreated 4 times. The discussion you just linked was for (at that stage) a flag-less version of the template, which I think may have been hanging around after a previous deletion of the flag subpages. The page logs don't include the creation date, so difficult to tell for certain. However, it still an unnecessary set of templates, and the made-up flags should not be re-created again. Spike 'em (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reasonably sure that in at least one case, the Cr-IPL generated these same flags as in Cr-IPL/Flags now (probably the one I linked above, as I nominated that one, so most likely to remember it). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't dispute that, it's just that from some of my comments in that discussion, at that particular point in April 2019, the flags weren't a part of the template. Given the page history is deleted, I can't tell at what point they were removed, and whether that was as a result of a recent deletion discussion or the one in 2011. From that link there were also similar sets of templates for BPL / PSL that featured flags that were also deleted. I certainly support removal of the current flags / icons and some form of prohibition on re-creation, as they are distracting decoration that are designed by WP users rather than the teams concerned. Spike 'em (talk) 13:04, 31 March 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:Charles

[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) 15:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nearly endless template of names which may or may not have the same origin as "Charles" (some do, some like Carey (surname) apparently don't, some like Lina have many origins and could thus carry many similar templates, some aren't even "real" names but only pseudonyms like Karloff (name)). Disambiguation pages are meant to distinguish between people with the same or very similar names, so it makes sense that the disambig Caryl has a see also for e.g. Caryll and vice versa; but burying these in a massive list together with Giancarlo, Chip, Lotte and Sharlene will not help for this in any way. Fram (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a lot of those given name and surname template can go as well as this one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I am researching something that isn't on WP, I usually put it on WP since other people would likely find it useful. I came across {{Nicholas}} and found it interesting. I spent some time researching it. Then, I moved on to names in my own family. With a father (Carlos), uncle (Charles), sister (Carla) and niece (Charley), I became interested in names derived from the same origin as these names. Maybe 5-10% of the names on the template should be pared from the template since a surname may have a irrelevant derivation from a given name and another few are from nicknames that have wideranging origins. I am not a member of WP:APO and have no expertise in the field, so I have tried to leave a lot of comments on the template talk page for experts to help me refine the templates. Whether I have cast a slightly wider net than I should have should not be the determining factor of whether the template is useful. I.e., if some surnames have derivations unrelated to the given names that are relevant, I could remove those. Similarly, there are some nicknames like Chuck that are almost exclusive to this derivation of names. Nicknames like Lina have a wide range of derivations. So it is less clear whether these are appropriately placed. However, the fact that the list may need to be pared down somewhat is not a reason to delete the template. The reason to delete the template would be that it would be hopeless to reduce it a useful form with some guidance from people who are expert in the field. I find learning about all the names from different cultures to be useful. I prefer this template to a table like Charles#Regional_forms_of_the_name. I would love help from WP:APO with rules on what should and should not be included, but I think deleting this because of my personal lack of expertise is not helpful for the encyclopedia.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #3: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. One could imagine each article referring to Charles, presuming they are related, but not to all of the variants.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Bagumba, the WP:NAVBOX list states "Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines". So saying it fails one of the list is not really fail. Most templates would fail WP:NAVBOX 3 in the way you suggest. The most recent three navboxes that were Kept here at TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 15 all fail this criterion {{Dutch Senate elections}}, {{Peddapalli district}}, {{Nuneaton Borough F.C. squad}}.