Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 11 February 13 >

February 12[edit]

Template:Wide template[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) 15:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded in nine pages. Not widely used. Should subst and delete. George Ho (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can this be merged with {{Wide image}} ? The overflow functionality should be what is wanted. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of use may be because people don't know about it. I've been here closing in on two decades, and I'm still discovering new templates and things that I didn't know existed. I see no valid reason to delete. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment: I recently mentioned this template at WT:RFA as a way to resolve one issue that I raised there. I hope this doesn't count as canvassing, does it? --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canvassing is if you are requesting specific people who you think will support you to come and participate, or if you use biased wording to invite participation. If it's mentioned on a broadly-read page like that, and using the neutral language you used, I don't think it will be a problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as minimal use, an abuse of the related classes, and because it's not fundamentally needed for anything. If something is wide, maybe it should be modified instead of using this template, and for other systemic issues (like tables) there are already workarounds in place at the skin level. --Izno (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 12 February 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).

Top ten male singles tennis players 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. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to WT:TENNIS#"Top ten" lists and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Top ten male doubles tennis players templates and includes the top 10 ranking templates for male singles. The issues relating to these are similar to those mentioned in the earlier discussions noted. Nigej (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete - as with the prior list that was deleted these are difficult to maintain are are better served by having a link in the external links section to the ATP or WTA site that updates this info daily. This includes not just doubles but all singles players as well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the ATP does not update the information daily but weekly, on Mondays. You already deleted the doubles, for which I commented against deletion, but don’t see my comments. Why now the singles? Are these going to be replaced by an improved linked template to the ATP rankings by country of the top 10 players to be updated weekly? How is the consensus reached here to delete them as I only see two contributors, same ones as for the doubles templates, the Author Nigej and contributor Fyunck(click) that want to delete those, don’t we need a larger consensus, how come we never get notified about these decisions of deletions unless we go to a page. I don’t believe that there is no automated solution of updating those. Sashona (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Another batch of cruft templates with no real value in keeping or having. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some of them are regurarly updated, while the doubles templates were not. It's obvious that doubles tennis isn't getting so much attention compared to singles. While there is a date of update written on each template, it's not false information. They are not trash, same about the WTA templates. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I can understand some of the justification for getting rid of Doubles templates given the lack of depth in that event, but Singles has far more participants. Also, a lack of updates is not a good enough reason to simply delete. We editors have busy lives, just because we cannot devote hours and hours every week to update everything that needs to be updated, does not mean it does not belong. Furthermore, these templates do make it easier to navigate between players biographies and to learn about a wider range of players (and an encyclopedias mission is to make information more readily accessible). So unless the people in favor of deletion are going to create and maintain and alternative for this, then I say these need to be kept.MorrisIV (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 12 February 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).

Big 12 Conference 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 03:44, 19 February 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:Mathis Gamme songs[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 13:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red-linked template of someone who isn't notable. If this gets deleted Category:Mathis Gamme and Category:Mathis Gamme songs can be deleted as well G8. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:05, 12 February 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:Daet, Camarines Norte Barangay[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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:56, 12 February 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:Salten Commuter Rail[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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No main article for this navbox, and the one linked article in the navbox body does not mention this rail line. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 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:Salten Commuter Rail map[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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Rail routemap for an article that does not exist. The one linked station does not mention this rail line. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 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:Slovak Government approval[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 15:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in mid-2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Perhaps some opinion polls. Either way it's not maintained needs deleting. Nigej (talk) 20:56, 12 February 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:WHO LEM[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 15:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links. Created in March 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author, I'm not contending this (for now). If it's important enough, I may re-add it later.
Riventree (talk) 18:31, 12 February 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:Nevada Wolf Pack football navbox/doc[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doc page for {{Nevada Wolf Pack football navbox}}. However that template doesn't use it, these fancy features having been removed in 2011. Nigej (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have moved this template's documentation and categories from the template page to the doc page, which is what should have been done here instead of a TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:11, 17 February 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:Portal-mobile[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:Portal. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Portal-mobile with Template:Portal.
Now that Template:Portal is visible on mobile devices, Template:Portal-mobile is a redundant template with a different style. Let's redirect uses back to Template:Portal — hike395 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge templates. If Template:Portal indeed now works on mobile then there is no need for two separate templates and CSS would probably be the way to handle mobile vs desktop style. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal has a frame

