Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 24 December 26 >

December 25 edit

Template:Country data VShojo 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a country. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:04, 25 December 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:GB station usage 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) 17:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused except in two talk pages (some of the sub-pages of {{GB station usage}} are unused, some are used in one or both of the talk pages). Gonnym (talk) 22:19, 25 December 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:Date difference 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:Age in days. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Date difference with Template:Age in days.
Template:Age in days accepts the parameters that Template:Date difference does (and more). Simply redirecting Template:Date difference to Template:Age in days should do, but I'm hesitant to do so without consensus. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Redirecting Date difference to Age in days looks fine to me. User:GKFXtalk 21:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GKFX: can you add the Tfm notice to Template:Age in days? --67.183.136.85 (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Done User:GKFXtalk 21:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be merged or, as it only has six transclusions in articles, deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 25 December 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:Mainstream Rock Radio Stations in South Dakota 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) 16:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient links to warrant a navbox (3). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of the numbers of stations in said formats. Also, nominator has not indicated they have done anything to improve or add to this template. Stereorock (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't need to. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stereorock.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A navbox masquerading as something useful for navigation when there's only 3 links. Nigej (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stereorock, additionally it's common for there to be many navbox's in relation to radio stations, and stations can be very "volatile" with there programming. Fadedmax (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:NAVBOX 4. A larger navbox of all the radio stations in the area would be fine. User:GKFXtalk 13:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These exist, e.g. {{Sioux Falls Radio}}. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:22, 26 December 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:Mainstream Rock Radio Stations in Ohio 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) 16:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feast thine eyes on...an empty navbox. Looks like a format change this week at WZRX-FM led to this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The rule of thumb at Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is that there should be at least five articles for a navbox. Even that essay acknowledges, of course, that this isn't set in stone, and doesn't preempt common sense… but one article is definitely too few (i.e., even if WZRX-FM were still here this would still be a candidate for deletion, probably), much less the zero now contained here. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as formats are always in flux in terms of the numbers of stations in said formats. Also, nominator has not indicated they have done anything to improve or add to this template. Stereorock (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stereorock. Three stations were found and added to the navbox with just a quick search.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template Otherwise, we end up with groupings of random cross sections with questionable notability.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delele per above. Navboxes sole purpose is as an aid to navigation. Nigej (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed this discussion on WP:WPRS, as that is the project that is most interested in these discussions. Stereorock (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:12, 25 December 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:Database report 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 userfy. Izno (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer useful after the bot that was updating transclusions was shut down (almost 6 months ago). * Pppery * it has begun... 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:41, 25 December 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:Smallfrac 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) 16:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually unused alternative to {{frac}}, which for me at least renders poorly - if you use it to write one-half, the slash overlaps the two. Per MOS:FRACTION the use of {{sfrac|1|2}} → 1/2 is preferred anyway. User:GKFXtalk 15:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per MOS. There are only three transclusions left, in talk space, at least one of which is talking about this template, so we may need to subst. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2022 (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:SUBJECTSPACE pluralized edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, last edited 2012. User:GKFXtalk 10:56, 25 December 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:Huggle/xfd edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, this template is not used. Q28 (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a substitution of this which is newer than 2008. User:GKFXtalk 12:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually wondering why Huggle has any unique templates at all? Why does it not use the standard ones? Gonnym (talk) 13:42, 26 December 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:WPV banner edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not actually used. Q28 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 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:Subspeciesbox/example edit

