Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

November 14[edit]

Template:Futsal at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' tournament Pool A standings[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused, probably replaced by Template:Futsal at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' tournament Group A standings and Template:Futsal at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' tournament Group B standings Frietjes (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:14, 15 November 2019 (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:Max Palmerstone[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 01:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (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:AnarchismOpenTask[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 transclusions, and none of them are in locations that are for this template's intended use, which is on Talk:Anarchism as a substitute for a {{To do}}. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete. No future project need anticipated. czar 05:46, 16 November 2019 (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:Población[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 01:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2019 (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:Ssp[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 22:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Used to link to WP:SSP pages, the predecessor of WP:SPI. Since there won't be any more SSP reports the 15 current transclusions should be substituted and then deleted to avoid future confusion. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no need for substitution: somewhere along the way something changed so that this template no longer links properly (no matter if a target exists, the template always reports "there is no WP:SSP page for <pagename>". The "confirmed/suspected" links that this template provides are now handled by {{user21}} which is called by {{sockpuppet category}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:16, 18 November 2019 (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:2018 K3 League Basic table[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 01:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Frietjes:. The original thread you cite is buried on a Football project talk page with a very small subset of editors commenting who focus mostly on football articles. The subsequent Templates for discussion are only related to European men's football templates. It's not a consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. Please remove the following + place in a separate discussion so additional editors can review and provide feedback. It would be useful if you could summarize the need for this in your nomination.
Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmlarson, if you want non-European discussions, see here, here, and here. if you want more, I could probably find another dozen. for non-football discussions, see possibly here, here, although there may be better ones. unfortunately, I am unable to alter the list of templates being discussed due to objections from other editors commenting in this discussion. however, the final decision could be split. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: In your own words why is this needed for the following?
Hmlarson (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmlarson, the same reason why the others should be deleted. there is no need to keep article content stored in templates when the same content can be stored directly in the articles. note that the last six you listed are football templates, so I'm not sure why a different rationale is needed for those, but really the argument stands even without prior discussion. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Frietjes: would you agree there is a reason to keep it in templates when it is used on more than one page? Templates greatly simplify updating the same info used across numerous articles. Hmlarson (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmlarson, not if you use either LST or <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>, which was the conclusion of the original thread, although there could be some special cases that I haven't seen yet. for an example, see 2015–16 Premier League#League table which is transcluded in many pages including here. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the following templates for use on individual teams' season articles, where a template ensures that the information is the same on all relevant pages, without having to duplicate and open up for errors and is more widely used on women's soccer / football articles:

Hmlarson (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson, did you read what I wrote above? There is no duplication, and the information is the same on all relevant pages because it is only entered in one place. see 2015–16 Premier League#League table which is transcluded in many pages including here. Frietjes (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Hmlarson (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmlarson, so what is your reason for keeping these 8 templates? see, for example, 2009 Washington Freedom season#Regular season standings which is being transcluded from 2009 Women's Professional Soccer season#Standings. Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes. I already stated it in my Keep statement. The point of these types of discussions is to gather input from other editors, not to railroad decisions, right? Hmlarson (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
correct, which is why I am trying to figure out what is special about these particular 8 templates that doesn't apply to all the others. Frietjes (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These deletions are a great way to increase the visibility of changes to these tables, making it easier for editors to improve them and easier for recent changes patrollers to spot vandalism. These benefits are just as applicable here as in the dozens upon dozens of previous nominations. No content is lost either and transclusions work just as well. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2019 (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:2021 RLWC Group A[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 23:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused and empty Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2019 (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:Highrfa[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 21:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not functional after {{Highrfc-loop}} (TfD) was deleted in 2010. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and based on no objections for a week. --Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2019 (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:Werdnabot[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 22:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot hasn't been active for over a decade. The remaining transclusions are in the "User talk:" namespace. I'd say it's time to substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Previous discussion in 2009: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 18#Template:Werdnabot. Steel1943 (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to keep as there's no chance the bot will return, however should we replace it with {{User:MiszaBot/config}} instead of straight deletions? The auto archiving hasn't worked for a decade, but having an automatic archiving solution was the original intention. I'm leaning towards no, but I think it should be considered. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Trialpears: This template shouldn't be replaced with anything. If a page needed auto archiving, a new template for auto archiving would have been placed by now. I mean, the other option would be to replace them all with {{Archives}}, but some editors may have their archives in a custom setting of sorts that doesn't meet the standard "Archive 1, Archive 2, etc." naming. All of this is why I think "substitute and delete" is the best way to go. Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah agreed, may have been an option back in 09, but not anymore. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2019 (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:AbUS[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 Soft delete. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer necessary or useful. Replicates the {{Archives}} transclusion on Talk:United States and state terrorism. Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2019 (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:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 2019 November 24. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2019 (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:1952 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. There is consensus that categories are sufficient and that this navbox is unnecessary. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NAVBOX with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are four links. Want to delete Template:2016 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox tpo? And don't forget 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000. Or maybe stop trying to delete stuff that people are working on. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonel: NAVBOX are for the purpose of navigation. It seems more than a little silly to create a box that navigates to just one article. Secondly, navbox with just one or a few links are routinely nominated for deletion and deleted[1] per multiple TFDs here. The NAVBOX nominated has one. Maybe an editor shouldn't create NAVBOX that obviously serve no purpose and violate consensus around here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the same format as later years, as I pointed out above, so consensus appears to be that these navboxes should exist. And again, it has FOUR links, not one--three are red simply because they haven't been built out yet. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 11:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonel: No it one link for the purpose of TFD. Just one is blue. Where is this supposed to navigate to with one link? Why don't you ask for speedy deletion for this navbox to save time. This discussion doesn't have a snowball's chance of ending in a keep....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With so many navbox navboxes, we could really use a navbox navbox navbox. BegbertBiggs (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, this is what categories are for. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnecessary, and as per Frietjes, categories are sufficient. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added the navboxes for other years. If these should be categories, they should all be categories. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate them and the rationale here doesn't apply to them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
YOUR rationale is invalid and not supported. Everyone else saying to delete this has a DIFFERENT rationale that applies to all of them. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jonel, if you want to nominate more templates, please start a new discussion. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if you are performing maintenance, it's more than likely that you need to do it on more than one navbox. This navbox provides easy navigation between navboxes, which is what navboxes are for. Additionally, an editor is unlikely to click on a category link for a template, so the navbox alerts the editor that there are more similar navboxes that possibly need editing. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, this is what categories are for. Nimrodbr (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2019 (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/2019_November_14&oldid=927807523"