Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 24

< April 23	April 25 >

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 2021 May 2. Izno (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Url_editcount (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:X-FilesWiki

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) 02:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X-FilesWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Gonnym (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually used on one userspace draft, so Subst and delete as single-use. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 24 April 2021 (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:TelenovelaDB

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) 02:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used on two pages. One links to something completely different than expected, and another I got a warning from my browser and didn't check it. If this was useful and needed, it would probably be used more. Gonnym (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 24 April 2021 (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:TVmaze

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) 02:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused 2.5 year old template. Gonnym (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I don't think that useless site should be listed on Wikipedia anymore. And the reason for this is because IMDb is more useful than this useless piece of junk. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2021 (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:TVLoop show

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) 02:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TVLoop show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and the site seems to be dead. Gonnym (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually used on one talk page archive. Should still be deleted (without substing) because the template is clearly useless due to the site's death and the sole use on the talk page is announcing the template's creation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 24 April 2021 (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:TV IV

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) 22:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV IV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link which leads to another wiki and is only used on three pages. The TV IV was even deleted for being non-notable. Gonnym (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 24 April 2021 (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:Back

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) 22:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless template that seems to have been created as part of yet another attempt to use subpages in article space by this editor. In namespaces where subpages are used the software will automatically add back buttons, making this template useless; in article space sub-pages have not been used since 2001 since the real world does not fall into a nice hieratical ordering. As an example where would you go "Back" from United States in World War I, United States or WW1? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per established policy not to put subpages in mainspace. User:GKFX^talk 17:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The creator's inability or unwillingness to accept consensus on this matter is becoming disruptive. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious violation of established policy, and functionality is already provided my MediaWiki for subpages in other namespaces. Looking at the creator's talk page, I'd suggest reporting the user to ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:35, 26 April 2021 (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:Acadfr

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) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Entirely unused citation template. Izno (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just because it is unused at the moment does not mean it will be in the future. Please explain to me User:Izno why you think I created it and then explain how you think deleting it will improve the project. -- PBS (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep unused templates from a decade ago indefinitely. Either show it is being used or move on. We delete templates like this because it makes it easier to find templates that are being used. We also delete templates like this so we don't waste effort maintaining them. If you would like to defend the template, that is your prerogative. I will not do so for you. Izno (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? You have not answered my first question, please do so. -- PBS (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary for the user who lists a template for deletion to understand why it was created, and in many cases it is impossible without mind reading. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is templates for discussion not templates for deletion. Surly before suggesting that a template be delete one should attempt to make goodfaith enquires as why it exists, including looking at the comments on the talk page, the edit history and if any of the major contributors are avaliable asking them? — PBS (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also decisions are taken by consensus, and for that I would expect you to have investigated the reason for the existance of this template etc, instead your answer seems very confrontational to me. I would remind you that this page for discussing templates, and as yet you have not suggested what it is that you wish to see changed. -- PBS (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Izno has clearly suggested that he wishes to have this template deleted due to lack of use. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... whereas, you have not explained why you think the template should be kept. I will not put words in your mouth. Izno (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for its creation is given in the edit history of the template. It is also mentioned obliquely the document page. It was created to help editors porting pages from the German Wikipedia that contain the same template. Just because a potentially useful template is not currently in used is not a good reason in itself to delete it. -- PBS (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Were it used for the purpose you suggest it were, it would actually be used and not unused. It is clearly not helping anyone transwiki any pages today. And yes, templates are routinely deleted for being unused. Izno (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete, can be trivially recreated from de:Vorlage:Acadfr if needed in the future. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2021 (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).

All templates in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates

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) 03:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All templates in Unncessary taxonomy template. Please see a discussion here as rationale. This category is a temporary holding area for taxonomy templates whose deletion will be uncontroversial, because the template is both unused and unnecessary, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used. Periodically, all templates in this category will be nominated for deletion. For more details, see this talk page thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the templates weren't tagged, I didn't realize this discussion was ongoing, tagged each of the templates, and started a new nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#All pages in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. I apologize for the trouble. In any case, that discussion now contains a pointer here, so anyone following the links on my nomination will find their way here. Also, delete per nom. Tamwin (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamwin, YorkshireExpat, and Peter coxhead: and any others of the taxobox crew: I would suggest submitting these as WP:CSD#G6 in the future, if these are truly uncontroversial. Maybe worth a thread at WT:CSD targeting these specific templates for such a use (rather than what was ongoing at the time of the original discussion which was a general "unused"-template criterion). I will delete these this go around. --Izno (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2021 (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:Navbox vertical

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 after migration. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used directly in about 10 templates and subsequently in some 100 pages indirectly. The dominant variant is clearly {{sidebar}}. If collapsibility is needed at the 'top level' it can be provided for the specific templates (as sidebar supports that today), but I haven't really seen instances of necessity in the wild for the top-level sidebar to collapse. Uses should be migrated to {{sidebar}} and this template subsequently deleted. Izno (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty clear from the history that everyone coalesced on {{sidebar}} over a decade ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:42, 24 April 2021 (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:Authority control files

