Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 9
April 11 >

April 10 edit

Template:Cocaine Bear 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, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This... feels like an overly contrived set of articles to group together for a navbox. At best, there are 3 useful and related links here: Cocaine Bear, Cocaine Bear (bear), and Andrew C. Thornton II. The rest of the links are space-fillers to try to justify a template. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Meth Gator is specifically a mockbuster of Cocaine Bear, so four. Lo Chiamavano (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a template, I would not generally consider a parody film to be worthy of mention on the main article of the work it is parodying. It should hardly be counted in a TFD on this basis. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And in the presence of a template (as there currently is), it would be considered worthy of mention on this basis for now. I have seen most parody films be mentioned in the templates for their main works/franchises before. I was quietly working on a Cocaine Bear (soundtrack) page if that would help it justify a keep? Lo Chiamavano (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, pending some sequels. Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough closely related subjects to warrant a template. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Overly contrived indeed. —Alalch E. 01:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful for navigation, as there is just 3 similar articles in it. CRwikiCA talk 17:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (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).

Naisten Liiga playoff templates 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) 00:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each used on only two mainspace pages, with no potential for use elsewhere. Recommending each is subst'd and deleted. fuzzy510 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2023 (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).

NBA playoff brackets 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 23:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these is only used on two pages, with no potential for use elsewhere. Recommending each is subst'd and deleted. fuzzy510 (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete after substitution. I have updated these to use {{excerpt}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transclude from play-off page, no need for a separate template, but also no need to duplicate content. CRwikiCA talk 17:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transclude as per CRwikiCA. You'd never know when you need to edit such "templates" in the future. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2023 (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:Mario & Luigi 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:Mario role-playing games. Author redirected, and no one objected to it. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded because Template:Mario role-playing games exists. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mario & Luigi and Template:Paper Mario should never have been the same template in the first place. Will restore to redirect for now, but will be splitting both templates later. Lo Chiamavano (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and rd both this one and the Paper Mario template that Lo Chiamavano is threatening to create. They have redirected the current template to the main Mario RPG template for now. Navigation templates do not need to obey the "official" boundaries of series or other media IP. The collection of Mario RPG series are related enough conceptually to be grouped into one navbox for easy navigation, end of story. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need to split navboxes, having sections in one is sufficient. CRwikiCA talk 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Nominated template has been redirected by the creator. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (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).

2016 Summer Paralympics goalball convenience templates 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 12:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

per the current convention for Olympics and Paralympics articles, the game and standings templates should be hosted in the parent article, and not in individual templates. if consensus changes over LST vs templates, we can always put all the matches and standings into a single template with a switch so we don't need to watch 30 templates per event. Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do as the nom says. Prefer LST. —Alalch E. 01:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and previous consensus on the merits of LST over the "convenience template" approach. Nigej (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fine to switch to LST. CRwikiCA talk 17:41, 11 April 2023 (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).

Internal link namespace-specific templates 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These templates serve the same purpose (generating useful links), but they all are built for shortcutting to different namespaces. It's quite redundant to have so many namespace-specific templates, when one template could be used, writing the full namespace as a replacement, via {{pagelinks}}. Their names are not self-explanatory (e.g. what does lh do?), whereas pagelinks suggests its purpose. I think they should be substituted with the pagelinks template, and then deleted. Two of these are very high-use templates (lc and lx), and may require a bot or AWB to be substituted. Others might be in use actively for maintenance, and a replacement would need fair warning and accommodation to make sure a clean migration happens. SWinxy (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can see, one template is used ((Template:Lx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), these just provide shortcuts for specific namespaces. I'd much rather type {{lt}} than {{pagelinks}}. Oppose —Locke Cole • t • c 06:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mention that lc and lx are high-use templates. A majority of these templates wrap lx, too. Their utility as shortcuts must be balanced against the quantity that exist. SWinxy (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their utility as shortcuts must be balanced against the quantity that exist. Must? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's what I want to get out of this discussion here :) SWinxy (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're a set of shortcut templates for convenience. The worst thing we could do is delete some of them and break the "system" that exists. The only reason we should even remotely consider that is if there were something someone were wanting to use one of these templates for that involved taking over the name. And even then, it's inadvisable. For other !voters, here is the entire set:
Namespace Link to subject page Link to talk page
General {{pagelinks|FULL PAGE NAME}}
 Same as for subject page
{{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} {{lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}}
Article {{la|ARTICLE}} {{lat|ARTICLE}}
Draft {{ld|DRAFT}} {{ldt|DRAFT}}
Template {{lt|TEMPLATE}} {{ltt|TEMPLATE}}
Wikipedia {{lw|PAGE}} {{lwt|PAGE}}
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ {{lafd|PAGE}} —
User {{lu|PAGE}} {{lut|PAGE}}[1]
Category {{lc|PAGE}} {{lct|PAGE}}
File {{lf|FILE}} {{lft|FILE}}
Portal {{lp|PORTAL}} {{lpt|PORTAL}}
MediaWiki {{lm|MESSAGE}} {{lmt|MESSAGE}}
Help {{lh|PAGE}} {{lht|PAGE}}
TimedText {{lttxt|TIMEDTEXT}} {{lttxtt|TIMEDTEXT}}
Module {{lmd|MODULE}} {{lmdt|MODULE}}

References

  1. ^ For a similar template for user accounts, see Template:user
So if we delete {{lht}} or {{lttxt}} as suggested below, we'd now have gaps in the table above. It's simply better to keep the whole set and reduce potential confusion. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pinged about these templates. Near as I can tell, my sole involvement was protecting one high-use template in 2007. I don't recognize these templates and don't have an opinion on them. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I thought I saw that you had created one of them. My apologies if the ping was unwanted. SWinxy (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template:Lttxt and Template:Lht as unused or only used in what amounts to lists. Keep the remainder, basically per Locke Cole, and also that I don't see a convincing reason to do anything here. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See above for why we should likely even keep those two. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:49, 11 April 2023 (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/2023_April_10&oldid=1150763988"