Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 28 August 30 >

August 29[edit]

Template:Citation-attribution[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 September 6. ✗plicit 06:12, 6 September 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:Ian Khama Cabinet November 2014[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 05:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and Cabinet of Botswana uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 29 August 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:Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina[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 05:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table which is used only at Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Should be subst and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 29 August 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:Government of the West Herzegovina Canton[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 06:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table which is used only at West Herzegovina Canton. Should be subst and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 29 August 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:House of Peoples of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina delegates[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 06:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table which is used only at House of Peoples of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Should be subst and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 29 August 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:Government of Republika Srpska[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 06:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table which is used only at Politics of Republika Srpska. Should be subst and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 29 August 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:Cabinet of Jeanine Áñez, 2019-2020[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 06:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table which is used only at Cabinet of Jeanine Áñez. Should be subst to article and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:20, 29 August 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:Cabinet of Evo Morales 2015-2019[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 05:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table, which could be used at Presidency of Evo Morales but that article only has information until 2012 so doesn't currently fit there. Gonnym (talk) 18:19, 29 August 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:Cabinet of Evo Morales 2010-2015[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 06:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table which is used only at Presidency of Evo Morales. Should be subst to article and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:18, 29 August 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:Sub judice[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 September 13. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 13 September 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:Lists of presidents of India[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 05:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly redlinks; 2 of the 3 bluelinked articles other than main List of presidents of India are currently nominated for deletion, and the remaining List of presidents of India by previous experience is questionable as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No navigational purpose. Article about their previous experience should be looked at as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no use — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:35, 30 August 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:History of the Moro conflict[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:Moro conflict. Izno (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:History of the Moro conflict with Template:Moro conflict.
Redundant template. {{History of the Moro conflict}} → {{Moro conflict}} —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The history template was originally created as "Part of notable attacks involving the Moros", which is a much more specific topic. It's current form is entirely redundant per nom. I believe the original purpose is also covered by the Battles and Incidents involving civilians rows in Template:Moro conflict. Both are long rows with very specific articles, so there could be a case to split, so either merge or restore original purpose. CMD (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. The History template seems to be a fork of the conflict one. Whatever isn't featured on the Moro conflict template should be added from the History template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:53, 29 August 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:2020 Summer Paralympics women's goalball group C standings[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. Izno (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will be unused; Content is merged with primary article Goalball at the 2020 Summer Paralympics – Women's tournament. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge the content into the article per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don’t understand why the content was merged into the article? These templates can be used on four separate pages: the national goalball team, x at the 2020 Summer Paralympics, the event page, and a number of them on the Gaolball at the 2020 Summer Paralympics page. By using a template, it ensures that all 4 pages are updated in the same manner, and at the same time; along with not having to write the same scores 4 times, and excessively long articles. - SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is what section headings are used for. Please see (scroll to the bottom of the editing page) [1] for an example. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
section headings do not allow for transfer of parameters to matchbox templates, so there is a loss of functionality that makes that transclusion less valuable. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not understand this recent push to try to merge templates onto pages. Yes, it can still be called on multiple pages via invoking, but to the average editor this is less well known and less easy to do. Keeping pages in separate templates also makes it easier to watch and maintain (especially in cases of standings table). Not for nothing there are requests on Wikimedia to be able to watch specifc sections of pages without having to watch the whole page. Regardless of the decision it should be applied to previous editions of the tournament too for consistincey. --SuperJew (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The loss of template functionality (team highlighting in groups, match bgcolor etc.) caused by inserting them to the main page isn't worth and potential gains. I wouldn't oppose merging all game templates into a single page, as well as all group templates into a second one, but strongly support keeping them separated from the main article. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this discussion on the respective Wikiproject [2] it was decided section transclusions would be the way forward. User:Frietjes knows more about this, so I will tag them in this conversation Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A "discussion" where you have been the only supporter on is not much of a discussion, isn't it? A further discussion was held, among other duscussion, here, with no resolution. Deancarmeli (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per User:Frietjes at a similar discussion, [3] I think perhaps deleting the game templates and keeping the standings might be the way to go. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree that deleting the game templates is the way to go. As I see it, the main reason for match box duplications was the will to use a "result" or "bg" parameter in a team page without being able to pass it to a non-templated match box. These templates solve that problem. