Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 November 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6 edit

Template:USL A-League Seasons 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:American A-League seasons. ✗plicit 23:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template is an exact duplicate of Template:American A-League seasons. It is now unused after I replaced its transclusions. BLAIXX 21:55, 6 November 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:Bullet Train 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Navbox now satisfies WP:NENAN following additions by page creator. (non-admin closure) InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the links in this navbox, Three Assassins is a redirect that links back to the author's page, so it's unclear how it relates to Bullet Train. Maria Beetle (play) is also a redirect, linking to a one-sentence description on Bullet Train (novel). All six links in the Related section are only tangentially related to Bullet Train, and the articles do not mention Bullet Train. If we remove all of these problematic links that violate WP:NAVBOX, only two (the novel and the film) remain, thus failing the WP:NENAN rule of five. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three Assassins is the first book in a trilogy about killers for hire, followed by Bullet Train (Maria Beetle). I am writing the article. 200MLeunscentedAveeno (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: 200MLeunscentedAveeno (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Even if there is an article for that, three links still fails WP:NENAN. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to include Grasshopper, the 2015 Japanese film adaptation of the first novel. It should pass WP:NENAN now. 200MLeunscentedAveeno (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. That's three without the future (hypothetical) article, and four with that included. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's five (four presently, ahead of the new article). You forgot Bullet Train (soundtrack). 200MLeunscentedAveeno (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. But until then, this navbox should not exist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that then is now, and so this navbox should continue to exist. 200MLeunscentedAveeno (talk) 22:18, 6 November 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:Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool 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 23:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted under a different name, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 28#Template:Deadpool film series. This is an unnecessary fork of {{X-Men in film}}. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:38, 6 November 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:Globes 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 November 13. ✗plicit 23:39, 13 November 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:Have a bookmarklet 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 23:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template copied from other wiki without any effort to adapt it to this wiki, and appears to refer to a script that does not exist here. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:29, 6 November 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).

Module:ParamValidator 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 23:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Module:Parameter validation (which I also think should be deleted, but that idea will have to wait). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as duplicate, if any transclusions at time of deletion then replace with references to Module:Parameter validation. I think Module:Parameter validation is useful, and should be used more, as it's superior to Module:Check for unknown parameters, although would be interested to hear the rationale for deletion. It could do with better documentation, certainly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning is: (a) we already have too many modules handling parameter checking and should consolidate on one (b) Module:Check for unknown parameters is the clear winner with several times more transclusions than anything else (c) The idea of automatically detecting what parameters are in use has been repeatedly proposed and rejected at Module talk:Check for unknown parameters, making this the module namespace equivalent of a WP:POVFORK (d) This module fundamentally works by transcluding the documentation page on every use, whereas the entire idea of documentation pages is not to be transcluded, likely opening a vector for vandalism (although I haven't investigated this claim further for WP:BEANS reasons) (e) The initial deployment of this module was controversial and never had proper consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    re b. I don't think something having more transclusions here is pertinent; the modules do different things and that no-one has taken to deploy the one doesn't indicate its uselessness (I pointed to the "Module:Check for overridden parameters" (naming) on VPT a day or three ago, so there is desire for it). Izno (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unused duplicate. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that This module fundamentally works by transcluding the documentation page on every use, whereas the entire idea of documentation pages is not to be transcluded is a problem. --Izno (talk) 21:36, 7 November 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:Northern Zhejiang transit 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 merge to Template:Zhejiang transit. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Northern Zhejiang transit with Template:Southern Zhejiang transit.
There is no definite division between northern and southern Zhejiang, so I don't see why Zhejiang needs two templates for one purpose. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:04, 6 November 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:Current U.S. representatives from North 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 , but allow for recreation if a valid multi-article use-case is presented Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the Template:Current U.S. representatives from Delaware and Template:Current U.S. representatives from Montana. All of these are unused and are article content on template space. Substitution isn't needed on respective articles because the articles themselves already have the charts as part of the articles for Representatives and Senators for these respective states. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please merge all these noms into one, and like consider to give just one or two talk page messages, I had a mini-heart attack when I saw 38 notifications. Please. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is just one portion of templates like these for both Senators and Representatives that are unused. The rest are used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as creator): Also, I know that I'm moving at a turtle's pace right now, but these all are supposed to have 2-4 transclusions (depending on hierarchy of subtopic articles on a particular state) at the end, but I'm currently invested so deeply in other things that may not be able to complete this project anytime soon. If the consensus is to delete, go for it, I'll re-create them or request undeletion as and when required. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would the same apply to those that are currently used? Because they have one or two uses which are very limited for templates like these and also have the same problems with the lot I have nominated. Your intentions are not bad but in practice, it does not make good use of template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose a subst and delete approach to the currently used Senator templates either. I assume all of them have a single transclusion currently, so I don't think they need to be templates at this point. Again, if I eventually do get to a point where I'm in a shape to complete this project, I'll re-create or request to undelete them. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case it wasn't clear I do a weak oppose to the deletion of the two "representatives" template nominated here. But there is some precedent to delete such template. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Pining previous discussion members from the last related Tfd; Whpq, Axem Titanium, Gonnym --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, possible speedy G7. As with the previous discussion, templates that are used to transclude article content that are only used 1 or 2 times should simply be subst'd into the article. It appears that none of these are even currently transcluded anywhere? I would want to see one example of this template at "full usage" according to CX Zoom before I'd be willing to sign off on the creation of the rest of this huge template tree. I need to be convinced that this wouldn't be better off as directly editable article content, for accessibility reasons. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:53, 13 November 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:Pre wrap 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 12:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used template that can be done reasonably easy in wikitext, if even it's necessary anywhere. Izno (talk) 07:16, 6 November 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:IPRangesock 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 03:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template at User talk:2A02:C7D:8AA4:5600:0:0:0:0/64, we normally don't create user talk pages for IP ranges. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as IP address ranges are typically used by different people let alone just one IP address. Therefore I vote for Delete. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:04, 6 November 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_November_6&oldid=1122418887"