Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

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) 19:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Riley Reid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A performer-by-performances navigation template with no useful navigation. Aside from the subject's main article and the now-redirected filmography page, the subject is only mentioned in the list of pornographic performers link. For every other link, the subject is neither present in the article nor is she notably associated with the subject of the linked article. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Links are general in nature and can be better addressed within the article itself.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Templates should be a guide to subject-specific articles, not generic porn industry links like this. Zaathras (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2020 (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:Ship builder

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 2020 June 25. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ship_builder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Libyan General National Congress election, 2012

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Libyan General National Congress election, 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, here already included TheImaCow (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused and duplicates existing content. By the way, I was slowly replacing all the single use results templates like this with hard-coded versions and had been listing them (185 so far) here, with the plan to do a bulk nomination at some point. If anyone feels like nominating the ones I've already done, please feel free to. This is, however, a good example of why we should have a speedy deletion/prod process for unused templates that duplicate mainspace content. Number 5 7 09:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (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:Monarchs of Brazil

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 keep. DrKay (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monarchs of Brazil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles on this template are already linked through Template:House of Braganza, rendering it redundant. All the individuals are linked through Template:Brazilian imperial family. DrKay (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - neither of the suggested alternatives make a clear separation of Brazilian monarchs & Portuguese monarchs or monarchs from other family members. It's a legitimate counterpart to Template:Monarchs of Portugal. Cabayi (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's obvious nonsense. Template:Brazilian imperial family clearly distinguishes monarchs from princes/princesses by calling them Queen, King and Emperor, and putting an asterisk next to the Portuguese ones. Template:House of Braganza clearly delineates between the imperial house and the royal one. DrKay (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DrKay. I think this template, although small, is useful, relevant, aids navigation, and has a clear scope.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. I do think it is used on too many pages though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template purports to be one of a series listing aircraft within a given designation system. However, within a loose overall system the individual names were often supplied by the manufacturer.

To quote from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates:

Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these 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.

There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
If the collection of articles does not meet these criteria, the articles are likely loosely related. A list, category, or neither, may accordingly be more appropriate.

It fails to meet any of these except the first.

It also duplicates the List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force but is less informative. Opening this template or following a link to the list article each require a single mouse-click, so this template is less useful than a See also link to the list article. It adds nothing but cruft to all those aircraft articles and has no place on Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, as it actually does meet most of these criteria - No.1 is Aircraft of the RAF by name. No.2 is the operators section. No.3 is absurd in this context and however almost none of the designation or manufacturer templates (thousands of templates) meet it, but they are linked by either a user or manufacturer. No.4 is List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force, and for no.5, See Also would normally be expected to include List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NiD.29 This template is too broad in coverage. The RAF used hundreds of types of aircraft, and each was given a different name. As the British military aircraft designation system is not a numeric sequence, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have every single name in one navbox. Splitting it by role (and including names of aircraft used by the other branches of the military, as they all follow the same system) would be more suitable than the current navbox. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So long as it isn't split into 15 different boxes. Fighters, Bombers & Transports *the RAF had a lot of crossover between these), Trainers & Misc should break it up enough. - NiD.29 (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Split by role. I've already begun the process here. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you removed "names" and the accompanying link from their titles, they would make more sense. But whether they arrive or not, this one needs to go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand. I included "names" in the title because that's exactly what the navboxes cover. Omitting it would leave titles like "British fighter aircraft", which would exclude imported aircraft like the Mustang and Buffalo. Both the current navbox and the boxes in my sandbox cover the British military aircraft designation system, which is the names. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you are not splitting it as you said but changing the scope from RAF aircraft to British aircraft. That is even less relevant here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you say that, I guess that's a more accurate way to put it. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far too huge and unwieldy to be useful to readers. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we split it. It is still smaller than the RLM designations template, or half of the US military designation templates. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But those are not suitable for splitting they are is numeric sequences. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a list of types used by the RAF, in many cases single aircraft that carried RAF markings but didn't enter service. The parentheses notes, sub-notes, and sub-sub notes are awful. Possibly the largest navbox in existence on WP, if this remained the corresponding 'USAF aircraft names' navbox would be larger than most articles. Perhaps it is not obvious but the aircraft project has been in existence for almost 17 years, most needed navboxes and categories are in place, any editor with ideas/suggestions for new ones really ought to discuss them at WT:AIR to see if there is consensus (avoids disheartening processes like this). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:09, 24 June 2020 (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:Lancia timeline 2020 to date

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 merge to Template:Lancia timeline 1980–2019. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lancia timeline 2020 to date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lancia timeline 1980–2019 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Lancia timeline 2020 to date with Template:Lancia timeline 1980–2019.
Unnecessary to create another template for 2020 to date, Lancia currently have only one model and it's unlikely to see any new model as FCA have no plan for Lancia. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 12:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No clear reason for this division, and easier to have on a single template.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:24, 22 June 2020 (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:List of Distilleries in the United States

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Distilleries in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused, and no content TheImaCow (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be going nowhere, as the creator has a CoI and has not edited it for some time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:26, 22 June 2020 (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:List of Polish gminas

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Polish gminas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unessescary, as all the links redirect to List of Polish gminas TheImaCow (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:28, 22 June 2020 (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:Angela Walker series

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angela Walker series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is not actual series of articles on Angela Walker to work through. All substantial content is at Angela Nicole Walker. The rest of the links merit a "see also" at best. Whpq (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of these are section links to the main article. The rest are only tangentially about Walker. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Finnusertop.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very unnecessary. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Linking articles aren't primarily about Walker.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2020 (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).