Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 27
December 29 >

December 28[edit]

Template:Pyrausta (moth)-stub[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 move. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current name Target name

Propose renaming Template:Pyrausta (moth)-stub to Template:Pyrausta-stub.
Parentheses are unnecessary & don't conform to stub format conventions. Her Pegship (?) 19:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are the stub naming conventions for topics that aren't the primary topic? Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good question - I asked at WPSS and got no answer for this particular case. However, as there's only one exception in WP to the use of the term word "pyrausta" as a genus of moth - and that is a reference to a single legendary creature - I think in this case the parens are unnecessary. As for other stub types needing disambiguation in their format, usually those are geographical and distinguished by their ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, for example {{Georgia-stub}} and {{GeorgiaUS-stub}}. Hope this helps. Her Pegship (?) 22:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Reported to AIV[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. G7 Trialpears (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and contradicts WP:DENY. AIV is a last resort for unambiguous vandalism; it's already too late for the person being warned. There is also a reason {{vandal}}, the reporting template at AIV, doesn't ping; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 15 § Ping the vandal?. Lastly, this just invites the vandal to vandalize AIV and/or remove their report. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 22:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nominator. We also don't need to send clear vandals directly to the page where they're being reported so they can try to delete the report before an admin comes across it. I don't see this realistically serving any good purpose. Bsoyka (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Originally a one-off joke I made on a user talk page after being more than a bit pissed off, someone took it and made it a template. I tried to fix the template a little bit to avoid a speedy deletion, but QoH is right that the purpose of the template itself is counter-productive given the unambiguous nature of the situation - we don't want the vandal to check their case at AIV, or even to do anything for that matter. Informing vandals of their impeding doom, while cathartic, is still counter-productive if done at a large scale. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As the creator of the template, I can see how this template is counter-intuitive as it directly contradicts WP:DENY and serves as bloat on a person's talk page. When creating the template, I wanted to give users the chance to dispute a potential false report. Now seeing how most people on WP:AIV don't need this message, I think it's best if the template is deleted. ~~mAyLiNgOeEd (Talk to me!) (See what else I did on Wikipedia!!📜)
  • Delete: I can't imagine a scenario where this template would be useful. --Onorem (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2023–2025 ICC World Test Championship Table[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused standings table. 2023–2025 ICC World Test Championship has a table within the article that's better updated. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2011 Vodacom Cup Northern Section Table[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 00:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both unused after being substituted on the 2011 Vodacom Cup article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CH-AG[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 00:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All unused templates with nothing but an image file of the flags of Swiss Cantons and a link to the article on the canton. These templates aren't needed to transclude an image and an article link. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no apparent use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Tonga squad[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 00:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to my edits in trying to update the template, this hasn't been updated in over a decade and the name of the template is too broad to know which national team this is for. This is for the rugby national team, but it's best to leave that to a squad list or other navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Limited access[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 redirect to Template:Limited access. Which icon (and the specific wording of the /doc) can be hashed out on the template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Limited access with Template:Mixed access.
I created {{mixed access}} in 2019 for basically the same reasons that Daask created {{limited access}} in 2020. I'm not sure it's appropriate to have two templates that do almost the exact same thing, but I'm not sure which icon is more appropriate here. Hence, I bring this to TfD. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{limited access}} has a slightly clearer icon since it's difficult to see that {{mixed access}} is very slightly open at the small sizes we're talking about. Trialpears (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that mixed access was undocumented at the time that I created Template:limited access. I may have ignored it because I didn't understand it. I don't recall.
I'm a little hesitant about the phrasing in Template:mixed access's current inclusion criteria, which includes a Freemium model, [or] uses a free trial. I would usually think of a free trial as {{closed access}} unless it implemented simply as a rate cap or uses browser cookies to remember prior views such that erasing cookies allows continued access. Similarly, I'm not sure mentioning a freemium business model is relevant the purpose of these templates. If a website wants to offer free access to an HTML version but charge for a PDF or audio version, I would still label that as {{free access}}, even though its a freemium model.
Thus I Support this merge proposal in the sense that I think Template:mixed access should become a redirect to Template:limited access. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much I trust that existing uses are actually using the same criteria that I would like for Template:limited access. It's probably not worth going through each transclusion individually. Daask (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daask: As mentioned below, there's only one remaining transclusion of mixed access (lack of documentation does that lol). A redirect would be pretty simple as a result. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose of these templates is more-or-less the same, we should not confuse our readers by using multiple access indicators that have similar meanings. Which do our editors prefer? Which have they used most often in article space? Some search results:
{{limited access}}: 28 articles
{{mixed access}}: 1 article
cs1|2 templates support |url-access=limited – same access indicator as {{limited access}}; how many articles use that?
~28,900
Barring any compelling argument to the contrary, it seems clear to me that the result of this discussion should be:
  1. replace the single instance of {{mixed access}} in article space with {{limited access}}
  2. delete {{mixed access}}
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: It's worth pointing out that {{Closed access}} does not use the same access indicator as |url-access=subscription, and {{Open access}} has no comparable access level value.
I believe I originally chose blue for {{mixed access}} because of this old RFC which suggested Green, Blue, Red for the three levels of access at the time. I'm not sure why that never got applied to {{closed access}} now that I think about it though.. It might be worth looking into for fixing that either way. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that {{closed access}} is intended for a different purpose that I believe has no place in Wikipedia. I suspect that it and {{open access}} are intended to communicate the 'reusability' aspects of open access. If our readers or editors want to know if a source is 'open access', they should contact the publisher of the source because, no doubt, there must be some sort of contractual agreement between the reuser and the publisher; Wikipedia has no business inserting itself between those two parties nor should Wikipedia (by way of amatuer editors) make any judgements or declarations about the aspects of a source that may or may not be 'open access'. All we should care about is telling our readers that a source is paywalled, free-to-read, or may-be-read-if-you-jump-through-some-hoops. Were it up to me, to break the connection to open access, I would delete {{open access}} in favor of {{free access}} and delete {{closed access}} in favor of {{paywall access}}, {{subscription access}}, or somesuch.
But, this TfD is not the place to argue about these other templates so I'll shut up.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk I think you have the gist of it right: Wiki editors use these templates to communicate "click and read" versus "credit card required". I don't necessarily understand the larger intellectual property issues but I do think the open access movement is doing good work and if other people want to lean into that, cool (but maybe it's a Xerox versus photocopy nomenclature issue that I should stay out of?) ANYWAY, my variation of your idea would be:
  • Do maintain stand-alone {{free access}} template
  • For now, do not delete stand-alone {{open access}} template even if people are technically misusing the nomenclature.
  • Do create a stand-alone {{paid access}} template with a matching red-lock icon--it's annoyed me forever that you can add a red-lock icon in some cases in templates but not in others. I'm a sower of chaos, in the spirit of chaos being "seed the lawn in the commons, see which paths people and animals take to naturally, let a couple seasons of natural disasters run sustainability experiments for you and *then* pour cement walkways." Moreover, I think one of the most important things Wikipedia does is lead learners to high-quality sources, and the fact of the matter is that the students and amateurs who use us as a first destination are probably cost-conscious. jengod (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL I Support this merge to {{limited access}} because these two are pratically the same thing. They should at least be included in the same template and, should a difference still be decided, a template parameter can be included for variation, such as{{limited access | mixed= }}. — Alex26337 (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex26337: I don't know how necessary that is. If consensus is just to redirect, then that's what I think we should go without introducing too many unneeded changes. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MJL. This is an unnecessary addition imo. Trialpears (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO the mixed access icon is much prettier and more importantly, consistent with the style of the other icons. I have been using the limited access template bc I didn't know mixed access existed.
    • Support merging/redirecting/replacing all uses of mixed access template with the limited access template per nom
    • Proposal probably to be discussed elsewhere replacing the icon currently used on limited with the icon from mixed BUT make the icon gray. The blue is the color we use on Wikipedia to indicate Featured content and non-judgmental templates like "if you could translate the Hungarian-language article on this topic it would be good". The blue color is therefore not consistent with our signaling scheme. But the overall format of that icon *is* a better match. If someone creates a "further discussion" of access templates, please ping me. I'm interested.