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's WP:OTHERSTUFF, without justifying why an exception is warranted in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Bagumba, You are pointing to a general guideline that is an almost unattainable standard. Otherstuff, means the fact that almost no navbox templates achieve this standard is irrelevant. However, the guideline says "most or all". Since it is not a policy, each criterion is just a suggestion rather than a requirement. The reason that an exception is warranted is that this is a template joining lists rather than articles. WP:NAVBOX 2 & 3 are more attainable in the case of navboxes that link to fully fleshed out articles rather than lists with stubby article content. Each subject is generally a nickname of, diminutive of, derivative of, variant of, son of, or descendant of Charles or another name or two that is itself a nickname of, diminutive of, derivative of, variant of, son of, or descendant of Charles. Each article generally mentions a few other articles that is on the template. Sometimes, the other name is one or two levels removed from the subject. As a list the article content is sparsely presented however.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am allowed to cite a guideline if I agree with its ""suggestion". Others can !vote differently, if they choose. You didn't address my other comment: One could imagine each article referring to Charles, presuming they are related, but not to all of the variants. It's implausible that many at Lotten would want to navigate to the dab Carloman. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Bagumba, thank you for engaging and starting by imagining more fully fleshed out material. Certainly, Carloman refers to almost nothing. We have to imagine a less stubby article. Although one appears to be a masculine secondary derivative of Charles and the other a feminine secondary derivative. Imagine a world in which these articles were fleshed out. In such a world, each article would have a description of regions (and eras) of prevalence. In such a world Carloman might say. In region X, Carloman is one of the most common derivatives of Charles along with these 5 male derivatives and these 5 female derivatives. In this world, the article becomes informative by selectively presenting these lists of 5 or so in each region rather than mentioning all 200 derivatives of Charles. No article would be useful for mentioning all 200. However, an article might be well-formed by mentioning a handful of others. It is conceivable that Lotten, could overlap with Carloman in its region of prevalence. That region could be described by contiguous geography or by language family. Suppose both names were popular in say Western Europe or in places where slavic languages are spoken. That is how I imagine the world of well-formed fleshed out articles. Any two article on the list might share a region of prevalence even if they are secondary derivatives from different primary derivatives.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Definitely expand the individual variants. I just think most of them are too dissimilar to warrant being in the same navbox. I think the prose in Charles, which should be linked in every variant, is sufficient for those seeking more information. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but pare down. It's perfectly sensible to provide navigation between the variants of a given name. This is already commonly done within {{infobox name}} (see the field "related names"), which means the criterion cited by Bagumba has been met. The problems pointed out by Fram have to do with the inclusion of particular entries (it's true that this could do with some work and it doesn't help here that most name indexes don't provide reliably sourced etymologies, but these obstacles are not unsurmountable). Carey apparently should be removed, but Karloff, as long as it's a separate article, can stay (it's an alternative spelling of Karlov, which is obviously a Russian patronymic surname derived from Karl). – Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Uanfala, in terms of paring down, I am thinking about taking a closer look at surnames that have the same spelling as relevant given names. Carey (surname) is a tenuous connection. However, it is a bit difficult for me to be decisive. It seems to me that Carey (given name) is connected per the non-RS that I have found helpful. This is where I could use some WP:APO interaction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uanfala, why is it sensible? I can understand people interested in Carlota wanting to have further information on the name Charles, its origin, ...; and the same applies to people looking at Karl, Lotte, Charley, ... but are they best served by a long box containing all these variations (even when trimmed down), or do they need a link to a page (e.g. Charles) which has this information? A navbox allowing people to e.g. surf between the different seasons of a football club makes sense, as it is all part of the history of that club: but why are people looking at everyone named Carlo more likely to want to get all people named Charlotte than e.g. all people named Domenico? Why is a navbox joining one disambiguation page with another disambiguation page because they have the same, often remote root name logical, acceptable, useful, considering that many other navboxes with equally correct but tenuous links could be created as