Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 13
June 15 >

June 14 edit

Unused s-line 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. Izno (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused s-line templates. --Gonnym (talk) 22:16, 14 June 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:BVBWQ2016OG 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) 22:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent articles. Frietjes (talk) 22:13, 14 June 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:Global MBA Rankings 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 01:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe useful in some world, but it was used only in a single article (that has evidence of WP:COI to boot) as an empty infobox (now removed) after being blanked a few years ago. It's also clearly not kept up to date. Izno (talk) 22:02, 14 June 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:Muller AO 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) 22:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this template does nothing since this edit by CFCF Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Many of the articles that use the template themselves seem to be short stubs that should probably be merged somewhere. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:06, 18 June 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:Community trademark 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. No consensus concerning the creation of Template:EU trademark. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

non-functional since this edit by Pigsonthewing. Frietjes (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment According to Community Trade Mark (CTM) the thing was renamed to European Union trade mark (EUTM) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the updated URL appears to be 
     https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#basic/1+1+1+1/100+100+100+100/{{{1}}}
    when I experimented with the sample ID from the /doc page "000428250" -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to {{European Union trademark}} and update the URL; and reactivate. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here we go with the speculative reinstatement of things that are clearly dead and should be left to die. Linking to the exact trademark registry that a company or product has is a hallmark of excessive detail or promotion, as all of the current uses are. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are excessive, then the EU one should not be singled out for deletion. The UK one and US one should be bundled in. If the US and UK ones are considered proper, then the broken EU one should be fixed and deployed, rather than singling out the European Union for some odd reason. The EU is not some minor trademark authority. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Pppery here. A listing of trademarks is not of sufficient interest to have a template IMO, and I'd welcome a TFD for the other two templates on that question. Izno (talk) 22:35, 21 June 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:Association football estcatdecade 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) 22:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category template. Gonnym (talk) 16:50, 14 June 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:Archive list alpha/display26 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) 22:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub-templates of Template:Archive list alpha since it was converted to Lua in 2022. Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 14 June 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:Soviet artillery 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. Izno (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially duplicates the purpose of Template:Soviet and Russian artillery after WW2. No merge necessary. The template is also incomplete. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the other should be split to improve this one. Russia is not the Soviet Union, and the weapons they originated are two different lists, while a third is weapons domestically built in Soviet successor Ukraine, including 2S22 Bohdana, R-360 Neptune, Vilkha, and Hrim-2.  —Michael Z. 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd say either split or merge into one template. There's no need for two templates to exist for the topic of artillery for both Russian and the SU. Either have one for the Soviet Union and one for Russia or combine the two into one singular for consistency. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we combine them, then do we roll Ukrainian artillery into there too? And perhaps Georgia, since it has the RS-122. Separate might be better.  —Michael Z. 17:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Azerbaijan has some mortars and Belarus has a couple of versions of an MRL.  —Michael Z. 18:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the origins of the artillery are from the Soviet Union, then it should be in the Soviet artillery navbox. But Russian artillery should be a different navbox and since Russia does still use SU artillery, all entries related to the SU should be tagged with asterisks or with italics, something to differentiate the listings. Same for countries that were once part of the union. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a fair chance that a Soviet/post-Soviet artillery navbox is the best way to minimize duplication (and don't repeat yourself is generally good template coding practice or just in general). But here we're just discussing one template and a duplicate. Once this closes then we can start a new discussion to look at a grand merge and page move. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not a duplicate. It was created back in 2006. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Age isn't really all that relevant when examining material for duplication. There have been mainspace copy paste duplicates that existed side by for years. Anyway I haven't meant to imply that's what happened here, just that it is redundant material which I don't believe is controversial. If you prefer I could say that it's been superseded instead, which is a slightly more expansive term that encapsulates some of the same ideas. In mainspace we'd handle this differently and might even be looking to see if a complex histmerge were needed, but this is templatespace. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplicative per nom. Any two templates are going to have a very large overlap which is best avoided so a split makes little sense here, and as the nom explains, no merge is necessary. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep delete the combined Russia/Soviet template. Russia should have a separate template, not a combined one. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split the other one. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 23 June 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:Year in the People's Republic of China 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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 03:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template intended to be a sidebar of some sort. Suggest total deletion. Izno (talk) 03:01, 14 June 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:Canadian Prairies census metropolitan areas 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 & subst. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 03:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Izno (talk) 02:53, 14 June 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:Winona Ryder 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 00:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three links after removing unrelated links that had no direct relation to Winona Ryder or were just too general. No navigation is presented with this template and was never really a template that should have been created. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, a navbox that does not actually aid navigation. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 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_June_14&oldid=1162053500"