jengod (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge. Mixed access has just a single transclusion in actual articles, and they do the same thing. Limited access makes more sense as the template name as it matches the more commonly used CS1 parameter. No strong opinions on icon. I like how {{mixed access}} includes a link to an article explaining the icon. Rjjiii (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Susun Atur Platform KL Sentral[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, subst at Kuala_Lumpur_Sentral_station#Station_layout --Minorax«¦talk¦» 17:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Yeni Malatyaspor squad[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked navbox due to its current level status. No longer notable in any sense to have a squad navbox for. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no current squad so no need for a 'current squad' template. GiantSnowman 15:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:LGBT progressive icon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Without any of those things, it is unclear how this image is supposed to be used. Created in June 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Factotum comment link[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 moved to userspace of the creator. (non-admin closure) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Possibly an abandoned experiment, or superseded by a better method. Created in July 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Namespace conversion[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in December 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Muhammad Louqman sidebar[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 G3 by ONUnicorn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. There is no such series of articles. The one article about this person is a tiny stub. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as a hoax. I know, I'm !voting at my own TFD, but on further research into the history of the Mohammad Luqman page, I am convinced that that page, and hence this page, is a complete hoax. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion given that this was just made up. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Map/Ports and harbours of Gujarat[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 08:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in the wrong place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are two transclusions now. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 07:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn. I will move the template to a proper location once the TFD is closed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Century in topic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 move/userfy. Still actively being worked on by the creator (and only created a week ago); bit of an IAR close but I do not see a reason to drag this out. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No documentation, transclusions, or incoming links from discussions. Created only a week ago. OK to userfy if it is not yet usable or if the creator is experimenting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: I needed a template to generate bulleted lists of years (spanning decades or centuries) to include in templates like this one. Is there no other template that can do this? Jarble (talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Iraq squad 25th Arabian Gulf Cup[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 16:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing valuable. The 25th Arabian Gulf Cup is not under FIFA jurisdiction and also it is not a major football tournament; meanwhile the 2023 FIFA U-20 World Cup is run by FIFA but it falls to the youth category, not a senior event. As agreed by users, football squads can only have their templates if they represent for clubs or either coming to compete for any major senior FIFA-sanctioned tournaments. HiddenFace101 (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_28&oldid=1194551991"