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

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 11:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my God, this is unused. Q28 (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a usage example of a template which is linked rather than transcluded from the doc page. User:GKFXtalk 12:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GKFX. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GKFXP: it's not "unused" as a page, just as a transcluded template. It should however be moved to Template:Subspeciesbox/doc/example as it's really part of the documentation of the template. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 26 December 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:WP1.0/Version categories edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have learned that the template is no longer in use. Q28 (talk) 09:34, 25 December 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:NASCAR movies 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. Izno (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean up this template, but the more I work on it, the more I realize that it is a hopeless navbox. It fails WP:NAVBOX items 2, 3, and 5 (out of 5), and Category:American auto racing films, not to mention the dozens of other articles in Category:Auto racing films, contains many more articles that could easily turn this navbox into a giant mess if all eligible films were included. I recommend deletion of this navbox entirely, leaving the job of connecting these loosely connected articles to the relevant categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it is a defining feature of such films there ought to be an article like NASCAR movies. It seems there's just a loose connection between them, ie NASCAR, so this is better handled by categories not a navbox. Nigej (talk) 13:40, 25 December 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:Latn in Unicode 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 moved to Template:ISO 15924/overview-Latn in Unicode. Please feel free to start a new discussion if you still think it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Latin script in Unicode already displays Latin in Unicode. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Latin (Latn) script in Unicode is one of the most complicated ones in the Unicode definitions. So if one can handle Latn in templates or in articles, other scripts can easily to follow (maybe Han is another useful pilot).
2. Was created (by me) to get overview of all Unicode angles of the Latn script: ISO15924-, Unicode-, enwiki- and wikidata-ID, plus their various properties: charts, blocks, code points, informal properties (eg chart subsets like 'vulgar fractions', 'math operator'—in Latin), illustrative character features (eg whitespace), non-"Latn script" Latin-like charaters (eg math symbols). To research such topics, this cross-linking overview, to include el's, is useful.
3. Also, the table might be split & developed into a more comprehensive content overview for Latin script in Unicode § Blocks.
-DePiep (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved into Template:ISO 15924/overview-Latn in Unicode doc/background info. To be deleted:
Template:Latn in Unicode (now a redirect)
Template talk:Latn in Unicode (now a redirect)
Template:Latn in Unicode/doc (now a redirect)
Template talk:Latn in Unicode/doc (now a redirect)
Template:Latn in Unicode/row (now a redirect)
I think this solves the question. -DePiep (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst to an article or userfy and delete. This isn't a documentation of how to use a template and as such, does not belong in any documentation sub page. This is clearly article content and either belongs in an article and should be subst there or does not belong anywhere and userfied and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is "documentation" as in: background info for templates (while not as a regular green /doc page). The ISO15924 templates have a dozen such documentation pages. -DePiep (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, wouldn't surprise me if some of those others are also incorrectly placed there. A documentation for a template should be on how to use the template. If the documentation is about ISO 15924, then that is probably either article content that belongs at 15924 or maybe too technical for Wikipedia. Gonnym (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my #2 note about 4 IDs, their properties, and on maintaining them. I don't think the relation between ISO15924 and Unicode &tc. is "too technical" for WP. FYI, we're doing it for twelve years. -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point and it still does not change my argument. The template in question is Template:ISO 15924 and the documentation there needs to support how to use it. Can you explain exactly how [Template:Latn in Unicode]] explains how to use the template? What parameter in Template:ISO 15924 correlates to that entire page? Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been taken care of by incorporating it as a documentation subpage, but it is disheartening seeing these kinds of drive-by deletions without ever bringing a concern up at the template talk or the creator, maintainer, and sole editor's user talk page. Nobody does more to maintain Unicode and ISO 15924 information on Wikipedia than DePiep, and this kind of information and documentation of these standards is incredibly important to editors implementing content about writing systems. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 08:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TfD is the correct venue and calling a fellow editor's action "drive-by-deletions" is borderline personal attacking and clearly not AGF. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DePiep. User:GKFXtalk 09:20, 25 December 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:Endeavour MAT 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) 00:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough eligible links for a valid navbox. Needs four links; only has two valid links, with the only other blue link being a redirect to a list. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. User:GKFXtalk 09:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just enables you to jump between the boys and girls schools. Nowhere near being useful. Nigej (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:50, 25 December 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_25&oldid=1063566245"