well? A navigation aid between navigation aids is a bit too meta for my taste. Fram (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get it that this sort of navigation doesn't make sense for you, but it evidently makes sense for many other people. The way I see things, grouping human names by shared origin is no different than grouping animal species by genus or languages by family. As for the small number of disambiguation pages currently listed, this again is a question of inclusion and there is a strong argument that they should be left out. – Uanfala (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "small number of disambiguation pages currently listed"? They are nearly all pure disambiguation pages, that's one of the issues. We are not linking closely related encyclopedic pages (like species from a genus), but pages of lists of names which share a first name, but not any defining, major characteristic of these people. The only link between the list of Carla's and the list of Chuck's is that their parents lived in a culture where a "Charles" based first name is in use. Fram (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The template currently has entries for 9 pure disambiguation pages, and over 280 surname article. A surname article serves a twofold purpose: 1) providing encyclopedic information about the surname, and 2) listing the name-bearers that have articles on Wikipedia (that's a disambiguation-like function). If you're focussing only on the second aspect, then obviously, the various lists of people don't have anything meaningful in common. But if you take the first one into account, then it's equally obvious that the names, as topics by themselves, are closely related. – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • You do know that a page doesn't need "disambiguation" in the title to actually be a "pure" disambiguation page surely? Somethine like Carlisle (given name) or Carlton (name) is a pure disambiguation page, as are nearly all of the others. Having one introductory line stating that it is a variant of Charles (with very weird intros like the one here; Carlo (name)) doesn't make it a "surname article", they are still disambiguation pages. Almost none of the pages would exist if they were treated as articles instead of disambiguations, they would either be deleted or redirected to Charles. Fram (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is already commonly done within {{infobox name}} (see the field "related names")... Then this template is redundant to the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I should further state that I am also motivated to research nicknames in this family tree because I have a curly-headed niece who may be a future WNBA baller. She was the first guard off the bench on Varsity in 7th grade and started at point guard in the just completed season for her 8th grade year. Everytime I visit, it seems my sister is experimenting with the responsiveness to different nicknames for Charley (name). I have heard, Char (name), Cha-Cha, Chachi, Chach, Cha (name), and a few others. In the last week alone, I have discovered at least 2 that might be acceptable for a razzle dazzle point guard of the future. I have found that although Charo (name) is primarily a nickname for Maria Rosario, it is sometimes a nickname for Charlotte (name) (and I suppose similar names in the family) according to this source. I have also found that the nickname of one of the most legendary ballhandlers of all time (Curly Neal) is in the set of names associated with this family per this source. Curly/Curley also includes Curly Armstrong (middle name Carlyle), Curly Linton (middle name Charles) and Curly Brown (first name Charles). I remain hesitant to put either of these on the page yet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Uanfala, I'm interested in your opinion on what it should take to be included in the template. While cleaning up Chick (nickname), I came across support for Chic (nickname) and Chicka, which clearly belong on the template. Do you have thoughts on Chickie (nickname) being inlcuded as a feminine form? Also since about 1 in 400 babies born today and 1 in 200 about 50 years ago are named Charles, seeing Curly with about 30 names including 1 first name Charles, 1 middle name Charles and 1 middle name Carlyle. How strong does the association need to be to be on the template?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe an article should be included in the template if it's stated in its text, with reliable sources, that the name in question shares its etymology with Charles. – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the easy ones. Unfortunately, WP:APO is in a place where I think WP:APORED means you are encouraged to create articles for redlinks before finding RS. I think this means if we have reason to believe that an RS would support the association, we act as editors without the actual RS and thus fill in the template. So we have WP:NAMELIST articles on subjects like Chic (nickname), Chicka, Chickie (nickname) and Curly. In a world where APO has namelists without links so we make inferences. What we know is

