Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13

[edit]

Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward One

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 03:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ward thirteen is unused and the rest should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per my comments below. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification: the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board has been notified.[1] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as insignificant. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place almost any of these templates is actually being used, with the singular exception of Ward 7 because the winner went on to become a federal MP five years later and one of the defeated candidates had been a provincial MPP a decade earlier. But I can't justify keeping only ward 7 while deleting all of the others — if we can't justify the complete set, then we shouldn't keep just one ward — and the reason the Ward 13 template is unused is because for some reason that's the only ward in the city where the results table is already coded directly in 2010 Hamilton, Ontario municipal election instead of calling the template. These should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the related discussion below. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unused after this edit. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 20 August 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:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward One Public Trustee

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 03:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All single-use and should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per my comments below. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as being insignificant. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for a federal or provincial electoral district, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated) and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if there's only one article for the results to appear in, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But school board trustee is not a notable office for the purposes of WP:NPOL, meaning that the election article is the only place any of these templates are actually being used at all, because none of the trustees or candidates have biographical articles of their own to use these in. So these should all be substituted in the election article since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the related discussion below. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unused after this edit. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 20 August 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:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Wards 1 and 2 Catholic Trustee

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All single-use and should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The practice of putting Canadian election results in templates is widespread. AFAICS, it's actually the norm for Canadian election data, and there are literally thousands of such templates. Instead of picking off a few examples, the nominator should start a centralised discussion (e.g. at WT:CANADA) to learn how and why this approach is used ... and if the nom still wants to delete them, that should be done systematically as a mass nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no exception to Tfd's just because one project does it differently. This is part of a major issue with election templates when the information can easily be featured as a different table as it's been done and should be continued to be done on election articles. And single-use is a major problem because templates are supposed to be used on multiple spaces, not singular, as templates are supposed to have broader navigational benefits. But election results don't have a need to be on separate templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: It's clear that a significant number of the editors who work on Canadian politics disagree with your assertion that election results don't have a need to be on separate templates. So why not talk to those editors?
And per WP:MULTI, discussion should be centralised. Since you believe that all election templates should be substed, it would be much better to have one discussion on the principle rather than dozens of individuals TFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It's clear that a significant number of the editors who work on Canadian politics disagree with your assertion." Please avoid an argument where you're making assertions. Second, what good would talking with all of them do? I'm certainly not going to ping all the editors in the project for one discussion. Clearly not a good use of time. Third, a Tfd is a place for a discussion about templates nominated for deletion or merge. It's in the name. What is the point of having election results on templates? What is the harm in just by having them as part of the relevant article subject by being a part of the article to begin with? Separate mainspaces for election results are redundant and utterly pointless. And no, not all election templates. Election year navboxes, for instance, have a great purpose because it fulfills its purpose for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: please see WP:MULTI. Really.
You have already started 3 separate discussion on this page about Canadian election templates, and I don't think that you have even started on the 5,368 pages in Category:Canada election result templates (complete list).
You have not so far identified any reason to discuss these sets separately ... so please,make whatever case you want to make in a single centralised discussion.
As to what good would talking with all of them do? ... talking to other editors is how we reach WP:Consensus. That's a core policy.
And no, you don't need to ping everybody. Just notify the relevant projects ad noticeboard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason I have created separate discussions is that each of these sets has a different name, hence the separation. As for the category, I will in the future. And I have seen the policy you're referring to, this isn't the same discussion on multiple pages. And really, stop pinging me every time you reply, you're unnecessarily creating notifications for me. You've already voted oppose. Let others take the nomination into consideration. I'm done talking about this subject with you at this time. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue which you identify is the same in each case, so there is no need for 3 separate discussions on the same issue, let alone for dozens more as you tackle Category:Canada election result templates (complete list).
I pinged you as a courtesy to let you know there was a reply, but since you don't want those notifications, I will stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 14 August 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:IrelandElectionsDecade

