Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/All current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current discussions

[edit]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 12:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN, just 4 players and 1 staff The Banner talk 12:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 12:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 12:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 12:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is coherent enough as a group for a navbox; contrast Category:Disproved conjectures. Topics included are unrelated to each other and come from a wide variety of mathematical disciplines. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


No transclusions or incoming links. This navbox appears to duplicate Category:Character templates. It may be useful, since it has the actual characters in it, so I would not object to it being added to the documentation of the linked templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's WIP that I don't feel is ready for prime-time yet. If its unused status bothers you either add it to appropriate pages, or else draftify it until I can get it "finished". Useddenim (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per creator. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in May 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in early 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. If a no-link version of {{Colombian Securities Exchange}} is needed, an if statement can be coded into that template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. This template, created in 2022, does not appear to have been adopted, or something preferred has replaced it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought it would be useful. It's not. SWinxy (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really seem to be appropriate for a navbox, there's no specific article on the subject, and why we would need to navigate between leaders of countries unrelated other than their political alignment on the same navbox is beyond me. --woodensuperman 13:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Purely cosmetic and not useful functionally. Each entry already has a host of navboxes with more directly relevant articles. Yue🌙 08:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A "current" squad template for a team which no longer exists following restructuring of Sri Lanka domestic cricket, Ruhuna cricket team last played a fixture in 2013, a old squad listing is on the Ruhuna page but a template (never updated after creation) is not required. JP (Talk) 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox (only two links). 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EF9C:2836:D3E7:518C (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EF9C:2836:D3E7:518C (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EF9C:2836:D3E7:518C (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No albums have articles and only one band member has an article. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox (only four links, one of which is a redirect). 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EF9C:2836:D3E7:518C (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 4 links is enough here, however, all the non-links should be removed. I've tagged the articles for notability. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox (only three links). 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EF9C:2836:D3E7:518C (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and there are 4 links. Gonnym (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox (only two links). 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EF9C:2836:D3E7:518C (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains two links QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mainspace article that relates to the subject of the navbox. Pretty much could be seen as a random collection of racial issues concerning American presidencies. Has overlap with articles on Template:United States policy for Native American policy but even those articles are not classified as a racial policy under a category of relation or in a subcat.

And articles such as A More Perfect Union (speech) has nothing to do with Obama's presidency. Because it took place before he was president while he was running for president in 2008. I think this template falls into the OR category. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Foreseeable that the scope of this template will become too broad (see Russia and France), and thus has been partitioned in three. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use citation template from 2020; subst and delete as clearly not as widely needed as expected. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. Citation templates should have a large amount of usages for them to be created. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full of red links. The two remaining blue links are redirects. Nothing to navigate. plicit 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:NGC objects:7500-7840 with Template:NGC objects:7000-7499.
(And rename to Template:NGC objects:7000-7840.) Dropping redlinks and redirects to the list of NGC objects has shrunk the number of articles in these templates to less than half the previous amount. The lists are segmented by thousands, so it would be more consistent to have the nav templates segmented that way, too. I expect many of the other articles currently listed will be determined to be not-notable per WP:NASTRO and will be redirected to the list as well (so these templates will keep shrinking). -- Beland (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For now. The inconsistency at the -99 and -00 cutoff between the list articles and the templates will need to be addressed first before any merger action should be taken on the templates. As it currently stands, there remain 68 and 135 (09:31 edit: corrected figure) articles linked respectively, let it whittle down further for a bit. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LFP Ligue templates

[edit]

Both templates are currently broken due to the website change with the new sponsor. Some links are archived so it could be changed to be similar to {{LFP}}, but someone would need to go through all 700 uses, so I don't think it'sworth it. Nobody (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All individual articles were redirected to the parent article per this AFD, rendering this template unnecessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


All individual articles were redirected to the parent article per this AFD, rendering this template unnecessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated template, all the entry circle-link to three article and the rest is WP:RED, also the main article already have a better table listing all product-line in similar style to that of other camera template Elevator VendingMachine 21:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This exists only to facilitate navigation from articles into templates, which is improper. It would be logical to navigate from one list to another, but not into a bare navigation box. In many cases the lists have been deemed to violate SYNTH, see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants and subsequent batch nominations at Special:Permalink/1036690997, Special:Permalink/1037877047, and Special:Permalink/1038545583, so we shouldn't go forward with that either. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite right. It navigates a regular encyclopedia user out of an article and into a template. For example clicking the "Australia" link at Precious Lara Quigaman takes you to Template:Miss Australia winners in the Big Four pageants. Presenting a template page out of context of any article isn't a thing we should do for regular encyclopedia users. Australia at Big Four beauty pageants would be a more logical link to place in the footer, but it can't be there because we have found repeatedly that such lists violate various principles including WP:INDISCRIMINATE. So it seems to me that this footer is basically an end-around the non-notability problem, but results in a crummy experience for the reader. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 11:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 11:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub-template. Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment - Speedy delete, no concerns about deletion of this. This template was originally a fork of Template:SPI case status which does use the /core sub template, but this template was re-worked since then. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 11:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 11:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 11:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 11:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 11:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused style template as both the live and sandbox don't use this. Gonnym (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused language template. Same result can be achieved with {{Langx}}. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 10:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 10:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template The Banner talk 10:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 10:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 speedily deleted by BusterD. WP:G4 was applied. (non-admin closure)Alalch E. 13:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a listing of random bad things (template link spam) - Censorship by copyright or Malware is related to "Mortal sin" or the "Catholic Church"?

