Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 2022 November 2. plicit 03:34, 2 November 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).
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. plicit 03:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and only four links. Covered better by Template:Szczecin. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:38, 25 October 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).
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. plicit 03:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:25, 25 October 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).
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) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with template:Being merged (which can take a dir=from parameter). I have used this after closing merge discussions for its more specific text, but it seems pointless without a "Merging to" partner template that mirrors the text; after all, the guidance of the template would be much more pertinent to editors looking at the source page rather than the target page.

So if there is no support for adopting the text of this template for both directions, I would suggest turning this into an alias for template:Being merged with the dir=from parameter. Felix QW (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While similar these two templates have different meaning. One is more specific stating that "a number of articles" are being merged into that article. This message can help draw out editors to assist with a possibly heavy time-consuming load. The other template meanwhile is broad saying "This page is being merged", this is not helpful as it gives no indication of the workload. I would actually rename the template to a "Merge-to" or the like as it indicates that a number of articles are coming to the tagged page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: Thank you very much for your comment! Just so that we are on the same page – the "number of articles" text is not actually shown in the typical use case. It is just on the template page because it is the default text if the name(s) of the article(s) to be merged is not specified. Similarly, the other template also displays the name of the page it is being merged to, when specified.
In all uses I know of, the page names are fully specified. Felix QW (talk) 16:06, 26 October 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).
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) 13:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/DB Regio NRW Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 25 October 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).
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 03:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for a video game series with three articles. Nothing that can't be explained in a section on sequels or in a see also section. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:40, 25 October 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).
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 speedy delete by User:Fastily per WP:CSD#G7 (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no extra explain what a template does and how to use it.it doesn't functional. see here. Miha2020 (talk) 14:54, 25 October 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).
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 12:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template containing nothing but a redirect to a non-existent article. Articles for these semi-pro seasons are unlikely to be created under current guidlines. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:41, 25 October 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).
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 userfy. Moved to User:DePiep/Hexcolor-to-hue. Anarchyte (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in mid-2021; does not appear to have been adopted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 07:09, 25 October 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).
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 03:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox international hockey competition}} using |winners_fhw=, |second_fhw=, etc. for women's tournaments AND |winners_fhm=, |second_fhm=, etc. for men's tournaments. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 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).