[edit]
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 keep. ✗plicit 03:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template is specific for Ireland but Template:YYY0s elections in countryname category header does the same exact thing. See Category:1800s elections in Ireland where I replaced the template. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason a subcat exists for the U.S. Because it has a specific purpose. Frankly, why should there be an Irish-specific template like this one? By that standard, we should have one for every country. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: As I explained twice, the reason to have a template for this specific country is set out clearly above: because in the case of Ireland, different decades need different parenting, and this provides simplicity and accuracy by automating that.
Most other countries do not have this issue of needing different parent countries at different times, so it is completely false to say that this justifies having one for every country.
Your comment there is a reason a subcat exists for the U.S is strange. This discussion is not about whether subcats exist or should exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 14 August 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:YearInIrishPoliticsCat

[edit]
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 keep. ✗plicit 03:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template is specific for Ireland but Template:YYYY in nationality politics category header does the same exact thing. See Category:2008 in Irish politics where I replaced the template. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 13 August 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:IrelandPoliticsDecade

[edit]
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 keep. ✗plicit 03:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template is specific for Ireland but Template:YYY0s in nationality politics category header does the same exact thing. See Category:2000s in Irish politics where I replaced the template. Gonnym (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. {{IrelandPoliticsDecade}} has special code to accommodate the fact that from 1801-1922, Ireland was part of the UK. So it treats those decades differently. It's a pity that the nominator didn't take a few seconds to check this before opening a flurry of TFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please stop with your personal attacks each time you don't agree with something? Each time I have the misfortune to be in a discussion with you it always goes the same way. I did check the template and as I pointed out above, the fact that you use a parameter that is available to the general template, does not make it "different". Please stay on topic and just comment on the actual issue. Gonnym (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not a personal attack; it was a polite request to so some WP:BEFORE. each time I have the misfortune to be in a discussion with you it always goes the same way: you object to doing the checks, and take offence when asked. If you were aware that this template is a wrapper around Template:YYY0s in nationality politics category header, with added conditionality, why didn't you set that out in the nomination instead of wrongly asserting that it does the same thing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a fan of BHG right now, but if someone did not perform an inadequate WP:BEFORE prior to a slew of nominations for discussion, then it needs to be noted in the discussions. I don't see doing so as a personal attack. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl & simplicity; no need to add the double conditional to the parent template.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And have the current uses replaced with the Template:YYY0s in nationality politics category header. It removes the redundancy. And there is simply no need to have for one specific country. Although, the U.S. templates exist is because U.S. elections tend to carry more significance than Irish elections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, the reason to have a template for a specific country is set out clearly above: it is because different decades need different parenting, and this template provides simplicity and accuracy by automating that.
    The perceived significance of elections in the US or elsewhere is irrelevant to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per BHG. Ireland is usually an exception to any general rule. As BHG has a unique combination of expertise in (a) templates and (b) Ireland (and (c) categories and (d) argument) angels might fear to tread ... Oculi (talk) 21:16, 14 August 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:Scottish Parliament election

[edit]
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) 14:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While both are used on respective Scottish and Welsh election articles, there isn't an overwhelming need for them as the coding for the display of the results table is possible to be used without these two. I doubt the template coding will break without it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, in what way? The coding for the templates can be easily replaced. There shouldn't be specific coding like what these templates do because we would have to have one for all countries' election table results. There should be one standard in my view to deal with this issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright, Delete then. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 14 August 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:Seats in the Senate of Romania, 6th legislature

[edit]
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) 14:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be substituted on the 2008–2012 legislature of the Romanian Parliament article instead of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies of Romania articles, as it's the most appropriate location/use for it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 13 August 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:2005 United Kingdom general election

[edit]
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 August 24. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 24 August 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:European Parliament MEPs, 1958–1979 (Netherlands)

[edit]
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 August 24. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 24 August 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:Portuguese legislative election, 2011

