Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17 edit

Template:Cablegate timeline 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 23:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary sidebar that could be integrated into the article's prose. It's only used and linked to once, which is from United States diplomatic cables leak. SWinxy (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please make the edit to substitute the template into the article before starting a discussion about whether the template is redundant. It may be that the resulting wikitext would be ugly and unmaintainable and keeping the template would be desirable, but that can't be judged until the edit is made. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is generally bad practice to subst a TFDd template into an article as this makes it difficult to track whether it is used or not (which is weighted by closers). In this case it may have worked out as the page in which it was used was mentioned in the nomination. Izno (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, adds value to the article, and the wikitext would bloat the article needlessly. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substitution necessary. The WikiLeaks navbox already covers what this sidebar is doing already. And has plenty of links for the topic. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to the closer: observe that WikiCleanerMan clearly didn't look at the template under discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False. I did look at the template. What good is a sidebar if it doesn't have links for the subject outside the few it already has. A sidebar shouldn't be prose. Second, the article is used on already covers what the sidebar has. So there is no need for substitution at all. You shouldn't make a note to the closer of this Tfd for something so little. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't make a note to the closer of this Tfd for something so little. Not looking at the template is not "so little". If you'd looked at the template, you'd see it is a vertical timeline, not a navbox. That it links to other articles is secondary to what it was designed to do. Circling back to what you wrote originally: The WikiLeaks navbox already covers what this sidebar is doing already. It does not, anyone with eyes can see it does not, ergo, you did not look at it, or, you do not have eyes. Now do you want to strike your !vote or do you want to take another run at supporting your !vote? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the subject of WikiLeaks, we don't need a sidebar such as this one, hence my mentioning of the navbox. Never said this template nominated was a navbox. I'm a regular here and look at every template nominated, so stick to reason. You're getting personal as if you're the creator of the template which you are not. You made a vote and so did I. I don't need to change my vote just because you want it kept. Not how the voting process works. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a content issue that is not relevant for whether the template should be deleted. If it is desirable for the sidebar to be removed, then remove it and see if the change sticks. If it does, the template will be deleted as unused. If the content is restored, the question then arises about whether the wikitext should dumped in the article or kept in this template. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a regular here Then you'll know this isn't a vote, and as your opinion lacks a valid reason, the closer should ignore it. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a response to your PA's and your attempt to discredit me for simply voting opposite of yours. So, please refrain from taking this personally. You're not helping anybody with these statements. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not cast aspersions: I did not make a personal attack. I simply pointed out a fact. Next time don't !vote until you've looked at the thing you're !voting on. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete, as stated above, if there is a problem with the content, then the content can be subsequently removed from the article. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Frietjes. This is both a) 100% article content and b) insufficiently complex to merit a separate page. From a non-TFD perspective, this kind of content probably should generally be deleted; either the article and lead are a sufficient summary or they are not. --Izno (talk) 02:14, 24 August 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:Ussc-cite 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 23:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2004, not used since then, and outmoded by {{UnitedStatesCode}} Ductwork (talk) 22:26, 17 August 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:Office Osawa 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 2022 August 24. ✗plicit 23:47, 24 August 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:Maccabiah Games Athletics 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 11:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yearly articles have only one blue link, and even that article is nominated for deletion. To navigate between the main article and the ones in the bottom, "See also" section would be more efficient. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, the template is also useful to prompt editors to create missing articles and to provide a list of Games occurences that included track and field. --Habst (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navbars need a couple more blue links to be worth it. SWinxy (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Unnecessary template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 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:Maccabiah Games Swimming 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) 00:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full of red links. The purpose of a template is for easier navigation, which is not necessary with just two articles linked. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_17&oldid=1106505538"