Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

December 24

Template:Apple hardware since 1998

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. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Apple hardware since 1998 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Already covered in {{Apple hardware}}. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As far as I'm concerned, there's no discussion regarding Template:Apple hardware before 1998, and that encompasses a far greater number of hardware Apple made in that time. –Piranha 249 23:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It absolutely makes sense to split Apple hardware at 1998, this makes it much easier to find content and organizes products more logically. There's no reason for deletion. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the pages with this template already also have {{Apple hardware}} on the same page. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even so, it's difficult to find specific devices with the general hardware template. The more specific template makes it much easier for users to find what they're looking for. Also, it really makes no sense to delete this template but not the pre-1998 template. These templates are autocollapsed, I believe, so I can hardly see it impacting page length/readability. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2020 (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:ARN

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) 2pou (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: fictional country, doesn't need such template. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless and presumably the acronym is made up anyway. Nigej (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no country by the name of Arendale or similar. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be something somebody made-up about a fictional country; no reason to use this anywhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1 transclusion in userspace, 0 in mainspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2020 (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:Country data Arendelle

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) 2pou (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Arendelle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete: fictional country, doesn't need such template. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to serve no useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be something somebody made-up about a fictional country; no reason to use this anywhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1 transclusion in userspace, 0 in mainspace, 2 in templates that will probably be deleted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2020 (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:Street grid of landmarks in the 19th-century Los Angeles business district

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 January 1. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Street_grid_of_landmarks_in_the_19th-century_Los_Angeles_business_district (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:Munich–Holzkirchen railway

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. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Munich–Holzkirchen railway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spandau Suburban Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template, should be merged with the article Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This had been rehashed again and again (2019) and again and again (2016) and again (2015) and again and again (2013). The result has always been either "keep" or "no consensus".^{corrected 01:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)} (See also Wikipedia talk:Template namespace/Archive 2#Delete all single-use templates? and Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Single use template.) Plastikspork, please withdraw your nomination. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Big difference there, since those templates aren't using {{Infobox rail line}}. Of course, there is precedent for keeping BS-maps in template space, but I see very few places where the entire infobox is kept in template space. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That format ({{Infobox}} inside RDT) is a vestige of templates ported from WP:DE and not changed to standard format, which has now been done for both. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is incorrect in several ways. First, many of those discussions were closed as "no consensus", which is not the same thing as "keep". Second, the 2015 and the second 2013 link are disputed about whether a RDT should be used at all, rather than whether it should be stored in a template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is clearly good practical reasons for keeping route diagrams on a separate template from the article that they illustrate, even though they are used only once.--Grahame (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete I've read through all of the linked discussions and not seen any actual valid arguments as to why RDTs should be stored in separate pages, only a ton of "we've always done it this way", arguments that could also be applied in favor of keeping templates like {{cite doi}}/{{cite pmid}}/{{cite isbn}} (which were all deprecated or deleted), and an apparent desire to own the content of RDTs by deliberately making them even harder for unfamiliar users to edit (in the 2016 Teahouse discussion). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If set up correctly, there should be no problem in accessing the template page to edit it. However, it is very hard to edit these pages without messing them up, except for changes to text, so there is a strong case for a slight restriction on naive users accessing them.--Grahame (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As AlgaeGraphix points out, there has never been consensus to merge RDTs into the wikitext of their host article - and for good reason. Having masses of code whose syntax is opaque to most users, and in which a single-character error can break the entire page, in the article wikitext makes editing more difficult for everyone. This nomination is basically "I don't like it" rather than any evidence that it would be an improvement. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some RDT diagrams are so large that they have to be housed as an "article", such as West Coast Main Line diagram. There are many good reasons for keeping them separate, but none for merging that I can see. User:Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2020‎ (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:Infobox Indian political party

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 speedy withdraw. It is a wrapper template. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Indian political party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox political party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Indian political party with Template:Infobox political party.
WP:INFOCOL. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:32, 24 December 2020 (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:StarTropics series

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) Techie3 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StarTropics series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox for only 2 articles. Izno (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just 2 entries, both of which mention the other in the opening paragraph of the lede. No navigational purpose. Nigej (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough entries to be necessary.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with the nomination; no real navigation assistance provided. -- 2pou (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to having enough entries to warrant a navbox. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only two entries, with no prospect of any additional ones in the future. As Nigej said, this serves no navigational purpose.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2020 (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).