Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4

[edit]

Automotive Hall of Fame navboxs

[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 June 13. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:25, 13 June 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).

College Football Standings

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. The Texas and Nebraska Conference no longer exists. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant if these conferences no longer exist. A template for sports standings in a defunct conference shouldn't be on its own template rather transcluded on the respective page or pages. And why can't the information on List of Texas Conference football standings be transcluded on the Texas Conference article? It's just a waste of space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not relevant. Notability isn't temporary. Which "respective page or pages" are you talking about? Do you think we should delete Template:1985 Big Eight Conference football standings? The Big Eight Conference is defunct. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the information on a respective page can be transcluded rather being on their own template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template is transcluded. That's what a template like this does. It transcludes content onto an article. Do you mean to say "hard-coded" instead of "transcluded"? Do you want to the take the contents of Template:1985 Big Eight Conference football standings and hardcore them onto all the articles onto which that template is currently trancluded (1985 NCAA Division I-A football season, 1985 Oklahoma Sooners football team, 1985 Kansas State Wildcats football team, and several others)? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I mean. Hard-coded. Sorry, I use terms like this coterminously. They should be hard-coded because if you create a template for every standing/division for every year, it becomes too much. I've taken the keep arguments and understand the rationale, however, I view college sports as being less notable to a degree unlike the five major sports leagues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too much for what? Why would you repeat all that identical code on multiple articles when you could just use the template to centralize it in one place? If there's an error or a formatting change that needs to be made, or some sort of data expansion, the template allows you to make changes in one place instead of having to repeat the changes in multiple places. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They might be learning though. [1]-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UCO2009bluejay, I'm not a newbie. I've made rational arguments not just for the ones I've nominated, but similar templates that have the same function that are unused. I can agree to come to a consensus with all of these college football standings templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: New is relative, your first edits were a few months ago. And your suggestion that a conference is defunct for purposes of deletion is not rational. The 1985 Big Eight templates are used on at least nine pages, see here, here and here. Furthermore, it would take up FAR more space on all of those pages to substute and replace with tables. And your nomination of all of the 2021 NFL standings templates demonstrates precicely my point. I was trying to give you some credit as learning but if you want to slap my hand...-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recanted those nominations because I misread the unused templates database reports with those NFL templates being on the list. It was a mistake. I'm not slapping your hand and you had no point. You're reading too much into it. And don't just assume based on one TfD. And I don't think it would take that much space because if you add all relevant information to a respective article, then it's necessary to have them included. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 6 June 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:FC Wohlen squad

[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) 12:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The team now only plays in the fourth highest league in Switzerland. Furthermore, the squad was last updated almost five years ago. Leyo 16:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Linked to a few pages, the rest is text. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the template were updated to the actual current squad, it would have almost 0 links, and is therefore not needed. If in future they get promoted high enough that lots of their players have Wiki articles, then it can be recreated. But right now it's misleading (as not updated for 5 years) and would serve no valid purpose, as there wouldn't be enough links. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 6 June 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:Under 15 Bayernliga Nord

[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) 12:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links to parent clubs as we don't have articles for the U15 teams. Similar template deleted here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 6 June 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:Universal Monsters

[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) 12:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion previously in December of 2020 ( seen here) the conclusion was to remove the template relating these Universal Monster movies as it was not clear what was included in the series and what was not. This template has been re-created again and several films and television series and films that probably do not belong (Frankenweenie, The Shape of Water, etc.) As there is no real consensus on what does officially belongs in this series, we should not apply WP:OR and create templates suggesting some films are here or not. That was the result last time and there has been no serious research or conclusion to the discussion on the talk page of Universal Classic Monsters since. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:43, 4 June 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:Ihicon

