Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 5 July 7 >

July 6

[edit]

Bolivian Department Election Templates

[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) 23:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose substituting where these templates are used as these templates per the standard for the Bolivian elections articles which use non-template tables for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:10, 6 July 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:Bolivian constitutional referendum, 2009

[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) 23:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be substituted per the standard used on the other Bolivian referendum articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 6 July 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).

Bolivian General Election Templates

[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) 23:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mainspaces use a different table for the results. And where these templates are used, it's on the wrong page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 6 July 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).

Colombian Election Templates

[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) 23:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose substituting the information on these templates per the standard on the election pages for Colombian elections. And the 2018 template is unused as the 2018 election article uses a different table. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:56, 6 July 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).

Belizean Election Templates

[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and the information already exists on the respective articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:49, 6 July 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).
[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose substituting the template onto the 2011 referendum article per the standard on the other Ecuadorian referendum articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:45, 6 July 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).

Uruguayan Election Templates

[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and superseded by the different tables used on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:42, 6 July 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).

Venezulean Election Templates

[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first four. I'm not sure what purpose the three Chavez Elections serve, but they aren't used on the election mainspaces for the years it was created. AS on those articles used a different table for the results. Propose substituting the Parliamentary Presidential election and 2009 Referendum templates per the standard used on the articles relating to the topics. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting rational:
  • Delete - ChavezElections1999 and ChavezElections2000. Don't subst or transclude them to the other pages they are in.
  • Subst and delete - ChavezElections2004 to 2004 Venezuelan recall referendum while converting it to a normal table then delete. Don't subst or transclude it to the other pages it is in.
  • Delete - VEbox.
  • Subst and delete - the last 5 to their election articles. Gonnym (talk) 18:03, 13 July 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:Chilean parliamentary election, 2005

[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose substituting the information on these templates per the standard on articles for Chilean elections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:12, 6 July 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:2010 Brazilian presidential 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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose substituting the information on these templates per the standard on articles for Brazilian elections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:07, 6 July 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:Argentine PASO 2013, Deputies

[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last template is unused, but for the 2013 Deputies and Senate results, they should be substituted per the standard on other election articles for the Argentina Parliament. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:02, 6 July 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:Suriname parliamentary election, 2005

[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and different tables exist on the respective articles on the elections. The 2010 template should be substituted for the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:57, 6 July 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:Uw-accessdate2

[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 redirect to Template:Uw-accessdate1. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not updating access dates isn't the type of behavior that should lead to a block. Template:Uw-accessdate1 should be a single-issue notice. Schierbecker (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to this template's documentation, Level 3 escalates to {{uw-vandalism4}}, which does mention a block. A user who persists in not updating access dates should be steered towards mentoring. Further problematic behavior should be noted at WP:ANI. WP:AIV is an inappropriate venue for good-faith edits. Schierbecker (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If they continue to partake in disruptive editing even after being warned, then they clearly need escalating warnings. If you took a look at "this template's documentation", you would see it has no documentation, and instead uses the default behaviour of {{Templatesnotice}}, which automatically adds the vandalism template. If you want to fix that, since the "vandalism" template seems to be the only substantive issue raised here, do so yourself. -- /Alex/21 08:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted)
^Sock? Schierbecker (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. For vandalism, manual of style, delete, advert, etc.. those level 2 warnings are useful. I don't see a reason to warn a user over something like this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a friendly notice/reminder to update accessdate is a great thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Does {{uw-accessdate1}} not serve as that friendly notice/reminder? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah the templates are currently basically the same, except with a different colour exclamation mark. A potential solution is to shorten the text by a lot, since the recipient has supposedly already seen {{uw-accessdate1}}. A simple sentence like "hey, you forgot it again" should be enough. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's important to note that these templates apply primarily to "the updates of review statistics, box office numbers, sports statistics, or some other frequently updated data", and many of the preceding comments do not address this. Editors who regularly update statistics, etc., are probably not to be classified as "newcomers," hence the argument involving WP:BITE does not apply in these cases. Having this template provides a method of reminding editors to update the access date field, and of reminding them in a standardized way. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnnie Bob: In that case, doesn't then Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars apply? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken this comment. Obviously not here to contribute. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 7 July 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).