WP:NAVBOX guidelines
  • All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  • The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  • The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. Moxy🍁 07:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the Catholic church does actually take a stand against these issues, the proper place to discuss it would be in an article expressing their thoughts on each commandment. The catholic church's (alleged) opinion does not belong in a navbox at the bottom of all of these articles. lethargilistic (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – biased and unsourced. --Zac67 (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like one editors attempt to add bias into completely unrelated articles. cyberdog958Talk 07:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and warn editor. Editor has been placing it on completely unrelated articles such as paraphilia, which isn’t even a mortal sin per the Catholic Church. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can you imagine articles clogged up with countless templates about what various religions proscribe with threats of "hellfire and brimstone"? A observant Judaism template (I am Jewish by the way) declaring foods terribly sinful would have to be slapped on Cheeseburger and Bacon and Pork chop and Shrimp and Lobster and Quiche Lorraine and Ham sandwich and Roadkill cuisine and countless other culinary articles and that would lead to other sinful topics like menstruation, composition of fabrics, lending money, elevator wiring schemes, the trimming of sideburns and having fun on Saturdays. When would it end? Cullen328 (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Cullen328 (and others). Apart from anything, this would open the floodgates. It's like putting a governmental health warning on all these articles. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. JJPMaster (she/they) 10:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Following mass redirect of non-notable annual articles only three links. All remaining links currently can be found through the main article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, you first remove (by redirecting) a load of articles without AfD, then empty the template to get that one removed too? That seems to be the standard pattern regarding figure skating templates...The Banner talk 21:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For over ten years, they had no sources to prove notability. That is allowed and has been done on articles for other subjects. You don't always need to go to Afd. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And did you try to find any sources to rescue the articles? Did you report the lack of sources to any relevant wikiprojects? Or did you just cut them. The Banner talk 14:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. There was nothing. WikiProjects don't have to be informed for something like this. Over a decade and no sources. Hardly anybody from the project improved the articles. Taking the articles redirected to Afd would result in all articles ending in the same outcome of redirect or delete. And all Afd's of late for these skating articles have had the same result. No violation is occurring here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template hasn't been used as a metric since 2008; recommend subst and delete. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not appear to have found much need or use, as it is only used a handful of times on talk pages and only once in a template /doc. I could maybe see this being merged into {{samp}} with a |nowiki= parameter or similar, but otherwise I don't see much need to keep this around. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Individual articles were redirected to the parent article years ago, leaving this template unnecessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long-obsolete event renders this an unhelpful template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable figure skating competition. All individual articles have been redirected to the parent article, rendering this template unnecessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following mass redirect of non-notable annual articles and redirects. Only two links. All remaining links currently can be found through the main article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have returned 2014 Italian Figure Skating Championships to article status and cleaned it up. It wasn't lacking for sources; in fact, it had more sources than I am used to. Sadly, it was the last year that anyone bothered to create an article for, so anything since then would have to be created from scratch. As that is a big undertaking, we should delete this template for now, and we can always re-create it down the line should circumstances change. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No more links to any articles as they all have been redirected for no sources or in depth coverage and not being notable after over a decade since creation or after four years. Template is no longer needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been marked as deprecated and to replace with {{citation|title-link=s:wikisource-title}}. Gonnym (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The website has been changed and is now giving "Page not found" errors. The template has been marked as deprecated and to replace with Template:Cite POWO. Gonnym (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, it's not a simple case of replacing a template; accepted species may have changed, and there's no automatic way of mapping the old WCSP URL to the new PoWO one. The template should not be deleted while it has over 1,200 transclusions. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 keep. It is snowing. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox language with Template:Infobox proto-language.
I think {{infobox proto-language}} should be merged into {{infobox language}} because I think it's too small and little used to be kept separate from the latter template, only being used on 176 articles now, and because the only parameters unique to it are {{{target}}} with the label 'Reconstruction of', and the parameters {{{child1-10}}} with the label 'Lower-order reconstructions', while on the former template, the parameters {{{ancestor(1)-5}}} have the label 'Reconstructed ancestor(s), while on the latter template, those parameters, of which there are 15, have the label 'Early form(s)' instead. PK2 (talk; contributions) 08:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Only 176"? That's quite a few pages. It's also useful on it's own per Kanguole. CheeseyHead (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps subtemplate, per Closed Limelike Curves. Nicodene (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kanguole and Closed Limelike Curves That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

