Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20[edit]

Template:Cercanías Valencia color[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) 03:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:adjacent stations/Cercanías Valencia Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 20 September 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:6TeamBracket-2Elim-B[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{6TeamBracket-2Elim}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:01, 24 September 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:Iba, Zambales[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of unnecessarily long navboxes that serve little to no purpose at all. Seems like they were only made just for the sake of having navboxes dedicated to them. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending editing to remove irrelevant links. I see at least six links in {{Iba, Zambales}} that appear relevant; I have not looked at the other two templates. TFD is not cleanup. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Id say reorganize to keep the relevant articles as Jonesey has mentioned above and see if there are five minimum links for the navboxes so they don't get renominated for deletion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination. I'll try to fix them instead. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:00, 23 September 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:Uw-copying-nosource[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:Uw-copying. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Uw-copying-nosource with Template:Uw-copying, or converting them to multi-level.
This concerns the following two templates :

  1. {{Uw-copying}}: created 2009-09-20
  2. {{Uw-copying-nosource}}: created 2015-04-24 as an offshoot of #1 (2015 diff)

Both of these templates advise users about requirements to provide copy attribution with similar language. Other than some discretionary rewording, the major difference is that #2 mentions "risk being blocked" while #1 does not (see diff) .

It seems to me the two templates could easily be merged, with perhaps the addition of a param |gentle=yes (or its inverse: |riskblock=yes) to exclude or include mention of a block.

Alternatively, we could just convert this into a multi-level template, which, in a way, the two already kind of are—only that instead of having suffix digits, they have different names. Perhaps #1 should simply be moved to {{Uw-copying1}} and {{Uw-copying-nosource}} should be {{Uw-copying2}}. Template doc advice could recommend starting with #1 for newbs, and #2 for other users, and a #3 and 4 could be added, if needed. My preference: convert to multi-level. Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge. I created the nosource template because the standard one used to read "The attribution has been provided for this situation", and of course you couldn't provide attribution if no source was identifiable. That was rephrased by Lord Belbury with this edit in 2020 (thank you!), so there's now no reason for mine to be kept. Making the block warning optional is a good idea, thanks, Mathglot. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:21, 20 September 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_September_20&oldid=1112708901"