[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 now that the linking used by the template has been changed (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recipe for disaster, as this template is unable to distinguish between male and female teams The Banner talk 11:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Fixed. Kante4 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: Ehm, it is used in the current 2021 IIHF World Championship for example and was planned for the 2020 tournaments which were cancelled, so it will be even more used in the coming years. Kante4 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On one article. Ehm. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said, it was created for the 2020– tournaments (there are several divisions in ice hockey, male and female, so about 10 articles each year). Since they were cancelled, it is just one so far but when the other tournaments will restart from next year on, it will be more and more. Kante4 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever something is created on Wikipedia, like this template for a tournament, it's created after the fact such as its announcement or after the event. Not to have it waiting just in case you might need it. And as the nominator states, its ability to distinguish from male and female teams remains difficult. And Template:Ihwicon is used only on two pages. There can be a better template or formatting substitute to be used in both templates' place. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created them as there are WC's in hockey every year and that we don't use {{flagicon}} anymore but the specifc national team article as they represent them, just like {{fhicon}}, {{hbicon}}, {{fbaicon}}... Kante4 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to the 2019 tournaments aswell. Kante4 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't do that when we have a discussion ongoing. Just lay out your arguments like you did above and wait for the process to play out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my fault. Should i revert? After thinking about it, it was a bad move by myself, again sorry. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we should be linking to the sports team rather than the country, and this template achieves that. They exist for other sports e.g. cricket for the same reason, so no reason why the men's ice hockey one should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Linking to the sports team makes sense if we have the means and ability, and other sports do it. Creating two options for male or female sports is not difficult, either. –uncleben85 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Joseph2302 says, the same type of template exists for men's cricket ({{cricon}}. A very cursory check turns up women's cricket {{criconw}}, (proper) football {{fbicon}} (men's national teams) {{fbwicon}} (women's national teams) {{fbaicon}} (national associations), basketball {{bkicon}} & {{bkwicon}}; and even quidditch {{quidicon}}. Quidditch. What makes hockey special that it can't have the same? - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm a crazy person, I skimmed through the list of flag templates and made a not complete list of other sports which have them: badminton, bandy, baseball, basketball (regular, 3x3, and wheelchair), beach handball, beach soccer, cricket, field hockey (outdoor and indoor), floorball (basically floor hockey?), football (association football - many, many related templates), football (Aussie rules), football (American handegg), futsal, goalball, handball (regular and wheelchair), ice sledge hockey, inline hockey, kabaddi, korfball, lacrosse (outdoor and indoor), netball, pitch and putt, roller derby, roller hockey, rugby (league, sevens, union, and wheelchair), softball, speedway (motorcycling), squash, tennis, tug of war, volleyball (regular and sitting), water polo. Many of these have associated templates for men's, women's, junior levels, lower divisions, and combinations thereof. So can someone elaborate on exactly why ice hockey is an issue? @The Banner:? - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template was an issue because it led to the creation of links to disambiguation pages, due to the template not distinguishing between male and female teams. By now, that issue is fixed. The Banner talk 05:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close, request withdrawn as the issue is fixed. The Banner talk 05:39, 7 June 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:TVQ