that about 1 in 300 random people (in the US) are named Charles. For some names, the frequency is more than 100 times as strong. If instead of random people, we chose people nicknamed Chick, Chic, or Chika probably more than 1 in 3 is actually named Charles. In an APORED world, these articles get created and seem to belong in the template. My question is if people with a given nickname are only 15 or 20 times as likely to be Charles so that 1 in 15 or 20 people of a given nickname is Charles, should we include it in the template. One of the reasons I am so active again in recent weeks is that I had back surgery in the fall that may take a full year for recovery. I am unable to do the same kind of work as before and am at home a lot more. I am not likely to be going to bookstores or libraries to track down books. Am I misinterpreting APORED as instruction to create without RS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, way too large and unfocused to be useful. a better place to list all the names related to Charles is in Charles, not in a massive sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Frietjes, when you say names, do you mean given names as is currently in the article or also all the different surname variations for son of Charles or decendant of Charles? What about the nicknames highly associated with the name?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    sure, given names, since Charles (surname) is for surnames. if you want to write an article on Nicknames for Charles, go ahead, but a sidebar with no sources or context is not the best place for such a list. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Frietjes, How would you handle a nickname that is applicable to a dozen other variants of Charles. E.g., Cha (name) seems to be for any name starting with those 3 letters. I.e., the page shows a Charles and a Charleen. I know my niece whose given name is Charley has at times been referred to by that name? What about a nickname that is applicable to several variants of Charles, but not Charles itself?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    a list article would be able to provide that context with references. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Frietjes, What about resolving the size by collapsing it? Could that be acceptable? Given that I am working under WP:APORED, which I feel means go ahead and create content without sources, which are not so reliable in this field, I am not sure how to WP:PRESERVE the linkage of that content to all of these names. E.g., Lina#Nickname probably is out of place on a Nicknames for Charles page, but is highly associated with several names derived from Charles (4 Carolinas, 2 Karolines, 1 Karolina, 1 Karolína, 1 Caroline, and 1 Carellina by rough count).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    then maybe the list article should be Variations of the given name Charles. if there are no sources, that's a problem, and maybe it would be better to have a category. collapsing the navigation box doesn't really solve the WP:OR problem. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Frietjes, you are pointing to WP:OR for the one project that seems to feel that it is more helpful to create content immediately than wait for reliable sources (if I am understanding WP:APORED correctly). So it seems that you are saying delete this format and put it somewhere where OR is an even bigger problem. We don't require templates to be sourced. So you are asking me to move this content to article space where it will have greater difficulty surviving. Each namelist is being created under APORED and this method of linking them for greater cross article access keeps it in template space where sources are not required.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how WP:APORED applies since we aren't talking about red links, but instead we are talking about the sidebar Template:Charles which has no red links. articles like List of nicknames of presidents of the United States exist even though there isn't a single reference that lists all of the nicknames for all presidents. however, each nickname is referenced individual. if you were to create a Variations of the given name Charles, you should be able to provide a reference for each entry in the list article. if I was interested in creating a navigation box on this subject, I would start by creating a list article with references (possibly starting in my own userspace if I was worried about it being deleted before I had a chance to fill out all the references), and then work from there. once I had a list article, I would probably start with a footer navbox because people generally tolerate large footer navboxes more than they tolerate large sidebars. but, that is really all hypothetical at this point, and this discussion is really wandering off on a tangent. Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Frietjes You are kind of giving me an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. A huge percentage of the aritcles in this template were redlinks until I created them under WP:APORED. I have probably created about a third of the articles (User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Articles_Created lists all the things I have created and these name articles are down in the disambiguation section). We are talking about articles that were either redlinks or partially included in dab pages. This template was to cross link related content. A collapsible sidebar (that I mentioned above) or a footer template (that you mentioned) would both be ways to WP:PRESERVE the crosslinking content. The reason WP:APORED exists is because it is not as easy as you think to provide WP:ICs for each name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:APORED applies to red link entries in a namelist page i.e. the people listed on the page; the "Red links" section is a subsection under "Entries". It is unrelated to the actual creation of namelist pages.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Bagumba, WP:APORED clearly states that it is applicable to " lists, disambiguation pages or templates" so you may be as far from fully understanding it as I feel I may be.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are reading it out of context. It is under the section for "Entries". That page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards, is an essay, which might not be fully polished, so it's important to consider its possible spirit, not necessarily the exact wording. It would be inconsistent within Wikipedia to have a grouping, even for a template, that is not verifiable—not necessarily with citations on the template itself—for example, with a verifiable embedded listing of the variants in a standalone page, perhaps in Charles itself.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we want to work towards spirit, let's look at the spirit of the template. It has been common to use the template {{Infobox name}} which includes a short list of variants and for some names to include a listing of variations by language. What I am digging up and presenting is content that has not traditionally been presented in either of these formats. The infobox has basically been fairly anglo centric focusing on English language variants in English. We don't see a lot of foreign language variants in English and definitely don't see alternate spellings of either to the extent that I am finding them. You are going to throw away a lot of less common variations and Foreign language variants in english by deleting the template. You will also lose a lot of nicknames and surname cross-navigational linkages. From the encyclopedic standpoint a lot of encyclopedic content will be lost by eliminating the linkages of names to less commons spellings and variants. I think delete votes should really reconsider at least reformat as collapsible or reformat as footer template in an effort to WP:PRESERVE content that has not been shown to me how to preserve reasonably otherwise. I do believe the spirit is such that Namelists border on disambiguation pages in regards to the necessity of RS verification. I think APORED serves to guide the presentation of borderline content. In this template I have cobbled together maybe a hundred former redlinks and on the template talk, I have enumerated redlinks as existing singletons (since we need two articles to create a namelist). I think the project supports very limited need for RS because APO has many list articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: PRESERVE, move the template entries to Charles and cite the ones likely to be challenged. If a template is still warranted later, it seems the current consensus is that it should be a meaningful, pared version, not this exhaustive list. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of nickname content will get lost.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Frietjes suggested above, you could create Nicknames for Charles or Variations of the given name Charles.—Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained to him, some nicknames lose their linkages with such an editorial change. Cha (name) likely serves as a nickname for all given names and maybe even surnames of people whose names start with these three letters. The page shows a Charles and a Charleen. I know my niece whose given name is Charley has at times been referred to by that name. What about a nickname that is applicable to several variants of Charles, but not Charles itself? Lina#Nickname probably is out of place on a Nicknames for Charles page, but is highly associated with several names derived from Charles (4 Carolinas, 2 Karolines, 1 Karolina, 1 Karolína, 1 Caroline, and 1 Carellina by rough count). Furthermore, WP:APO content in general is known to be hard to source and moving this content from template space to article space puts it at risk.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping content in a template instead of in an article because it is hard to source is the perfect argument for why this template needs to be deleted, not expanded. Fram (talk) 07:17, 4 April 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:The Adventure Mania