All individual articles were redirected to the parent article per this AFD, rendering this template unnecessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirecting all these? They were red links and in other cases became red links after article removal. Redirecting is utterly superfluous. The Banner talk 21:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afd consensus was to redirect. Articles were not notable and template is no longer needed.
That is not what I asked: why redirecting already red linked articles. The Banner talk 14:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects allow the championships to appear on certain figure skating templates. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have examples? The Banner talk 14:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox for Dutch champion Lindsay van Zundert, for example. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an article, not a template. The Banner talk 14:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template is in the infobox. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Red link articles can't be redirected. They were not red links before the Afd. Redirecting is not superfluous. Afd consensus was to redirect. You are disputing the Afd result, then you should take it to the Afd space than Tfd. But you will hardly change the outcome. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2014, red link redirected, 2015, red link redirected. Why? This does not serve any purpose. The Banner talk 15:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No real topical navigation links to justify its existence. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, without prejudice against recreation if/when there are more articles within this topic. Currently the only articles are Solo Leveling and List of Solo Leveling episodes. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 02:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template The Banner talk 01:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needed-class no longer exists following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 27#Category:Needed-Class articles. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 00:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 00:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All red links, nothing to navigate. plicit 00:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. You beat me to it! Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Only one link to an article of relevance. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No more links to any articles as they all have been redirected for no sources or in depth coverage and not being notable after over a decade since creation or after four years. Template is no longer needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only three links to articles. The rest are redlinks which never were created. And the others I redirected to due years of no notability due to no sources and/or in-depth coverage of the annual event. Not enough links to navigate with for a navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only four links. All links can be found easily through the main aricle. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per this Afd and my recent edits redirecting the remaining articles due to over a decade or six years of no sources and/or in-depth coverage of the annual event. No articles to navigate to or with. Template is no longer needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used. It was embedded in Template:Cyclones but had overlapping content. I merged the two and fixed the overlap, then converted the minority of articles that used this template to use the merged one. -- Beland (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not show up on the mobile version of the site, and so is not useful for the majority of readers. It seems simple enough that it could be replaced with "See also" links, or maybe just a link to List of NGC objects. -- Beland (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I made the template. If a list is split for size reasons then it's common to provide navigation in the lead. Mobile has chosen to omit navigation templates for space reasons. I don't think that's a reason to also remove them from desktop. List of NGC objects (1–1000) has twice as many desktop views [1] as mobile [2]. All the numbered lists already link List of NGC objects in the opening paragraph. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those stats imply mobile readers may be having trouble navigating these lists compared to desktop readers - if so, adopting an alternative nav solution would help. -- Beland (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mobile has more total page views at the English Wikipedia [3] but specialized science articles usually have more desktop when I check it. A factor two is probably above average. Desktop users are used to navigation templates and for a split list it's nice to have it at the top. We could add see also links but I don't think it should be a replacement for a normal navigation template. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template does not show up on the mobile version of the site, and so is not useful for the majority of readers. is more or less an invalid argument at TFD. It might be fair to do elsewise with this template, but that is an insufficient rationale for deletion. Izno (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd that "should be replaced with something that works better for all readers" would be considered an invalid argument. I could see arguing against the idea if you don't think there's a better alternative, but not categorically opposing such proposals on general principle. -- Beland (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a general argument. If you think {{sidebar}} should be deleted, you should argue for that in a TFD about {{sidebar}}. It's also actually a bad general argument, because you also have to argue that {{navbox}} should be deleted as well if that is the rationale. Izno (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, other stuff exists, but not every instance of those templates is as easy to replace as this one. Plus, deleting those templates would be a huge amount of work, whereas this is a rather contained task. Probably something needs to be done about those not showing up on mobile too, but it would be easier to do that if we have solved subproblems first, and gained experience with what kind of replacement mechanisms are feasible and supported by consensus. If editors want there to be desktop-only nav templates that supplement those visible to mobile readers, that's useful information which indicates those mega-templates should probably stick around. But not having that conversation on the grounds we're not completely solving a million-article problem does not really generate useful information about what's feasible and desirable. -- Beland (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which still makes a generic argument. But it's also one that's totally irrelevant to this template also.
    If you want to argue for a broader deletion of sidebars and navboxes, this TFD ain't it. Picking at it template by template is simply going to get users irate with you for a non-existing deletion criterion and terrible argument to boot. Izno (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the album articles were redirected nearly a year ago, making this navbox needless. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 02:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 02:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 02:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 02:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look likes just two championships played ever... The Banner talk 02:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only one blue link, nothing to navigate. plicit 00:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Potential, for sure. But just one championship has a blue link The Banner talk 20:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox, given that only three songs on this album actually have articles, as opposed to {{Achtung Baby}}, {{How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb}}, {{The Joshua Tree}}, {{The Unforgettable Fire}}, etc. 88.97.193.195 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really needed as it stands — would agree with a call to delete. Luokehao (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 15:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All three templates should be merged on the basis of Template:Finance ministers of Russia. It should be a single template of RSFSR – Soviet Union – Russian Federation finance ministers. It will ease navigation too. I hope that someone will do that, because I don't know how to merge templates. MarcusTraianus (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


