Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 10
December 12 >

December 11

[edit]

Template:Miss World 1951 delegates

[edit]

Navboxes with only one or two links in the body. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free use rationale logo-file replaceable

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in January 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Coa-Mexico

[edit]

No transclusions. This template does not appear to be usable on the English Wikipedia, since all files to which it applies, such as File:Flag of Mexico.svg, have been moved to Commons (or could be moved to Commons), where the template is used in over 1,900 pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there was a 2017 TFD that was withdrawn for {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} and similar unused PD File templates, but the templates' documentation was not updated to match the justifications. If this template is kept, I recommend that this and similar templates be documented to explain why they are here and how they should (and should not) be used. I have provided example bare-bones documentation at {{PD-Coa-Finland}}, which was involved in the previous TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{PD-Slovenia}}. Slovenia has a shorter term for photographs, so it is possible for there to be an expired photograph of a still-copyrighted architectural work (which is usable on English Wikipedia as {{PD-USonly}}). This was in use briefly for an old photo of a Slovene chapel. It was eventually determined that the chapel was also architecturally acceptable for Commons, but I could foresee a similar case occurring again where an old photograph of a Slovene building could not be uploaded to Commons. It also has potential application for old free photos of non-free content (e.g., statues, murals) used under the NFCC. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population genetics glossary

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. It appears that I substed this single-article content into Population genetics back in 2022. I probably should have brought it to TFD first. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National cabinets of Africa

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Linked articles, such as Cabinet of Ivory Coast, use {{Africa topic}} directly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ohio Armed Forces Sidebar

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it exists. Created in March 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Proposal/Guide

[edit]

Unused subpage with no documentation or incoming links to explain why it exists. Created in 2009. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Malta/Collab

[edit]

No transclusions. This WikiProject template was removed from its WikiProject page by the creator and maintainer of the template in January 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPTC AC

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Created in 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPMP

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in March 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User-multi/template/check

[edit]

Unused since this edit. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coord/sandbox2

[edit]

Previously deleted in 2020, still unused and unlinked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs with Module:Coordinates/sandbox2 and is intended to demo sandbox vs sandbox2. Template:Coord gets a bit complex and there has been a long time effort to add additional features to it. I don't think it needs to be deleted, but as was proven the last time it was needed again, it can of course very easily be recreated. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The module sandbox has also been abandoned over a year and a half ago. Seeing as how Galobtter edited the normal /sandbox after their edits to /sandbox2, it seems like they aren't using it. Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hongkongers

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Hongkongers with Template:Hongkong Diaspora.
The main article at {{Hongkong Diaspora}}, namely Hong Kong diaspora is a redirect to Hongkongers, so effectively the two navboxes are on the same topic. Also maybe the inconsistent usage of "Hong Kong", "Hongkong", "Hong Kongers" and "Hongkongers" in the links needs to be addressed while we're at it. --woodensuperman 10:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AllMovie name

[edit]

Per WP:ELNO #1 and #12. It now copies Wikipedia and provides little extra information. Nardog (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above plus #5 as well. Complete irrelevancy aside, even with AdBlockPlus and NoScript, it's still generally an intolerable, unpleasant visit. (All this being said, it still has a leg up on TMDb, Letterboxd's pathetic IMDb wannabe.) -- Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 09:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AllMovie title

[edit]

Per WP:ELNO #1 and #12. It now copies Wikipedia and provides little extra information. Nardog (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above plus #5 as well. Complete irrelevancy aside, even with AdBlockPlus and NoScript, it's still generally an intolerable, unpleasant visit. (All this being said, it still has a leg up on TMDb, Letterboxd's pathetic IMDb wannabe.) -- Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 09:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rotten Tomatoes is a more worthless External Reference, yet it is used.
Stop this deletion syndrome Wikipedia is on!!! Savolya (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the one feature that a film's RT page has going for it is that it has a far more comprehensive list of reviews than any Featured Article could sample. In that way, it is "a unique resource". However, the RT EL template should link directly to every film's "reviews" sub-page, rather than the main page that has the score (often included in the Wikipedia article body) and other features already covered in the Wikipedia article or just commercial content (like "where to watch") that does not belong. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about RT's more direct linking at the bottom. In fact, there is a specific template that enables direct linkage, so I'd be in favor of enforcing that alongside you. Probably the same should then apply to Metacritic, right? I think both Metacritic and RT are valuable—FYI, Metacritic has more esteem, because these are the more accredited film critics, while RT lets just about anyone with a blog nowadays…meh, I digress, lol. Just wanted to espouse my support for those 2, particularly in the critical response sections of course.
Then regarding IMDb and TCMDb, I wholly 100% support keeping these under all circumstances, as these links are of high caliber. IMDb ofc, thanks to Pro, often has direct updates. Letterboxd is all right too. Beyond those, unless I'm forgetting any, I think most others are easily dismissable as far as film is concerned.
None of this is applicable to the Broadway, adult, and other such niche databases, by the way. Just speaking strictly re: film/TV. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm incline to agree that Metacritic is better at reviews than RT because it gives better reviews on many films than RT does. Also, RT can be biased on reviewing certain films and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an even more useless external link than before. Most film-based external link templates warrant deletion because they are often not "a unique resource" to have beyond a film article's ideal Featured-Article status. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retain,
I'm not sure what your argument is here regarding point #3.
MRQE, never heard of it before; I like their metric. But it being associated with TMDB, the inferior knock-off IMDb, is precarious. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 19:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_11&oldid=1262535586"