[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; deleted as G8 by Jeepday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox for a non-existing film The Adventure Mania article. Also have a strong feeling that this is fake. Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 30 March 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:ConvertAbbrev

[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 April 6. ✗plicit 12:26, 6 April 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:Long line

[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; deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC) The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Jeepday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by one editor for use in their signature, which is not allowed per WP:SIG#NT. Also, the content is just a dash, which there are multiple ways to insert, including editing toolbars. A template is not needed for this. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:17, 30 March 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:Schwebebahn Colour

[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 23:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail color template. Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 30 March 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:Herpestoidea clade

[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 23:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article content that should be moved to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already reinserted the content of this template to the relevant page, the ONLY relevant one btw. So it is not at all needed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:18, 30 March 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:Great white shark clade

[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) 02:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article content that should be in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its easier to edit these articles while using this template and also, can be used to similar articles. Add here too, that I've not seen you around animal articles, and if thats true, i dont know why do you nominate an animal-related article for deletion that you might not be familiar with. -- Some1 {talk} 19:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move content to the relevant page. If a cladogram is used only on ONE page, then a second page containing this same cladogram is REDUNDANT. Usually templates are used on hundreds of pages, some even on thousands of pages. And whether the nominator has edited animal-related pages is not of any concern here. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BhagyaMani: its used in a couple of shark pages and it automates the shark name below. -- Some1 {talk} 20:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct is that you quickly placed it on a 2nd page *35 minutes* AFTER Jonesey95 nominated it for deletion. And on this 2nd page, it looks like an oddity as there is NO explanation about the phylogenetic history of this shark species. – BhagyaMani (talk) 03:07, 31 March 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:Rabbit Junk

[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, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:19, 30 March 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:Political groups of the European Parliament (7th)

[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 23:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've now subst the 7th version to an article as there was a bare map there so it was better. Even with that use it would still be a single use. The 8th version is inferior to a table already in use. Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 6 April 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_March_30&oldid=1081770483"