[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 suitable replacement. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mvcg66b3r was removing both Templates from many Network affiliate articles, and I can see why, since TV Fool and TVQ are considered Inactive sites just like TV.com. Because of all this, and me removing the Templates too, both templates needs to automatically deleted by SporkBot on many Other Network affiliate articles that still has this template. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Feels more like a promotion for a website. But it also leads to a dead link which renders it useless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TVQ has a lot of transclusions that need manual replacement (it's been on the way out in external link sections generally because of the inclusion of infobox functionality that can link to the FCC LMS record). You can't switch from TVQ to FCC-LMS-Facility without adding the facility ID to the template syntax for each use, and we have a lot of translator lists still needing an overhaul for repack and for that changeover. It should be kept, but TV Fool should be deleted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sammi Brie: if the template should be deleted after the transclusions are replaced, then the WP:TFD/H is still the correct result. There are a lot of templates that need that treatment and when they are placed there it promotes other editors to help out. --Gonnym (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first, replace transclusions for the second then delete per Sammi Brie. Not sure if the replacement is 1-1 with another external link template, or if the replacement need to be in the infobox. Hopefully Sammi can shed more light on that. --Gonnym (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TV Fool, Speedy Keep TVQ: No idea why TVQ is even included. It's used in every TV station page on the site. Absolutely zero reason why TVQ should be removed since it has has a link to the station's FCC license. Are we being punked? Pinging Mlaffs, Bearcat, Tdl1060, Stereorock, and ‎Rudy2alan (congrats on 31,000 edits, dude!). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first, replace and delete the second: as Sammi Brie noted, there are a massive number of infoboxes that will need to be updated/transclusions of TVQ removed manually. Quite a chunk of work, but it makes sense given the FCC's move to LMS essentially makes the template results unreliable at best and increasingly useless overall. In my younger, highly-active days, I could probably have power-gnomed my way through it in a few days, but I'm not that man anymore and I'm okay with that. Will happily pitch in if that's the final call though. Mlaffs (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TVFool only. While it's true that we're moving away from TVQ due to changes at the FCC site that have led us to change how we link to those records, that process is not actually done yet — as of right now, TVQ is still directly in use on several hundred TV station articles, and thus can't be deleted until after the changeover is complete. If somebody wants to actively take on the task of getting that project done, then we can delete TVQ as a deprecated template — but as long as the project is still in progress, TVQ can't be deleted yet. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TVFool only per Bearcat.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TVFool only per Sammi Brie and Bearcat. Template:TVQ can be considered for deletion after being replaced with something like Template:FCC-TV-Station-profile (also callsign based) or Template:FCC-LMS-Facility (which would require a change to using the facility ID). —50.53.23.14 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the transclusions can't be replaced with the former because only full-service and Class A licenses have public files to link to. A lot of the uses of TVQ are translator lists, which also need updating for repack and other purposes, like KUTV#Translators. I have been doing these sporadically but there are some sources that need improvement and better data views needed to continue. TVQ isn't as bad as it once was (they started to have it pull data from LMS, finally — it used to be that for WWJE-DT it had the wrong owner, calls and other details completely), but there is some serious virtue in having the main query be facility ID-based. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sammi Brie: That is exactly why I added the "or" and the reference to the LMS linking template. One major benefit is that facility IDs never change but callsigns can and do change (albeit usually slowly). Another benefit is that facilities (included in LMS and CDBS, etc.) include more than just TV service stations, including stations for AM and FM radio, etc. —50.53.23.14 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym/Mlaffs. 1) I am skeptical that the second template needs keeping at all given that the infobox does similar work these days. Regardless, 2) a decision to delete it now without replacement does not mean it is removed exactly now at TFD. It will be added to TFDH as noted for someone to work on replacement with the appropriate other links or templates. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Izno: Sometimes a TV query is needed without an infobox — translators of other stations that don't deserve their own article or multi-station network pages (e.g. Kentucky Educational Television). Also, the infobox would need logic improvements to generate an LMS link but not a station profile link for stations with calls that end in -LD or -D. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sammi Brie: Not to mention several others too like cancelled licenses (most of which have had their callsigns changed to start with "D"; these are almost never notable and likely have little to no place in Wikipedia, however). These still have articles and LMS data exists to document such. —50.53.23.14 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can download a tsv file with the facility ids and callsign. This makes (semi)automatic replacement possible. I don't know if there are cases where {{TVQ}} still should be used but dealing with the vast majority of transclusions should be fairly simple. If all of them should be removed it should definitely be placed in the holding cell to make sure it isn't forgotten and to attract attention from template editors. --Trialpears (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear I would support deletion following replacement of {{TVQ}}, I think I changed my thoughts part way through writing the above and didn't change away from calling it a comment. --Trialpears (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative note there is a clear consensus here to delete {{TV Fool}} but less of one for {{TVQ}}, so I will be deleting the first momentarily but due to the length of this discussion will wait until 4 June to relist. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that following this relist only {{TVQ}} is being discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:50, 4 June 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:Medical cases chart

[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. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only the wrapper template is being nominated for deletion, not the underlying module. This wrapper template tends to add about 300 kB to the post-expand include size of a page versus directly invoking Module:Medical cases chart, out of a hard limit of 2 MiB. (That value tested on Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Switzerland medical cases chart but broadly similar everywhere.) That is one of the main reasons why so many COVID articles have been exceeding the PEIS limit.