[edit]
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 substitution. Note that at the time of this close there are no non-election article transclusions of any of these templates, so the concern about individual politicians is moot. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both 2011 are single-use and should be substituted on the legislative election mainspace. The presidential election template should be substituted onto the election articles and removed from the articles of the candidates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not enough to maintain keeping as it remains. Templates shouldn't be single-use nor used on articles about individuals especially when they are in table format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partial subst and delete. Subst to election articles only and remove from individual "election results" sections. If a politician page needs a election results section, that should be their individual result and not a complete, and usually, very large table that has no relevance to the article. That would be akin to having complete Oscar results on a list of awards by actor pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 17 August 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:Bankura 2021 election summary

[edit]
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) 19:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the Tfd on July 27. Either these are used on a single constituency article or multiple. No election mainspace exists for these to be used on, but nonetheless, it adds to another level of confusion for their purpose as very little information can be acquired on these templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without subst. These templates are district-wide results but are used on constituency articles. They do not belong there and instead belong on the relevant district election pages or sections (such as 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election#District wise Results) but those pages use a completely different style of tables. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 17 August 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).

Dissolved Chinese football club squads

[edit]
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) 14:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These clubs were dissolved. There are no players at these clubs anymore, since they don't exist anymore. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:41, 15 August 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:The Mission Athletics Club

[edit]
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) 14:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article about this club was deleted in 2018. It's a non-defining connection between these people, so template is not needed. We don't have them for other athletics clubs Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 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:Meiringen–Innertkirchen railway

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 12:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, there's a superior hard-coded template in the Meiringen–Innertkirchen Railway article. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 13 August 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).

Mobile Grain RDTs

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 12:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail diagram templates; the combined template {{Mobile Grain}} covers both systems. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Mobile Grain is a complete replacement, go for it. CapnZapp (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CapnZapp, I'll defer to you on that score inasmuch as you created all three of them. If it isn't, it shouldn't be too much effort to make it so. Mackensen (talk) 19:53, 13 August 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).

Intercidades RDT diagrams

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 12:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail diagram templates for an article on the Portuguese Intercidades [pt] service, which was moved to draft and then deleted in 2019. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 13 August 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:Archive bar

[edit]
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) 14:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sparsely used archive list template is almost identical to {{archives|banner=yes|image=none|search=no}} and should be replaced accordingly. --Trialpears (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really wished you'd first present your scheme for a total overhaul for discussion, and only then deleted these as the uncontroversial clean-up it will become afterwards. It isn't uncontroversial cleanup now. The way you're doing it now, you're bulldozing auto-archive templates right and left. Why are you focusing on removing templates that do no harm, risking an end state where lots of nifty little pieces of functionality is just erased, when you have a much more ambitious - and useful - end goal in mind? CapnZapp (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I have a well thought through master plan here you are sadly over estimating me. My view on approaches for making archiving more user friendly is outlined at User:Trialpears/Archiving manifesto, but it really should have two more sections on Template improvements (which I've been actively working on with {{archives}} in the past few days) and documentation improvements which I sadly have to say have been somewhat neglected by both me and others. Having one big discussion for some master plan would be very difficult, archiving as a whole is just too big of a subject to get sufficient input to get thorough discussion on everything that needs working out if done all at once in my experience.
Before starting this and any other discussions here I check out what exactly the template can do from the source code. Here we just have an index link and {{archive list}} inside a simple banner all of which is supported by {{archives}}. The biggest difference here is that this template isn't at all compatible with the mobile about this page view (which archives soon will be fully compatible with) and that the "Archives" text is bolded and linked. Both these can be replicated using the |link= parameter, if so desired. I believe however you participated in a discussion last year about confusion between such a link and index pages so I don't feel it's a great thing to add the link using the parameter. I'm ambivalent with regards to bolding.
Finally I have to thank you for prompting more discussion. Your inquiries really forces deep thought about proposals which often makes them better and more accesible for people who aren't archiving experts. --Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I support Trialpears efforts in making the archive process less complex. I'm astonished that after all the TfDs there are still so many of these left. Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 17 August 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:Oberweserbahn

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 12:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, there's a superior hard-coded template in the Göttingen–Bodenfelde railway article. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 13 August 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).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_13&oldid=1040337178"