Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 5 December 7 >

December 6[edit]

Template:UBX-mango-yogurt and one more[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 03:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. This placeholder template is simply a soft redirect to the actual userbox, which lives in the correct namespace. I converted it to a redirect but was reverted, so here we are at TfD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aren't these userboxes that should go to MfD? On the merits, Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I used Twinkle, which normally detects userboxes and sends them to MFD automatically. These were not detected as userboxes by Twinkle for some reason. Further reason to delete them, methinks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am following the process described at Template:User UBM UBX to#Purpose, and have used that migration template when migrating many other userboxes as well. I have yet to see any admins coming along to delete the old (template space) pages, though, not even after I have updated all transclusions to point to the new (user space) locations. — voidxor 00:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that Category:Wikipedia GUS userboxes has more of these. Gonnym (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ones in template space. It seems they were moved to subpages of User:UBX (where they do have some transclusions), so no need to have a template space copy of them too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And as this is a discussion of template space, TfD is correct process. For the userboxes in user space, MfD would be appropriate, but as they're in template space, this seems the correct process. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an incorrect assertion. The instructions at WP:TFD clearly state, "Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside." Though, one could conversely argue that we are not here to discuss userboxes, but rather userbox-shaped soft redirects to userboxes. Go figure. — voidxor 18:41, 7 December 2021 (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:Unreferenced2[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) 00:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although the template must replace the reference, no one actually uses the template. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how can you tell it is unused? It is a substitution template just creates a references section with a dated {{unreferenced}} template. I've seem many an article that is formatted that way. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we need to keep this template pending evidence that it is actually unused. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonesey95 (replacing my previous delete vote; I'm usually pretty good about checking for subst-only templates, but somehow missed this one). * Pppery * it has begun... 23:40, 6 December 2021 (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:People of the end of Han dynasty[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) 23:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This type of comprehensive listing of every article on a person from c.200AD China is better done as a category. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a good way to have an overview of the most important people of the end of the Han dynasty (from 180 to 220) in China. Most people don't bother looking for officers, politicians and officials categories of each warlord TheWayWeAllGo (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does very little in navigation given how much is included. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2021 (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:WikiProject Non-tropical storms/class[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 2021 December 14. ✗plicit 03:03, 14 December 2021 (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:Countdown to anniversary/29 of February[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 03:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main template Template:Countdown to anniversary was redirected to Template:Countdown in 2018. The Countdown template was made in 2010 while the Countdown to anniversary template was made in 2015. I don't think Countdown to anniversary/29 of February is needed as it can be done with Countdown, making it redundant. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2021 (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).

Unused Rut 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 00:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rugby union templates for sides that no longer compete or no longer compete/didn't compete at a level that would qualify for notability for players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2021 (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:Draft top[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 02:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused draft banner (except in one talk page). Seems Template:Draft article is the standard version used. Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{Draft article}} to help editors who forget the name of the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my !vote after reading Pppery's remark below, which makes perfect sense. Top templates almost always pair with a bottom template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't seem like a plausible redirect to me, as "* top" is usually only used when paired with a "* bottom", and Template:Draft bottom has never existed. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:39, 6 December 2021 (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:UserBadge[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; deleted as G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. Appears to be an abandoned experiment, about 18 months old. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concurred. Can be deleted. Rustyshackelford (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:39, 6 December 2021 (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:Triangular mainsail[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 23:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links. Contains only a File: invocation with a caption, which should be done in an article anyway. There is no template code here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2021 (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:Tl flat[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 23:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no incoming links from discussion pages. Misleadingly uses the documentation for {{template link}}. Appears redundant to {{template link}}, possibly an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2021 (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:Editnotices/Page/User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback[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 00:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chzz has been blocked for almost 4 years and the last edit to User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback was in 2012. This is no longer needed. Gonnym (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2021 (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:Load user script[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 2021 December 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 17 December 2021 (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:Archery at the 2021 Junior Pan American Games[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) 18:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unused and nothing but red links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this new template. This is why the unused templates project is supposed to be ignoring templates created in 2021. These games are in progress, running from November 25 to December 5, 2021. It seems likely that there will be an archery article, given that junior world records are being set. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote wasn't based on the task force. Maybe the template should be userified until those articles are ready and thus the template is ready. But it still doesn't have much to remain as it is currently. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This definitely shouldn't have been created in May, over 6 months before the event in question. At this point, though, it's close enough that, if the template is deleted, it will likely be recreated within weeks, so Jonesey95's logic for keeping the template seems reasonable and it should be kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the individual articles will be created. The results/information is being hosted on one article for this event (as per other sports), and this would make the template unused. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's now past the end of the event and the template is still unused and all redlinks, so Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 23:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a junior event, so I wouldn't expect those articles to be created. If they are created, then at that point, the template could be recreated. But no use of having this template until that point. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (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:Manx diaspora[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 13:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After recent deletions, only one item is left, leaving nothing to navigate between. Geschichte (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2021 (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:Alpbaşıs of the Kayı tribe (Diriliş: Ertuğrul and Kuruluş: Osman)[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. Izno (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant from the Tfd on October 25 where the previous templates for the characters of Turkish show Diriliş were deleted and substituted, the same should happen for these six. This falls under Fancruft in my view and should be treated as such. And none of these templates are not the standard navigational templates despite being categorized as such. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since this has been relisted twice and if there aren't any votes in one week since the second relisting, the templates should be deleted and be substituted per my nomination due to the lack of participation from editors. Thus, the deletion should be treated as a soft deletion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep since they are used in multiple articles, but I will change the category to Category:Fictional family tree templates. if there is a good parent article for these, we could merge them there, but I don't want to see these substituted into every article that transcludes them. Frietjes (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some are transcluded on the List of Diriliş: Ertuğrul characters articles. I don't see a better parent article for substituting these. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2021 (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:Districts of Ethiopia[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 13:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect. Platonk (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2021 (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/2021_December_6&oldid=1060836525"