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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Authority control files (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Authority control files (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template groups an arbitrary collection of subjects (some of which don't even have articles) on the basis that they provide an identifier that is referenced by {{authority control}}. This violates WP:NAVBOX guidelines 2 (The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article; only one of the ten-ish articles I checked mentions the term "authority control", which is supposedly the subject of the navbox), 3 (The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.; these articles do not seem, generally, to mention each other), and 5 (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; I see no reason why an editor would want to do that for this set) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets most criteria for "generally good navboxes", per WP:NAVBOX: #1 (all AC granting institutions), #4 (the vast majority have articles, save ~3, something I've been trying to make more visible, so as to entice article creation), #5 (anyone interested in ACs would find the collection useful).
Many of the articles listed are stubs, so may not have been expanded enough to include their cataloging efforts, so not including the term "authority control" in each of them is a bit of a red herring.
"Violation" is also an unusually strong term used by the nom for what WP:NAVBOX purposefully, and non-rigidly states as "Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines". Sure, it's no {{Solar System}}, but it's a good start. Perhaps a new rework to {{AC}} can group them together by subject/relevance, etc. It is a wiki, after all. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 02:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No way, Jose, per item 3 and item 5 explanation in the nom. --Izno (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see it on e.g. Barbados, and it doesn't belong there at all. Are there any pages where those wanting to keep it think it does make sense to have it? Fram (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed it from Barbados. It sure wasn't supposed to be there. I guess someone simply confused it with {{Authority control}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert it into a general template on Authority control systems. Looking through the current uses a significant portion seem to be mistakes where the author had meant to use the normal authority control template (e.g. Robert H. Locke, Bridgetown, Wolfgang Hildemann), and the remaining uses are a Wikipedia self reference. We wouldn't use templates like {{Newspapers considered reliable by Wikipedia}} or {{Image sites with licences compatible with commons}} in articles, so I don't see why we should arbitrarily group authority control schemes by their inclusion in the authority control template. This should be a general template covering only those schemes with encyclopaedia entries or it shouldn't exist. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pause pending work on the {{Authority control}} template and module. The uses of the template might be best replaced by a See Also link to one of the future AC pages — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? The useless of this as a navbox has nothing to do with the in-progress redesign of {{authority control}}, and any see also link added would be an inappropriate self-reference. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:54, 26 April 2021 (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:People of the Sengoku period

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 no consensus. Issues with size, scope, inclusion parameters, but no one seems wholly convinced either way of its usefulness (i.e. "it can be fixed" vs "it cannot be fixed"). Primefac (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:People of the Sengoku period (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not sure what to do with this. The so-called "Sengoku period" is usually (I'm going by the apparent consensus of Japanese encyclopedias listed on Kotobank) dated to between the Ōnin War to Oda Nobunaga's entry into Kyoto or his slightly later abolishment of the Ashikaga shogunate, although some historians definitely use the term to describe a period ending with either the Battle of Sekigahara or even the Siege of Osaka, some 30–45 years later. I haven't seen any comparable templates for the Asuka, Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Nanbokuchō, Muromachi, Azuchi–Momoyama, or Edo periods, all of which have relatively clear beginning and end points—it goes without saying that the same applies for "muddier" periods like "Fujiwara" and "cloistered rule", so it seems really weird that an unclear/informal period classification like Sengoku has such a template. There are hundreds if not thousands of Japanese people in the 150 or so years covered by the broader definition of "Sengoku" apparently used in this template (I haven't done an extensive check, but a disproportionately large number of the "Three major daimyōs" and "Foreign people in Japan" more properly belong to the Azuchi–Momoyama or even Edo periods) who arguably meet GNG, so if all of such people were listed in this template it would become completely unwieldy. Anyway, ultimately I'm not sure if the solution would be to (i) delete this template, (ii) rename it to "Template:People of the Azuchi–Momoyama period" and split portions of it into new "People of the Muromachi period" and "People of the Edo period" templates, or (iii) keep it as is, although I should note that both (ii) and (iii) theoretically necessitate the creation of similar templates for other periods of Japanese history; so I figured it best to put it to the community. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because someone hasn't yet made templates for the other periods doesn't mean they won't be made. It would be a logical grouping, and allow easy access to others within the same time period. If the Sengoku period template becomes too large, it can be logically split. Perhaps "Royalty and nobility of the Sengoku Period", "Warriors of the Sengoku period", "Women of the Sengoku period", and so on. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: The problem is that the only one we have at the moment is one that, should the others be created, would become partially or entirely redundant. At present for me a Google search for 戦国時代はいつからいつまで brings up an answer from Google that says 1467 to 1615, but this is apparently attributed to Wikipedia (interestingly, when I set Google to Japanese the link changes to one to Japanese Wikipedia but the dates are still those of English Wikipedia), but the first two non-wiki results both start with a statement that it is generally taken as being the 100 years between the Onin War and the abolition of the Ashikaga shogunate (or something). Admittedly, our Sengoku period article definitely needs to be rewritten to prioritize the consensus view, but that's a different matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it can be deleted. At this time, though, I don't see a valid reason to delete, so Keep. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I currently see a massive number of articles transcluding this without a corresponding link in the navbox. this should be corrected. but, if that means adding hundreds of links to this navbox then it should be deleted as hopelessly large. Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another issue: Template_talk:People_of_the_Sengoku_period#Need_for_criteria_for_inclusion. It is weakly useful as a nagivational aid but also very arbitrary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 3 May 2021 (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).