NHL Western Conference Standings Templates

[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) 16:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. On the respective team seasons articles, what's used is the division standings templates, not the specific conference. And there is no place for the Wild Card template to be used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They can be substituted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete. @Frietjes has experience with transcluding Module:Sports table tables to the team pages and might be able to help here. Gonnym (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete the first six, these are simple wrappers for three different tables. now that the season is over, there won't be any changes as the standings change, so substituting is harmeless and adds very little wikitext. as for the wild card template, it looks like this one can be deleted per Zzyzx11. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 19 July 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).

NHL Eastern Conference Standings Templates

[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) 16:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. On the respective team seasons articles, what's used is the division standings templates, not the specific conference. And if these templates are used on one page or two, they should be substituted by the respective Metropolitan standings template. And for the Wild Card template, there is no place for it to be used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as these are used on the corresponding NHL season articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are used on team season articles, though I am a little surprised some of them do not appear on team season articles, I wonder if they were removed. On season articles we typically have both the division standings template and the conference standing templates to show playoff order. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are not used on the team season's articles. At least not all of them. The division standings should be the standard. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • substitute and delete the first six, these are simple wrappers for three different tables. now that the season is over, there won't be any changes as the standings change, so substituting is harmeless and adds very little wikitext. as for the wild card template, it looks like this one can be deleted per Zzyzx11. Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 19 July 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:Britannica