Since this template is not intended to be used in article wikitext directly, a wrapper does not need to exist for ease of editing etc., and in fact it makes editing harder by introducing a mysterious error message that many editors will not have even been aware was possible. I already replaced a number of uses at the start of the month but we might was well remove the lot and turn this template into a soft (untranscludable) redirect to the module. User:GKFXtalk 20:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will trust you on that. No objections if all current uses are appropriately converted. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is transcluded in 127 articles, none of which exceed the post-expand include size (the only mainspace page exceeding that limit at the time I write this comment is COVID-19 pandemic in Chile, which doesn't use this module at all). Additionally, many of the templates that use Module:Medical cases chart are single-use and should therefore be substituted and deleted (the purpose of the template namespace is to store [...] Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages per Wikipedia:Template namespace, and single-use templates fundamentally fail that purpose), whereupon there will cease being a post-expand-include-size disaster (since {{medical cases chart}} would add the same 300kb that the single-use template currently does). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Selection bias: the reason the pages currently using this template are OK is because I’ve initially focused on cleaning up those which were broken. I would rather remove a wrapper which does nothing except risk creating further problems. It is reasonable to keep large quantities of data in a separate page to avoid creating articles with unwieldy amounts of markup, and you would need to establish consensus before saying they should all be substed and deleted. User:GKFXtalk 10:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment instead of being deleted, it could be made non-functional by being a documentation point, hosting a navigation point to the module and documenting its use; thus allowing other editors to access the module units from more familiar template space landing point -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep that sounds great, I proposed a "soft redirect" for that purpose but I’m flexible on how it gets implemented. User:GKFXtalk 15:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straight delete. One module/template for purpose, not two. Given the insanity of these articles, that should be the module. --Izno (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that this remains a slow-burning problem, with sixseven more articles exceeding the PEIS limit since this nomination was made. User:GKFXtalk 20:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GKFX: Does the issue still persist with the recent updates? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexiscoutinho I'm seeing 195 kB now as the value in the Switzerland example above, which is a significant improvement. We could call this fixed if you want, it's certainly not so big an issue as when I started. User:GKFXtalk 07:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GKFX: My final opinion on this is to create a redirect as 195 kB is still too much and because I want and need to squeeze every ounce of wikitext optimization to implement a future feature. I'm against deletion since I want to preserve its history and contribs. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:01, 18 June 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:Convert to transclusion

[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 move to talk page. Consensus is emerging that this is a useful tracking category to maintain, and that a talk page template will allow for this tracking without needing a banner on the article itself. This is somewhat of a weak consensus, though, and there is no prejudice against renomination of this template after some time has passed and its efficacy as a talk page banner can be assessed (i.e. 6-12 months). Primefac (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor issue and how the page is structured behind the scenes does not matter for readers for who it is unnecessary and potentially confusing clutter. No new editor will make Labeled section transclusion their first project invalidating that argument. I would suggest either moving it to the talk page like {{Image requested}} and some other templates with improvement suggestions or possibly just deleting it. I'm more inclined towards the former, but both are fine and should be on the table (hence the TfD). --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First, there is consensus that this template should not be used in the article space, but opinions are mixed on whether it should be converted to a talk page banner, text to be used in discussions, or simply deleted outright. Relisting to get further opinions on the matter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for determining if this should be deleted outright, moved to the talk (as a template), or subst-only talk page note.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:50, 4 June 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_June_4&oldid=1029512289"