Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5[edit]

Template:Cima Subdivision[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. ✗plicit 11:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail line template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:43, 6 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:8TeamBracket-Consols-Compact[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, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:39, 6 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:16TeamBracket-2Leg[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, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{16TeamBracket}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 21:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominations. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:08, 5 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:16TeamBracket-Tennis5777[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, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{16TeamBracket}} – Pbrks (t • c) 20:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominations. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:08, 5 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:4TeamRelegationDoubleElimination[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, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, redundant to {{4TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 19:55, 5 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:Round8-2legs[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, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. – Pbrks (t • c) 18:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominations. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:09, 5 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:8TeamBracket-AFL[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions; redundant to {{8TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}} (without the line spaghetti). – Pbrks (t • c) 18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The AFL and NBL final 8 system require the so called "line spaghetti" as teams cross halves of the draw unlike the page 8 system. These are not redundant templates. Please do not touch the NBL and AFL articles until there is a resolution. RoryK8 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The text "Winner advances to Preliminary finals" is clear enough that the winning teams advance to the next round. No readers would be confused trying to figure out how Team X made it from Round 2 to Round 3. – Pbrks (t • c) 21:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they would, they suddenly change halves of the draw, this is a different finals system to the one you have put on all of the AFL pages without any consultation with WP:AFL or any consideration whatsoever. RoryK8 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's less clear than the bracket that was used previously where it showed you which match the week two winners went to. RoryK8 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the "no transclusions redundant to..." egregious behaviour from a long-time editor who went on an editing spree to then suggest there were not multiple articles using these templates before doing this tfd nomination, without proposing changes to either WP:AFL or WP:RL. Storm machine (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems pretty unanimous here, can Pbrks revert his edits please, I have tried to do many of them, but it has taken ages and has been extremely disruptive. RoryK8 (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The rectangular line spaghetti isn't perfect, but neither is the alternative. Diagonal crossovers would be the ideal solution. Even though the templates are redundant (and I agree that they are), that alone shouldn't warrant deletion; and the layout in the AFL template (preliminary finals positioned closer together than semi finals) should still be an option as a matter of style, preference or familiarity, as this is the most common layout used for it in Australia. That said, with some tweaks (options for more than one score in a box like the Page template has, and options to enter your own round names) the AFL-replay and NBL templates could ultimately be made fully redundant and deleted, but that's not yet the case. Aspirex (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The {{8TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}} does not have the same utility value that this one has across multiple Australian sports, and deleting the replay variant breaks the unique occurrence in 2010. Storm machine (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the {{8TeamBracket-AFL}} as it shows how the finals actually work to an outsider. It is much simpler to understand than other templates used for this context. Talsta (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the AFL version looks much neater (even if it could be open to a couple of tweaks, which should have been discussed first), and the crossing lines for switching sides of the draw at the preliminary final stage, whether rectangular or diagonal, are far better than "Winner advances...". The nominating editor's behaviour, to remove the transclusions without any discussion and make out that there were never any at all, is disruptive, and better should be expected of a more experienced editor than most of us. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above the AFL version is clearer and more understandable. Also users' behaviour of removing all instances of a template and then claiming "no use" is below the belt. I'll also note that {{8TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}} was created less than two weeks ago (28 August) by Pbrks and this seems to be trying to push use of their template. The correct way for this whole process would be to open a discussion with the relevant projects. --SuperJew (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination - Fair enough, brackets reverted. I did not think there would be such a backlash from replacing this template. I will look into a good way to implement diagonal lines and consult the relevant WP if I indeed have a new proposal (which, in retrospect, I realize I should have done).
In regards to comments by Storm machine and SuperJew, know that these changes were in good faith, as I believed the bracket was a clear upgrade to the previous one, and I am not trying to "push" my own templates; I am trying to standardize. Cleaning out the seemingly unending duplicate brackets from Category:Tournament bracket templates has been a very long process (as you can imagine, every sport/league has had their own extremely slightly different version version of the same bracket), and I did get carried away on this one. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The AFL and NBL final 8 system, it will cause too much backlash.

Alextigers (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2022 (AEST)

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:Neatpair[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 23:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, has existed for 7 years, but is not used and does not seem useful. Open to logical persuasion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:06, 6 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:London Resort[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 23:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion in the main article. Body of navbox contains only one link, which goes back to the main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough actual blue links. Even if built, there wouldn't be enough separate articles to justify a template. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:33, 7 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:2014 US Open Cup Bracket early rounds[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 14:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:56, 5 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:8TeamBracket-Ultimate[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 11:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:56, 5 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:RDRBrackets[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 11:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{16TeamBracket-4way}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:56, 5 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:Stargate racebox[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 11:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:10, 5 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:Super rugby finals[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 11:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{6TeamBracket-info}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:09, 5 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:IPL Knockout-with 3rd[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 03:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Redundant to {{4TeamBracket-info}} and {{4TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the Indian Premier League doesn't need separate templates, no matter how much members of that WikiProject try to be different from everyone else. And no proper use case for the wide playoff template either. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, and the comments of Joseph2302. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:13, 5 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:PRSLPlayoffs[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 03:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{4TeamBracket-Stepladder}} – Pbrks (t • c) 03:38, 5 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:12TeamBracket-2Round[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 03:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:50, 5 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:Panch Kedar[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) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are not templates, but instead a collage of images of the temples. And should be substituted either all articles used or just the mainspace articles the templates are the namesakes of. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query, WikiCleanerMan, From Wikipedia:Templates Templates are pages that are embedded (transcluded) into other pages to allow for the repetition of information, There is no rule against having images in templates - it is quite common - so on what grounds do you claim these are not templates? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it was created in template space, it does not mean it should be in template space. Why should these images be collected like this in a single space? Is it for navigational purposes, then if so it should be a navbox. If not for navigation, then is it to display pictures on articles related to the subject? Each image can be better displayed in a gallery section which could be a better use of space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a perfectly reasonable template to me. Any content decisions about whether to use images in articles do not really belong at TfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:00, 12 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:Hindu temples in Myanmar[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) 04:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three links. Fails NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This a reasonable set of related topics, and the template does not impede navigation on any of its articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems likely that there are more than three Hindu temples in Myanmar, so has potential. Keep unless there is evidence to the contrary. Also per Thebiguglyalien. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both keep votes fail to address the nomination. This isn't about the potential of the navbox, but if the navbox navigates across a minimum of articles. The rule of thumb of NENAN has been used for countless TFd nominations for navboxes. At the moment there are only three. It's still a small amount to require a navbox. There are plenty of templates in Myanmar, but the current number of articles are three. This has nothing to do with the general subject the navbox was created for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Agree with @WikiCleanerMan. The current articles can be found grouped together in the Category Hindu temples in Myanmar until more articles are written. There are definitely more Hindu temples but WP:NENAN EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know NENAN like most people on here and why it's used for navbox discussions and the amount is too small for navigation. And the issue of being a part of a series is not relevant to this discussion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 14 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:Wikipedia size & users[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. ✗plicit 03:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template, recommend subst and delete Izno (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see how deletion gains anything - this is the sort of template that could well have more than just the single use. A use case of users displaying them on their userpages would be a reasonable use and not against policy, I don't see any compelling reason that substing and deleting is needed or would really have any benefit. Hog Farm Talk 21:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – A handful of users utilize it, and a fair amount of work went into it. Substituting would add a long list of wiki markup to users' pages, which would look sloppy. Every template that is not used a great deal does not need to be deleted. Wikipedia servers are not running out of space. Deletion wouldn't provide any benefit. North America1000 03:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, Izno, is it doing any harm? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:43, 6 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_5&oldid=1110552647"