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:27, 1 September 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:2020 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby group B standings[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. Izno (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content has been merged into primary article: Wheelchair rugby at the 2020 Summer Paralympics. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Majority redundant now and unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan 1234, some are used on the Great Britain at the 2020 Summer Paralympics article. You might want to substitute it's usage since it underscores your nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has been fixed! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not understand this recent push to try to merge templates onto pages. Yes, it can still be called on multiple pages via invoking, but to the average editor this is less well known and less easy to do. Keeping pages in separate templates also makes it easier to watch and maintain (especially in cases of standings table). Not for nothing there are requests on Wikimedia to be able to watch specifc sections of pages without having to watch the whole page. Furthermore, substituting the uses of the templates and then claiming that they unused does not mean that they are actually unused in reality - they were used but then the nominater substituted them with a workaround of invoking a call to transclude a section. Transcluding a section should be used in cases when we want to transclude a section, not as a workaround to avoid templates for whatever reason. --SuperJew (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter if the average editor "knows this". Editors are still able to edit the results etc, and its very easy to figure out where the information is stored. I don't think your argument makes and sense at all. Creating hundreds of templates, when everything can be stored in one place is not a good idea. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When editing becomes harder, then less people edit. My understanding is that Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia which is contributed to by as many people as possible so as to get as much information and diversity, not to be an "elite group"'s project. Having templates has the advantage of being easier to watch and maintain specific sections, without having to watch the whole topic. It gives editors much more flexibility of work. Also there are the functionalities Deancarmeli described below and in the discussion they linked too, which don't have a solution in section transclusions. Furthermore linking a "discussion" which is a comment by you to another user's proposal is not consensus or a decision of the way forward. --SuperJew (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The loss of template functionality (team highlighting in groups, match bgcolor etc.) caused by inserting them to the main page isn't worth the potential gains. I wouldn't oppose merging all game templates into a single page, as well as all group templates into a second one, but strongly support keeping them separated from the main article. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no loss of functionality. All of what you have described can still be added.
Not true. If you stick to this claim – prove it. Deancarmeli (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this discussion on the respective Wikiproject [4] it was decided section transclusions would be the way forward. User:Frietjes knows more about this, so I will tag them in this conversation Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A "discussion" where you have been the only supporter on is not much of a discussion, isn't it? Deancarmeli (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, it's probably easier to discuss the game and standings templates separately. it is true that the highlighting feature can be retained even after substitution using |transcludesection= in the transcluding article and |section= / <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> in the parent article, but some editors feel this is too complicated vs. section transclusion that doesn't allow for passing parameters. but, for the game templates, there isn't the same need for passing parameters and simple section transclusion works fine. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per User:Frietjes I think perhaps deleting the game templates and keeping the standings might be the way to go. Sportsfan 1234 (talk)
@Frietjes: I don't agree that there isn't a need to pass parameters to match templates. As I see it, the main reason for match box duplications was the will to use a "result" or "bg" parameter in a team page without being able to pass it to a non-templated match box. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary background coloring is bad for WP:ACCESSIBILITY. if you want striping, that should be possible with css. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary? Light green for a win, light yellow for a draw and light pink for a loss are as common and widespread as can be. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
which is why we use css where possible, and don't have the user pass in arbitrary color parameters. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: I see your point. As the match templates in this discussion are of the Football box kind, can we agree to drop the |bg = {{{bgc|}}} field in favor of a |result = {{{result}}} field, so that the use of W\D\L parameters will give a more standardized look? The |bg = {{{bgc|}}} could be left to be used only in the general (not team specific) pages. Deancarmeli (talk) 16:17, 2 September 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:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League[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) 12:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion at WT:Football#Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League, it's clear this template isn't wanted by the majority. Been noted as bottom of the page clutter. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with the support of Adigabrek, Lee Vilenski & Amakuru, and objections only from GiantSnowman & Kante4 (The Replicator's objection is ad hominem), I don't think that there is a majority against the template, and there is definitely no consensus. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deancarmeli: You clearly have miss counted, Lee was more neutral in tone, but I don't think he liked the idea, Amakuru was against it. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: Amakuru has edited his remark. Nevertheless, no consensus for deletion. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deancarmeli: Then either post here starting with the asterisk and your vote and when all is said and done we shall see the outcome! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suggest deleting this template and this one too: Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches. The Replicator (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Mentioned before: ad hominem objection. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you are lying about the support for your idea. Amakuru clearly stated otherwise here, Lee Vilenski doesn't support you too, and I don't even see if Adigabrek had any participation on this (!). The Replicator (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lying is a strong term, as Amakuru himself stated that he miswrote his opinion. As for Lee, that's how I've interpreted his message. No need for this kind of language. Moreover, there is no "support you". We are discussing ideas, not people. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: "Support your idea", not "support you". Nonetheless, it doesn't change a thing and I maintain, no sugar-coating, you are lying. Talk about shooting yourself on the foot... The Replicator (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see where the lie was, but no matter. If your arrows keep being pointing at me and not the point I've made, it seems they were good enought. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Replicator and Deancarmeli: come on, let's keep this friendly please. I see no evidence of bad behaviour on the part of Deancarmeli, and the creation of the template and defence of it is being made in good faith, so let's concentrate on the merits of the argument rather than arguing about the conduct of other editors. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Thank you, and excuse me for misunderstanding your original comment. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry for the confusion with my contradictory !vote at the earlier discussion, but personally I do agree with GiantSnowman and others that we don't need this, and it adds needless clutter to the bottom of the pages.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All this would do is lead to hundreds of similar navboxes for every European competition, it's unnecessary. There are also a number of season article redlinks contained within and I doubt all of them would have an article created. Agree with Govvy re clutter. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have no idea how "it's a horrible idea" could be construed to be neutral, let alone pro the inclusion. Template has very little helpful links; and is very much against what I'd want from a navbox. It's the sort of thing that suggests that we should have navigation boxes for every tournament, which just isn't what we need Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not a standard type of navbox for football, and a series like this will add hundreds of identical and useless navboxes to the top teams. Pure clutter. GiantSnowman 11:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: It won't, as the template is meant for a club season page and not its main article. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not needed. I suggest you read the comments here, recognise the substantial and clear opposition, and stop badgering people. GiantSnowman 11:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per GiantSnowman above. --Jaellee (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have read through the linked discussion, and agree that this template isn't needed. And as per GS, it will just increase the number of navboxes on articles with limited benefit. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above and discussion at footy project. Odd that some comments were seen as support when they were clearly not... Kante4 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral On one hand, I think it is good to be able to go to a team's season with one click - can be very useful if a reader is reading through the UEC League and wants to know how the team is doing in general and if the UEC League is affecting their domestic season and/or cup or the opposite. On the other hand, it is not very intuitive that this is what the template contains (as some of the delete !votes seem to support). --SuperJew (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the update, making it more intuitive what the template links to, I support keeping it and it can be a useful tool for the reader. --SuperJew (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Status update
I've seen the comments about the template and gave it a new format. Waiting for your comments. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League}}

  • delete, the column format is bad for narrow screens. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 31 August 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).

2016 women's water polo team rosters[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) 22:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These water polo templates are now not needed as they have been hard-coded into the roster page for the women's teams. HawkAussie (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As they are now redundant. HawkAussie, the first template is still featured on the Australia women's national water polo team article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @HawkAussie and WikiCleanerMan: Use or non-use of a template and also "I have hard-coded the templates, so now they are not needed" is not an argument to keep or delete the template. For example in this edit HawkAussie, what do you mean "Slowly getting rid of the templates"? What is the problem with using templates? They allow editors to manage and make changes in one place for information which is in a more than one article, instead of duplicating the work, which results in errors and missing information. --SuperJew (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It falls under cruft and creep. Why should these be on their own templates? Your voting for keep on sports templates Tfd's really shows you either don't care about the issues these present or you are unwilling to understand. If a template has been substituted/hard coded, or whatever term is used to describe their inclusion as part of a related article, then there is no reason to keep them. Templates are to have multiple uses across various pages. These don't since they were created for one purpose and for one use. This is not a good use of template space. And this is a major part of the problem of not just sports templates, but many templates across Wikipedia. And no, having separate templates doesn't do a better job of monitoring vandalism or any other form of disruption. It's better to do it one way when all the related template information is on the related article or articles where vandalism can be monitored efficiently on one space rather across multiple. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is when it is substed/hardcoded just before being brought up to TfD. It begs the question "was this substed/hardcoded" just to be able to delete it? In this case, the rosters are useful to use on the rosters page of the tournament and on the "Fooland at the 2016 Summer Olympics" page (admittedly this is only 2 cases, with the second one not always being used, and therefore I didn't !vote keep in this case). You want to put forth the claims that the template falls under cruft and creep, isn't used across multiple various pages, and isn't a good use of template space? Go ahead and nominate them for those reasons. And then after if there is a consensus to delete them on the merits of the template usage, then subst and delete them. --SuperJew (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A little addition - comments such as some are used on the Great Britain at the 2020 Summer Paralympics article. You might want to substitute it's usage since it underscores your nomination. on the discussion above strengthen my point. If the nomination is a good one on the merits of the arguments as opposed to the usage, then the usage or lack of it should not underscore the nomination. --SuperJew (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why I did that, well simple I am starting to go back from 2016 so it would like the 2020 one on the record with this format. Plus it's better to monitor then one page than eight templates. HawkAussie (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, now redundant. there may be some reason for keeping the most recent roster, but these are old enough that I see no reason to not just merge them with the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is purely static information, there's no justification to store it in a template regardless of how many pages the template is used on. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 13 September 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:Agapeland[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) 12:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Core page deleted, only remaining links are three stubby album pages and links to the associated artists. Should be deleted or at the very least renamed to “Candle (band)” and cleaned out. Dronebogus (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Mainly redirects. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 3 or 4 actual links, and most of these are questionably notable albums. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 2 September 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_August_29&oldid=1044165879"