Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14 January 16 >

January 15[edit]

Template:Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad[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) 22:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles relating to the subject. The rest are general links with very little association and/or make no mention of the subject that would require inclusion. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:40, 15 January 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:Public holidays in NSW[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) 17:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of the links repeated in these templates are already in Template:Public holidays in Australia. And some links are to festivals or sports events. These latter ones are not holidays. Or generic links like Bank holiday. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The template is useful because all states and territories have a few different holidays. Major festivals (e.g several major agricultural shows in some states and territories) and sports events (e.g Melbourne Cup, AFL Grand Final) are often designated as public holidays in some states and territories. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There arent that many public holidays in Australia that we really need more than 1 infobox though, surely? If that infobox makes it clear that Victoria gets all the holidays and everyone else gets none then we're good [just kidding]. All the infobox really needs to say is that some days are public holdays in some states only, it’s not particularly hard, and can be fitted into a single infobox. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 17:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If these templates are deleted, I'll just add them as different sections of the Australia template. That's what I'm doing for the Micronesia template (Micronesia has different holidays on each island). And yes, I personally do agree that Victoria gets way more holidays than everyone else (I live in NSW; would be great if I could have AFL/NRL Grand Final days off, plus the Royal Sydney Easter Show!). (Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes sense to merge into Template:Public holidays in Australia as Thiscouldbeauser suggested. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging into the main Australian navbox for public holidays is fine by me per Thiscouldbeauser's proposal. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. A navbox is not a surrogate for an article. If Public holidays in New South Wales is important, create it. The navbox should only have a link appearing once, not 8(!) times. Template:Public holidays in Australia is fine as is. Gonnym (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along the same lines as Gonnym. I would advocate instead that any missing links be added to the country navbox on the point. Izno (talk) 07:46, 27 January 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:EZnum[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) 15:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should just enter the number of Eurozone member countries, with citation if appropriate. It's not like the number changes any way frequently. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The number just changed, and its expected to do so again in the next few years. This is a factoid mentioned on a very large number of pages and it is not easy to track down all references to it when changes occur. A template is the best solution. Furius (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, each change to what is written in an article should be explicit - described, sourced, and send an event to those with the article on their watchlist. Transclusions make it too easy to evade scrutiny and will inevitably lead to multiple articles being rendered incorrect each time a rumour or proposal triggers an editor to erroneously change the template content. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: Taken at face value, you realize that's an argument against every no-parameter template on the wiki, right? Including the entire navbox system. There's a lot of information here that is, for convenience, managed centrally. So, assuming you're not arguing for the abolishment of navboxes (or perhaps of the entire template system?), what makes this particular template's centrally-managed information different/worse than any other's? (If anything, the template could — although it's not, currently — be more easily / more completely subjected to protections, so that the list of editors with the ability to change it is smaller and more controlled.) FeRDNYC (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FeRDNYC, I'd draw a line between templates used for inline article text, such as the one under discussion here, and all the others. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's only used on two article pages, Euro and Eurozone. There's zero real benefit to complicating the updating of those two articles by locking the information away in this template. Withdrawn, see below FeRDNYC (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's clearly because it was created earlier this week and it would be foolish to proliferate it while a deletion discussion is ongoing. It has potential to be expanded to a wider number of pages, since these numbers are mentioned frequently, e.g. in the many pages about the progress of EU enlargement/contraction (as the wide use of Template:EUnum shows). Furius (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: Apologies, I missed the recency of its creation. I'll withdraw my !vote completely, then, as with that information I'm less inclined to make a call one way or the other.
Normally I'd probably lean towards letting things stand for now so we can see how they play out, and the prototypical example of {{EUnum}} is a reasonable argument in favor of keeping {{EZnum}}. But, if editors are going to object on article verifiability/"sanctity" grounds to the point that they'll revert additions of this template to mainspace articles, they seem unlikely to be swayed by that comparison. (Instead we can probably anticipate a nomination for {{EUnum}} as well.) FeRDNYC (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's modeled after Template:EUnum which gives the current number of members in the EU: 27. That template has about 280 transclusions because the number of EU members is variable and used in many articles. It also makes it easy to find where those transclusions are and thus easy to do any other necessary edits such as removing a member in the text (UK) or adding one (Ukraine?). Have a look at the transclusion list to see where it's used. Facts707 (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Addendum: I've discussed this with @DeFacto on the European Union page where he/she reverted my edits and in one part of that article it says "Since then, the eurozone has increased to encompass 19 countries", which is incorrect as it is 20 as EZnum handily gives. Facts707 (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Facts707. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not understand the basis of the comments saying the number of eurozone countries is given in lots of places. So what? There are approximately 18,200 hits for url:en.wikipedia.org "46th president" but nobody's suggesting replacing the instances of 'Joe Biden, President of the United States' and the other common formulations to a couple of templates. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that we don't need a template, but your analogy isn't very useful. I am pretty sure Joe Biden will always be the 46th president of the Unites States, while the number of countries in the eurozone will change. Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, only used on two pages, updating when the number changes isn't that hard. Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per low use per Frietjes. Izno (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a number that changes so often (before 2023, the last time was in 2015), and it is not used in so many articles that it difficults maintenance. Additionally, this is unreferenced article text (although very short) that should not be stored in a template. V27t (talk) 20:08, 27 January 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:Largest cities of Algeria[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) 15:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many of these templates for many countries. Most countries have something like Cuba#Largest cities with a use of this sort of template, but there's a larger question there whether these even have any utility. If they do, then its a quick 2 minute job to add the appropriate section to Algeria, Guatemala, and South Sudan. (Looks like Mexico#Urban areas already has something similar.) //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 00:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No keep rational has been cited if you're referring to Lollipoplollipoplollipop comment. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the parent articles, if there isn't a table in the article already, and otherwise delete. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without subst per nom. Izno (talk) 07:48, 27 January 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:ASUN Conference football team seasons[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) 14:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New navbox, but with no main article and no links to articles in the body. Delete, or draftify/userfy until it is ready to be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 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:Macaé Esporte Futebol Clube squad[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) 14:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been updated for more than 5 years and in current state ridiculous/pointless. Club article and squad also not updated. Fair to say the club does not have enough notable players. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 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:In zeroes logue[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 Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This whole page appears to be nonsense, and the template doesn't really do anything except display the table shown. It should either be explained and have its utility demonstrated, or it should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i argee Rudyeeeeeeee (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedily, WP:G7, since the author Rudyeeeeeeee said they agree. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:36, 19 January 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:Alaska year nav[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) 14:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Appears to have been replaced by {{Year in US state category}} in the linked articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. There's a bunch of these templates for years for U.S. states that are unused as this one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would seem that these are used in incorrect pages. See Template:Rhode Island year nav which has transclusions in articles but links only to categories which means it fails the bi-directional nature of navboxes. All of these should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 17 January 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_January_15&oldid=1136082898"