[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ELNO policy, Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable link. Frontman830 (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frontman830 could you cite what exactly in the guideline this fails? Gonnym (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica is not used for links to articles. As per open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. --Frontman830 (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica is neither an open wiki nor a mirror or fork of Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of the 19 items in elno are you saying this template violates? and how does eliminating the template achieve this goal? where there are lots of links to britannica pages throughout wikipedia. not an expert on searching, but it looks like tens of thousands of pages with britannica links vs 500 transclusions of this template.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 17:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe SilkTork removing external links to Britannica. --Frontman830 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Silk should've probably gotten consensus in this case before mass-removing the template - regardless, that still doesn't back up your claim, nor inherently justify deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Britannica_template. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: ah, thanks. I don't see a problem with his removals in that case, nor does his argument there seem to justify deletion of the template entirely. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a great link for citing information if others are available, but I don't see how this fails any of the external links to be avoided. Aircorn (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Thanks for the ping. Per our guidelines, it should not be used as an external link as EB articles simply duplicate Wikipedia articles: EB and Wikipedia serve the same purpose and aim to provide the same information in the same level of detail. It can, however, be used as a citation template. But as a citation aid it doesn't meet our basic requirements: WP:CITEHOW, as it doesn't collect main contributor(s) (information available on EB), nor - importantly - which version was used (information also available on EB), which means that the version cited may no longer support the statement in our article, but that could be difficult to track down as no date of use is provided in the template.
So, considering that the template can only be used as a citation template, but we already have an adequate and widely used and updated citation template: Template:Citation, that as a citation template it is adequate because it doesn't collect the required information, and that - on the whole - we should not be encouraging use of EB as a source (preferring a reliable secondary source), then I agree - mainly per WP:TFD#REASONS#2: "The template is redundant to a better-designed template", this template should be deleted or merged with Template:Citation. SilkTork (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps reworking it to a site-specific CS1 wrapper would be a good idea? (and moving to {{Cite Britannica}}). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that familiar with template construction, so I took a look at the CS1 wrapper, and I see what you mean, Elli - that does seem possible. However, because of my unfamiliarity with template construction, could you explain to me the particular advantage of using this template in a CS1 wrapper over using the Citation template? From my less knowledgeable standpoint, I see Citation as a widely used and maintained template that most editors have learned how to use, and which is flexible enough to hold all the data that a reader would need, and would not - to seems to me - provide a lessor service than putting the Britannica template in a wrapper. Anyone wishing to use the Britannica template in a wrapper would still need to go to EB to collect information to fill the template - cite web has all the fields they would need - surely? And the advantage of familiarity of use by many users, and quality maintenance, is surely the reason why we have WP:TFD#REASONS#2: "The template is redundant to a better-designed template". SilkTork (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: sure. The benefit of a CS1 wrapper is to standardize citation information to a common source. I think a good example is {{Cite Dictionary.com}} - while anyone could use {{Cite web}} on the site, it spares editors from having to find the publisher is Random House, which isn't apparent unless you check their about page. Likewise with Britannica - it's not exactly clear the preferred way to cite it or what to include in the citation ({{cite web}} and {{cite encyclopedia}} both seem appropriate). A wrapper solves this. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's profitably used in citations. Converting it to a proper citation wrapper is a good idea, although I don't understand the objection of missing authors because the template does support an |author= parameter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In what universe is Britannica not considered a reliable source??? I personally have used this specific template extensively to cite birth and death dates. If the primary objection is it fails CITEHOW, then I'm perfectly fine with converting this to a wrapper class similar to {{Cite ODNB}} or {{Catholic Encyclopedia}}. —howcheng {chat} 19:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Britannica was the source most initial WP articles were based on, to suggest to remove it on the basis that it duplicates WP is spurious. Convert it to a citation temp if that is what is needed though I don't see need of removing it from ELs as well just because it is an encyclopedic source (most Britannica articles are taut and to the point). Gotitbro (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that a policy/guideline basis has been given for removal, editors are reminded to discuss that aspect. I see several keeps which do not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In my simplistic view of things, it's pretty clear. Item 12. of WP:ELNO states that "Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." Since Britannica has become a mirror of Wikipedia, and the sole purpose of this template is to simplify creating links to Britannica, well ... there you have it. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is sometimes a valid external link and the template is useful (for convenience, tracking, etc). I think the claim that Britannica is a mirror or fork of Wikipedia is unsubstantiated. MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Britannica is a valid source. I don't see what's so bad about linking to it. also, the OP was blocked as a sock.--Auric talk 19:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – a bad template to use for citations; doesn't include a retrieval parameter or a date written. Also not a good external link—the template's existence strongly tempts both of these things, so I would certainly lean towards deleting. Just use {{Cite encyclopedia}} Aza24 (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reason for deletion presented. Contrary to the nom, nothing in WP:ELNO applies; it is neither a Wikipedia mirror nor an open wiki; I don't know where that idea originated. EB is a well-enough established source that there is value in having a uniform way of referring to it, whether as an EL or as a reference. TJRC (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am puzzled by the suggestion that EB is a mirror of Wikipedia. I used the article on New Zealand literature as a source for the New Zealand literature page on Wikipedia; the former is written by C.K. Stead who is a well-known New Zealand writer and academic. Whether there are improvements that can be made to the template is another thing (date of article/retrieval would be a useful addition), but it doesn't seem to me that the policy WP:ELNO applies here. Chocmilk03 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I too am puzzled why this template is being considered for deletion, and could not find a reason mentioned. The talk page lists an undated and unsigned comment to "planning to nominate this template for deletion", w/o giving a reason, the link there is stale and probably referred to this discussion from 2018. So, w/o proper reasons to remove, please keep. It's a useful template and I'd prefer it over (naked) hyperlinks anytime. If Britannica is a valid source can be discussed of course, but I don't see how this is related to this template. If we go this far to prohibit links to britannica.com altogether (or include it into WP:ELNO), that'd be a whole other discussion. -- Evilninja (talk) 17:22, 11 July 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:Nav book tool

[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) 23:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deprecated along with the Book: namespace UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no reason to keep a template whose sole purpose is to link to articles in the now-deprecated Book: namespace. Let's move forward already ... don't just keep stuff around for "sentimental purposes". — Johnnie Bob (talk) 03:27, 6 July 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_July_6&oldid=1035429979"