Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 10 August 12 >

August 11[edit]

Template:2006 Election Committee Subsector Elections[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about this. Is there an established policy about not creating single-use templates? IIRC there are (have been?) many single-use templates around Wikipedia, most of them for tables like this one, because the wikitext has become long and unwieldy in source edit mode. Deryck C. 20:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy on record. Although there should be. Why should election results be on a separate space when they can just be on a table as part of the article it was created for? Because single-use templates don't make good use of a template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete to election pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete Unnecessary single-use templates. Number 57 11:06, 19 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:Todo3[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template only used a couple times for which there are multiple other useful templates. Izno (talk) 18:47, 11 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:MUHIMG[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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, probably a live replacement. Izno (talk) 18:43, 11 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:Multisock[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 04:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Template:Sockpuppet Izno (talk) 15:11, 11 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:Brit-am[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 04:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Template:British English Izno (talk) 15:03, 11 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:Dom & Roland[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 04:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now redundant – the last three albums in the template have all been redirected due to lack of notability, leaving just two entries in the template, which already link to each other via their respective infoboxes, so this navbox serves no additional purpose. Richard3120 (talk) 15:03, 11 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:Facebook website[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 13:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates existing Facebook templates

-- Whiteguru (talk) 07:38, 11 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).

Articles featured on portals 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. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are all signifiers on if an article was or is "featured" on a portal. Talk pages are designated for discussing improvements to articles, things like this are complete cruft; what use does a reader or editor have in knowing that Frog is a selected article on the Amphibians Portal? Aza24 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see the value of these templates either. I don't care if an article I edit is included on a portal, they just contribute to banner cruft. --Trialpears (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Talk pages are also our pages where we store all meta cruft (dozens of WikiProject templates etc.) While the majority of these are probably historical, they could be useful warnings that an article appears elsewhere via section transclusion, which is useful for editors to know so they know what they'll break if they change anything about the sectioning of the lede. —Kusma (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An article appearing elsewhere via transclusion will show up in What links here, even if it were important for portals to be monitored so closely and somehow some deleting editor/admin was not in the mood to check there. --Izno (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nom's nomination. There is no "standard" by what article gets chosen to be used in portals so statements used such as which means that it has been identified as a high quality article by Drink Portal standards. are just false and give no value as an indication. Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym. --Izno (talk) 17:13, 23 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:Sanamahism[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) 17:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first template is filled with mainly red links and on top of it, it is unused. The second one is mainly transcluded on articles it doesn't link to. Only two articles use the navbox that are linked within it. The navigational purpose can't be fulfilled with these two. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge blue links to Template:Sanamahi1; add to articles; rename to Template:Sanamahism. Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unfinished template and I hope there are better option than deletion as the template is about a unique religion and its belief, it would definitely help many reader if updated significantly 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concern of red link were addressed, the templates are added at relevant article, still if there are better suggestion or option do let me know, thanks 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, please review the link for Maipi, currently piped to dab Priestess. Certes (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: I have contributed a new article Maibi but its too short for now , the good news is there are plenty of reliable sources which we can use or should we merge Maibi Jagoi with Maibi - regards 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:36, 13 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:Book report[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) 17:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Book reports used to list the quality of all articles in a book on the talk page of community books. As community books are no more most of the uses have been deleted, but there are still a bit under 200 transclusions from books that have been moved to user space. The book report will never be updated again. --Trialpears (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. @Trialpears should Template:Book report start, Template:Book report end, Template:Book report time, and Template:Book report rating be included here also? Gonnym (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, yes I forgot about those. Thanks! These should be used on the same pages (or a subset of them) and the nomination rationale apply here as well. --Trialpears (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book namespace is dead and these should be deleted, but is there a way to replicate the template's assessment functionality for a list of articles? It seems quite useful to be able to see a list of article status and cleanup tags in a clear table. For example, to assess say top-level articles within a Wikiproject. CMD (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template is also used outside the books namespace, so keep them to continue the function. Books are not totally dead even if the namespace is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These templates were populated by a bot that only edited the book talk namespace (and has now been shut down), so there will be no continu[ing] the function possible even if the template is kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 11 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_11&oldid=1040318829"