All individual articles were redirected to the parent article per this AFD, rendering this template unnecessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All individual articles were redirected to the parent article per this AFD, rendering this template unnecessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No more article links after this Afd resulting in redirects. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template transcluding an image and a reference. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flag template for a fictional country. 78.81.174.71 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox linking two stations of a defunct rail line, and thus not really necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 13:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Functionality has been merged into {{Ice hockey team player}} with the addition of a contract=xxx parameter. All uses of this template have been replaced. MikeVitale 03:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Functionality has been merged into {{Ice hockey team roster}} with the addition of a contract=yes parameter. All uses of this template have been replaced. MikeVitale 03:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template The Banner talk 03:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this map magically works. I assumed it was via the template. Can the map at least be kept on the Southeast Asia page somehow? Fephisto (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeeeeeeeees it can. It can be deleted, soz. Fephisto (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 1 and other precedents, these have been considered redundant to both Numbered routes in Rhode Island and Category:Numbered routes in Rhode Island for quite some time. Some 19 of these navboxes have been deleted over the years as listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents#Highway system navboxes. Additionally, by actively deploying them, they distort Special:WhatLinksHere for any entry in the box because they all now link to each other. Imzadi 1979  01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This template helps users move between each route with only one click. Several Interstate Highways have navigation boxes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Interstate Highways have navboxes to their related routes that they intersect, thus they're already linked in the real world and in the article. Rhode Island Route 122 does not connect to Rhode Island Route 238 in the real world (for one example), and yet they're both linking to each other now because of this navbox. That distorts and somewhat destroys the utility of Special:WhatLinksHere/Rhode Island Route 122 because everything now links to everything else in this set of 61 articles.
    Numbered routes in Rhode Island provides greater context to each article if a reader of Route 122 is looking for another route to read about, while the navbox contains no context other than being a list of links. The extra click to get that context is worth that minimal effort. Imzadi 1979  01:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In musical ensemble navigation boxes, some songs in the template do not connect in real life to other songs/albums in the same document (which is sometimes the case with many items in a navigation box). The "utility of Special:WhatLinksHere/Rhode Island Route 122" is irrelevant. Template {{Simon Property Group}} was created, and it was discussed that it should be kept, because users can access other facilities with only one click. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, over navboxing. a category does a better job here. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox US political party with Template:Infobox political party.
Nothing special with the US version of this template A1Cafel (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I originally created a different template because it was different from the current one, but I found a way to code the template so that it can be merged with the current one and change its appearance if one adds a certain piece of code in the source editor.
All that would have to happen for it to be merged is the piece of code which I added being copied over—the pages which currently have the template wouldn’t be affected, as the template would only change it’s appearance if one adds a section for “background”.
If any of this is confusing or if you need me to point out which piece of code it is, please let me know.
Thanks! RiverMan18 (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wasn't even aware US political parties used a different template as they're functionally and visually identical. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template is unused as of right now—I created it before I knew that I could code the template in such a way that it could be merged with the current template. (I’m sorry—I should have done more research before creating the template). RiverMan18 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does your version add to the template? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It adds a parameter which, if it has a value, alters the header of the template. An example can be seen here. RiverMan18 (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I reiterate my support for the merger. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this impact existing infoboxes? Would this introduce the undocumented parameter to regular infoboxes? If not, oppose. ManOfDirt (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would only impact the political party infobox and would only result in the parameter being added to that infobox. Adding a value to the parameter would change the way the page name is displayed on the infobox (an example can be seen here). RiverMan18 (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support merging Template:Infobox Indian political party with Template:Infobox political party, and any other country specific political party infoboxes to our general political party infobox, for conformity. Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. USA one should be deleted, new parameters should be added to the Political Party Infobox if non-intrusive. More documentation and information on this is needed. Just don't want it intrusively effecting Australian Political Party Infoboxes DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

[edit]

View the holding cell at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell.