Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 5

< November 4	November 6 >

November 5

Template:Latin alphabet sidebar

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 November 13. Primefac (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:Marcel Theroux

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marcel Theroux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs a navbox: one notable work and a handful of notable relatives are not enough for this to be useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful or needed for such a small group. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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:Bakerloo line extension via Camberwell RDT

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) 15:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bakerloo line extension via Camberwell RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bakerloo line extension via Peckham Rye RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bakerloo line extension via New Cross RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template containing possible article content; article contains many RDTs already, so this one appears to be abandoned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. If the template can be added to the relevant articles, then it should be substituted on there. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Templates were not abandoned, but removed by Turini2 in March, and have now been restored. Useddenim (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah I removed it from the article because it 1) cluttered up the article 2) was far too much detail for something that was historically proposed 3) was better explained in textual form. Delete as per nomination.Turini2 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC) keep for now since the conversation is on going. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. They are currently under discussion on the talk page of the article from which they were removed. This was a unilateral removal not yet supported by consensus. Cnbrb (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is mainly to give the talk discussion more time to progress.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: I have no personal opinion on whether these templates should exist or not. I nominated them solely because they had no transclusions, and templates without transclusions are a maintenance burden. If the talk page consensus is that they are currently useful, or that there is a reasonable possibility that they will be useful in the future, I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. Please ping me if I am needed here; these log pages are too noisy for my watchlist when I am trying to follow just one nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion on the talk page seems to have stalled, so I will relist this one a second time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as the templates have been added to Bakerloo line extension. If they are removed again, then I support deletion. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 6 November 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:BBC modes

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 01:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BBC modes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on two articles. Can easily be substituted onto the respective articles as this really should be part of the article space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete Per nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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:Applications for EU accession

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 02:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Applications for EU accession (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A single-use template that should really be part of the Enlargement of the European Union article instead of on its own template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete Per nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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:Manchester Airport annual statistics

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) 15:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manchester Airport annual statistics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template and should be substituted on the Manchester Aiport article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:35, 5 November 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:Airports in Sergipe

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airports in Sergipe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A recreated template that was deleted back on March 29, 2018 for only having one link. Three years later, the template still hasn't been different. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiCleanerMan, Thanks for your message. I was the editor who recreated the template. The template Airports in Sergipe was recreated to be in harmony with all other 26 States plus one Federal District of the Brazilian Federation. Sergipe is the smallest State of the Federation and this is the reason why there is a small number of facilities. Also in harmony with other templates, I have only listed public facilities as per the Brazilian National Civil Aviation Agency. I understand that there is only one link and one suggestion for the creation of an article. In order to solve the issue and to keep the project in harmony with all other States and Federal District, as a compromise I will create the article Aracaju-Aeroclube de Sergipe. Thanks (Brunoptsem (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

It won't be enough as the necessary amount of links needed for a navbox is five. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about keeping it for now? (Brunoptsem (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

We don't keep templates like navboxes simply because it may be needed. Either it has enough uses or it doesn't. Would you prefer making it as a subpage of yours until more articles are created as you intend to do? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brunoptsem, you wouldn't oppose this becoming a subpage of yours until you feel it is ready to be used? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiCleanerMan, Reality is that in relation to Sergipe we would not reach the minimum number of 5 (and I add relevant aerodromes); when I recreated the template I did not know about the 5 items minimum rule. Furthermore, the information is repeated in Categories: so it appears twice under different forms. As mentioned before, the original idea was to have a consistent lay-out to all States but I do understand that there are other factors. (Brunoptsem (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Then there is no reason for this template to remain. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The template never should have been recreated after deletion, since the original deletion rational has not been addressed. A template with two links is useless and should not be kept anywhere. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, redundant to see also links. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 17 November 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:Airbus A220 orders and deliveries

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airbus A220 orders and deliveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Airbus A320 vs Boeing 737 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Airbus A320neo family orders and deliveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Airbus A330neo family orders and deliveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Airbus A350 orders and deliveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Airbus A380 orders and deliveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All should be substituted where used or where appropriate. All these templates qualify as article content and should be on the articles as such. Not on template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created a couple of these and update others. It would seem that many, if not all, have multiple transclusions; are these now to be transcluded from the main page? I also have concerns about the quality of future editing. At the moment we have a certain type of template editor that differs from the general article editor; this type likes to update the data, has the necessary discipline to do so and knows their way around the sources. Some of these templates were made to take the data management out of the general article editing circuit for just this reason. That strategy has been quite successful because editors who do not know what they are doing tend to balk at changing the template; some still get through but most editors who try to change the data because they have just read a newspaper article don’t go on to damage the integrity of the templates. By deleting these templates and including in the main body of the article my prediction is that their data sets are going to get a lot more complicated to keep in check. It is also easier to bring the format of these similar type of templates into alignment to make comparisons easier. Consequently, my personal preference is to keep them separate from the articles. E x nihil ^(talk) 00:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and Delete Per the nom. These templates belong in article space since they contain article content, not in template space. On Wikipedia, we act in the here and now, not on crystal ball predictions that articles will go haywire if more editors edit article content that was improperly siphoned off into template space. These improper templates should not be kept to satisfy such fears. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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:Ferrari sales

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 03:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ferrari sales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lamborghini sales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Maserati sales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All single-use and should be substituted on the car companies' respective article sections. This was purely created for the articles and qualifies as article content. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete per nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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:SARL style

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 23:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SARL style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SARL lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SARL stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SARL color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/SARL left/City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/SARL right/City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SRT Commuter style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template {{s-line}} operated by Airport Rail Link (Bangkok) including Template:SRT Commuter style no longer used after been replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/ARL. --Jjpachano (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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:Pictures PLC

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pictures PLC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lincolnshire preceptories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ATX size comparison (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Astronomical albedo table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Relative affinities of antiandrogens at steroid-hormone receptors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The first template is a gallery and should be part of the article. The second is an article section. Both are not a good use of a template space and should be substituted where used. The last three have the same issue. These belong as part of the article(s), not templates. Substitution for the last three as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Astronomical albedo table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) is used in both Geometric albedo and Bond albedo articles. Keeping the table a template avoids duplication of data and added maintenance keeping them in sync. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete Template:Pictures PLC as single-use. Subst and delete Template:Lincolnshire preceptories to one of the articles, and use {{Excerpt}} to transclude it to the others if needed, as a clear instance of article content being stored in a template. No strong opinion on the remaining three, which are tables used on multiple articles. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete all Per nom. Article content does not belong in Template space. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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:Star Wars drafts

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. For the record, this is not being relisted because the previous nomination (which as mentioned only closed at the end of August 2021) went for a full month with pretty much the same participants and the same arguments being made, and seems to have been nominated purely based on some problematic deletions and restorations. Primefac (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Star Wars drafts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used and since the last Tfd, the page no longer has a navbox. But navboxes shouldn't link to draft articles, but rather completed or finished articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't have a strong opinion on the original content of this navbox, but the current version is a useless placeholder that should never have been recreated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it should never have been deleted and then recreated without the content. Gonnym (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The template was kept at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 16#Template:Star Wars drafts and later deleted with a (wrong) G5 criteria because the creator was a sock. It was restored at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_368#Template:Star Wars drafts without its content. Since the template was clearly used before it was erroneously deleted and survived at TfD, if it is deleted in its current empty state, it should not prevent future re-creating and usage. Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a no consensus result, not a keep result. --Izno (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno Closers rarely close a "keep" (see Primefac's other recent "no consensus" closes: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Template:1999 Mid-South Conference football standings and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Template:2005 NAIA independents football records) so it is a bit off to say the close wasn't a keep. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Rarely close a 'keep'" is a bizarre statement with zero relevance to this specific discussion. I am clarifying that a "no consensus" close is in fact not a "keep". Please review deletion policy on the point. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need such a template, however I recreated it on request at WP:REFUND. Others are welcome to add any content they like. The reason I recreated it was due to the previous discussion heading for a keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per previous discussion. --Izno (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was part of an ongoing discussion regarding REFUNDing this when it deleted because it was created by a sock user. Since that discussion that Gonnym linked too at R for undeletion has since been archived, the plan was to restore the template to be actually useful and functioning, not its current state. I have been inactive of late, but I do want to do that, and will be doing such after this comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (Re)creation of the template has been done with this edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template was restored and is used again. Also per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 16#Template:Star Wars drafts which was 3 months ago and ended up keeping the template. Nothing has changed in those 3 months, including no new deletion rationales and the current rational from WCM for deletion is no longer valid - template is in use. Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are drafts are allowed to be included on a template such as a navobx? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAVBOX does not restrict the types of articles that can be used in navboxes. How is it any different from navboxes that link to templates or Wikipedia-space articles? Outside of the headers and footers, all links are for the draftspace and it is coded with {{Main other}} to prevent it from viewing in mainspace articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as this is not transcluded into the main space (and it is not). In fact, it is protected against main space viewing through its use of {{Main other}}.
This is a useful navigation tool for editors that work in draft space. Drafts often have "Untitled" prefixes, "(upcoming...)" disambiguations, and potentially other draft-space nuances that can sometimes make finding the correct draft title difficult, leading to duplicated drafts that need merging (not a big deal) or, much worse, wasting volunteer editor's time in creating. Now, I could be wrong, but I wouldn't think people are trying to read these drafts, but instead trying to find the correct draft that they will be adding relevant content into. That is the actual purpose of these draft navboxes as far as I ever considered them. In my opinion, the best navigation tools available to WP editors are Navboxes, followed by lists, followed by categories (waaaaayy at the end). As a tool, we'd be saying, "Oh, you need a tool to smooth off the end of that pipe? No, no, give me that dremel; you can't use that. You can use this nail file (read: category) instead, or you can use this raw metal and lathe to make a true file (read: create new task force list), but that dremel that's already in your hand, that's off limits." I re-read WP:NAVBOX, and I can't see anything that prevents this type of navigational assistance unless someone says "article = main space", but to which I would say "draft article" still falls in scope. -2pou (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And although this is not a redirect, I think that some guidance from the RfD space is pretty relevant here. Similar to redirects, this isn't exactly reader facing, so substituting from WP:RK#K5: Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a [navbox] useful, they probably do. -my substitution of "redirect"→"navbox" to be perfectly transparent. -2pou (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've summed this up nicely 2pou. While most navboxes with mainspace articles I believe are meant to help navigate readers through related articles, I think navboxes which house all other namespace articles (template, Wikipedia, Draft), is more for editorial navigation, to aid editors in finding the right place to work on something or add content too/make a relevant posting etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the original discussion. Navboxes do not belong on drafts, nor should draft space and template space be used to create a shadow fan encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say Navboxes do not belong on drafts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 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:About-Hugos

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 replacing transclusions with the labelled section mentioned at the end of this discussion. If anyone wants the template text to further refine the wording at Worldcon#Awards, please let me or another administrator know so it can be copied to the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:About-Hugos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This isn't a template but rather a description of the Hugo Awards. This is article content and it has no function outside of the related articles for the award. This should be substituted on all articles it is used on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The situation before I created the template was that the same text, or nearly the same text, was repeated on all pages about Worldcons. I wrote it to avoid this situation, so I believe it's useful. I'm not sure how this is not a template. Teemu Leisti (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if it was fine being as text on the related articles then it doesn't need to be on a separate space. And just because it says template, doesn't mean it is one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, it does. It literally does. DS (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     There are many reasons why it makes sense to have the text as template instead of typing it out on each page separately. (1) When creating a new Worldcon page, as will happen on average once a year, it will be quicker to just include the template instead of retyping the text. (2) With ~~almost~~ over 80 Worldcon pages so far, it's difficult to control that the text is the same for each page if not using a template. (3) If something needs to be changed in the text, it's much easier to edit the template than to make the changes to almost 80 pages. Indeed, this is exactly what happened last year, when the "John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer" was renamed the "Astounding Award for Best New Writer". If there had been template, it would have been necessary to manually update the text of ~~almost~~ over 80 pages. Given that the template existed and had been transcluded on those pages, it was sufficient to perform only one edit.
     I'm still puzzled as to why you think that this particular template isn't a really a template. A template is a piece of text, possibly with markup, possibly parameterized, that is repeated in many places on Wikipedia. This one doesn't have complicated markup, and isn't parameterized, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a piece of text that is repeated across Wikipedia, and is manifestly useful. The first paragraph of Help:Template says (my emphasis): A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on a larger number of articles or pages. They are commonly used for boilerplate messages, standardized warnings or notices, infoboxes, navigational boxes, and similar purposes. How does Template:About-Hugos not fit that definition?
     Further, just because a page exists doesn't mean that its state is "fine". If that were the case, there would be no need to ever edit any Wikipedia articles, would there? Teemu Leisti (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC), edited 19:52 UTC[reply]

I didn't say the page was fine. Fine was referring to if the pages for the Hugo awards already had the same text as this template, before this template was created, then it didn't need to be created on a separate space. And how does this template count as being under similar purposes for boilerplate messages.? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote earlier: "So if it was fine being as text on the related articles then it doesn't need to be on a separate space." My point, which I apparently expressed unclearly, is that whether or not you think a page is fine does not preclude other people from thinking that the page needs improvement, and therefore, from editing the page to improve it.
My main point is that the template is being used exactly for the exact reason that templates exist, according to the template help page: Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on a larger number of articles or pages. The template you're proposing for deletion does exactly that: it contains material that is repeated on a number of pages. The fact that the use case examples listed on the Help:Template page includes "boilerplate messages" does not preclude templates being used in other cases where there's a need to include repetitive text in various articles, that is, for similar purposes, as the very same sentence on the help page says. I really don't know how to put it any more simply, and am quite puzzled why you have a problem with the template mechanism being used for its intended purpose. Teemu Leisti (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my previous comment: I researched the deletion process a bit, and found that the page Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#REASONS lists the reasons for deleting a template:

Reasons to delete a template

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

Which of these four reasons does the proposed deletion fall under? Teemu Leisti (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not what templates are for, and the text doesn't need to be in every article anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ... yes it is? It's for repeating a passage of text that should be identical in each article. If it doesn't need to be in each article, which ones would you recommend have it? Can you be sure that those will be the ones that people read? DS (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This template is obviously needed, as it's being already used on 79 70 of the 81 existing pages on Worldcons, and will need to be included for all such pages created in the future, unless, for some reason, they stop giving out the Hugo awards. It is being used for the exact reason that templates exist, according to the Help:Template page (my emphasis): Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on a larger number of articles or pages. They are commonly used for boilerplate messages, standardized warnings or notices, infoboxes, navigational boxes, and similar purposes. Also, which of the four reasons for deleting a template, which I quoted above, do you think the proposed deletion falls under? Teemu Leisti (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC); edited 01:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC), to correct the number of pages the template is used in[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Yet another misuse of template space by hosting article content where it doesn't belong. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this a "misuse" of template space? DS (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As DS asked, how is this a misuse of the template mechanism? Page Help:Template says (my emphasis): Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on a larger number of articles or pages. How does that not apply to the template under discussion? Where is it written that templates cannot be used for article content? Teemu Leisti (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you counting votes, I would point to article Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions:

Arguments without arguments

This section is about deletion arguments that do not seem to make sense, and otherwise do not point at or even make correct usage of policies or guidelines whatsoever.

Just a vote

...This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" or "Speedy keep" or even "Weak keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on cogent reasons.

So far, I have not seen any cogent reasons for deleting this template, just unsupported assertions that for this particular case of repeating text, the use of the template mechanism is somehow unsuitable or disallowed. Teemu Leisti (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the matter further, I found article Wikipedia:Template_namespace, which says in its nutshell section: Templates should not normally be used to store article text. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves. No one arguing for the removal of the {{About-Hugos}} template has referred to this guideline, so I assumed, incorrectly, that no such guideline exists, and therefore, wrote "unsupported assertion" in my previous comment.

Note, however, that the proscription is not absolute ("not normally"), and I have found examples of templates being transcluded into article text (see, for instance, Template:Fricative and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Fricative). However, in light of the guideline, and in the interests of reaching a consensus, I'm proposing a compromise. Apparently, there is also a method of transclusion called labeled section transclusion, documented at Wikipedia:LST. This method seems to be uncontroversial, so I tested its use. I added section tags around the text of section Worldcon#Awards, so it can be transcluded in the articles on individual worldcons. This would require substituting the transclusion code {{About-Hugos}} by the transclusion code {{#section:Worldcon|Awards}}.

Would this be an acceptable substitution? Teemu Leisti (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC), edited 08:50[reply]

Teemu Leisti, I would say that is a good compromise. you can also use {{#section-h:Worldcon|Awards}} which doesn't require section tags, but may be less obvious to some. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 12 November 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:ECWA Heavyweight Championship

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 11:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ECWA Heavyweight Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

ECWA is a small, regional promotion. The title has 41 champions, but just only 14 have articles. I think a template for this title isn't necesary, not every wrestling title needs a navbox. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article already lists the winners. Don't see the need for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the articles content and not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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).

Wrestling titles

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 11:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLW Battle Riot winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Aztec Warfare winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Heart of Shimmer Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WXW Women's Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FOW Hardcore Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AEW World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ECWA Territory Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:IWGP World Heavyweight Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ECWA Super 8 ChickFight Tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ECWA Women's Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All fails WP:NENAN, less than 5 articles linked. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You could easily put the merge the Battle Riot winners into another MLW template. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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:ERL style

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 11:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ERL style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ERL lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ERL stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ERL color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/ERL right/KLIA Transit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/ERL left/KLIA Transit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/ERL right/KLIA Ekspres (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/ERL left/KLIA Ekspres (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template {{s-line}} operated by Express Rail Link no longer used after been replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/ERL. - Jjpachano (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All now unused and no longer needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: original creator here, go ahead with the deletion. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 02:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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-attack1-short

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-attack1-short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and same as the attack1-rand template below. Not a standard message used to warn editors about their behavior and/or conduct on Wikipedia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See related nomination Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 4#Template:Uw-attack1-rand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now a duplicate TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original TFD can be found here. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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:Prion diseases/sandbox

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 01:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prion diseases/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Parent template is a basic navbox, and this template is unused. WMSR (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just duplicates the main template page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant and unused. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 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).