Template:Portal-mobile does not have a frame

  • Keep and rename to Template:Portal-noframes. This template has a unique function of omitting the frame that is typically present when multiple portal links are present. See the comparison at right for examples. Retaining the template for this purpose keeps more layout options open for editors. For example, editors may want to utilize a no frames layout on project pages, user pages, and the like. Some articles may have unique layouts that would benefit from an unframed list of portals as well. North America1000 23:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: I can add |border= to Template:Portal and Module:Portal, similar to Template:Portal bar. Then |border=no would turn off the border. Template:Portal-mobile can then become a thin wrapper around Template:Portal, just for existing articles. New uses can be directed to Template:Portal. This would be cleaner than maintaining two templates and modules. — hike395 (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: That sounds fine as well, and easier. Just to be crystal clear, it seems imperative that portal links using the standard portal template will retain their borders, and the |border=no would be an optional parameter to remove it if desired. This sounds exactingly as you are saying above, but I just want to make sure. If portals links were to suddenly lose their borders en masse, people would likely complain. North America1000 16:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: To clarify, the default will be |border=yes, so that the millions of portal boxes will remain unchanged. — hike395 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: That works for me; just wanted to be crystal clear about it. Your solution relative to my proposal to provide a no-border option for editors solves this matter and provides the no-border option. North America1000 23:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Module:Portal and Template:Portal now have |border=, and Template:Portal-mobile calls Module:Portal with |border=no. I'll wait to do any deprecation until this discussion closes. — hike395 (talk) 03:18, 16 February 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:Netball at the Commonwealth Games category navbox[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 23:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A template for navigating between groups of netball "convenience templates" in different years. Only used for 2006. Later games used different category structures so this approach was unsuitable. Nigej (talk) 18:39, 12 February 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).

2019 IPL match 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 23:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#2021 IPL match templates, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#2020 IPL match templates and other discussions noted there, these templates have been substituted into the main article and they are no longer required. Nigej (talk) 19:23, 12 February 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:2009 NCAA Division I FCS independents football standings/doc[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused doc page. Could be added to the parent but all the articles I looked at in Category:2009 NCAA Division I FCS standings templates and Category:NCAA Division I FCS football independents standings templates don't have doc pages, so seems better to delete Nigej (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have fixed this template to use the documentation page and store the categories in the doc page. This is what should have been done instead of TFD nomination. Templates should use documentation pages, in general. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 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:2010 MEAC football standings/doc[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 move. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doc page for {{2010 MEAC football standings}} now renamed {{2010 Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference football standings}}. However that template doesn't use it, the highlighting feature having been removed in 2010. Other years don't have doc pages. Nigej (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and edit this page so that the moved template has and uses a documentation page. All template pages should have documentation pages unless there is a good reason for them not to have one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 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:2011 MEAC football standings/doc[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 move. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doc page for {{2011 MEAC football standings}} now renamed {{2011 Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference football standings}}. That template doesn't use it. Other years don't have doc pages so seems better to delete. Nigej (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move this page so that the moved template has and uses a documentation page. All template pages should have documentation pages unless there is a good reason for them not to have one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 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:NYCS time[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 23:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was TfDed here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 4#Template:NYCS time but there wasn't a single comment. Time for another go. See {{NYCS}} which says "{{NYCS}} is a universal template intended to replace older NYCS templates such as {{NYCS time}}" and it's said that since 2007. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 12 February 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:Pentecostal European Fellowship[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, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails most things about a navbox. No parent article, hardly any links. Nigej (talk) 22:07, 12 February 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_February_12&oldid=1073164127"